1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Politeness (Brown and Gilman 1989Rudanko 1993Kopytko 1995) and impoliteness (Culpeper 19962001Bousfield 2007) have a prominent place in the reading of Shakespearean drama and serve as a means of characterisation. In this study, I utilise (im)politeness and face theory to characterise the royal discourse in . The study aims to analyse the linguistic behaviour of King Henry to see how well his royal discourse reflects his kingship and how his linguistic inadequacy contributes to his political failures. I investigate Henry’s use of (im)politeness and facework to handle political negotiations and I evaluate his level of awareness of the “political face”, which is the king’s desire to preserve a positive public image and to save face in social interactions. I look at the examples of Henry’s inadequate linguistic behaviour and try to establish why this behaviour was inefficient in a given scene and context.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.19012.kiz
2023-10-20
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhp.19012.kiz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. King Henry VI, Part 1. William Shakespeare
    2000 (Edited byEdward Burns.) London: Arden Shakespeare.
  2. King Henry VI, Part 2. William Shakespeare
    2001 (Edited byRonald Knowles.) London: Arden Shakespeare.
  3. King Henry VI, Part 3. William Shakespeare
    2001 (Edited byJohn D. Cox and Eric Rasmussen.) London: Arden Shakespeare.
  4. King Richard II. William Shakespeare
    2002 (Edited byCharles R. Forker.) London: Arden Shakespeare.
  5. King Richard III. William Shakespeare
    2006 (Edited byAnthony Hammond.) London: Arden Shakespeare.
  6. The Prince. Niccolò Machiavelli
    2007 InPeter Constantine (editor and translator), The Essential Writings of Machiavelli, 3–100. New York: The Modern Library.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Archer, Dawn and Derek Bousfield
    2010 “‘See Better, Lear’? See Lear Better! A Corpus-Based Pragma-Stylistic Investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear”. InBeatrix Busse and Dan McIntyre (eds), Language and Style, 183–203. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑06574‑2_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-06574-2_12 [Google Scholar]
  8. Archer, Dawn, Jonathan Culpeper and Paul Rayson
    2009 “Love – ‘A Familiar or a Devil’? An Exploration of Key Domains in Shakespeare’s Comedies and Tragedies”. InDawn Archer (ed.), What’s in a Word List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, 137–158. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Arundale, Robert
    2006 “Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness”. Journal of Politeness Research2 (2): 193–216. 10.1515/PR.2006.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bousfield, Derek
    2007 “‘Never a Truer Word Said in Jest’: A Pragmastylistic Analysis of Impoliteness as Banter in Henry IV, Part 1”. InMarina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell (eds), Contemporary Stylistics, 209–220. London and New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008a Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2008b “Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power”. InDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 127–154. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.3.127
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.3.127 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010 “Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions”. InMiriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham (eds), Interpersonal Pragmatics, 101–134. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214338.1.101
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.1.101 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
    1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies”. Language in Society18 (2): 159–213. 10.1017/S0047404500013464
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013464 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bull, Peter
    2012 “The Microanalysis of Political Discourse”. Philologia Hispalensis26 (1–2): 79–93. 10.12795/PH.2012.v26.i01.04
     https://doi.org/10.12795/PH.2012.v26.i01.04 [Google Scholar]
  17. Burns, Edward
    (ed) 2000 William Shakespeare’sKing Henry VI, Part 1. London: The Arden Shakespeare.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chernaik, Warren
    2007 The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook, Amy
    2011 “Cognitive Interplay: How Blending Theory and Cognitive Science Reread Shakespeare”. InMireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches, 246–268. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2001 Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2002 “Computers, Language and Characterisation: An Analysis of Six Characters in Romeo and Juliet”. InUlla Melander-Marttala, Carin Ostman and Merja Kytö (eds), Conversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium, 11–30. Uppsala: Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2008 “Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power”. InDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.1.17
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010 “Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae”. Journal of Pragmatics42 (12): 3232–3245. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  27. Culpeper, Jonathan and Carolina Fernandez-Quintanilla
    2017 “Fictional Characterisation”. InMiriam A. Locher and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Pragmatics of Fiction, 93–128. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431094‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431094-004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Culpeper, Jonathan and Claire Hardaker
    2017 “Impoliteness”. InJonathan Culpeper, Daniel Haugh and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 199–226. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö
    2010 Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield and Anne Wichmann
    2003 “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects”. Journal of Pragmatics35 (10–11): 1545–1579. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00118‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eelen, Gino
    2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Falco, Raphael
    1999 “Charismas in Conflict: Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke”. Exemplaria11 (2): 473–502. 10.1179/exm.1999.11.2.473
     https://doi.org/10.1179/exm.1999.11.2.473 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner
    2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 “Perspectives on Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics14 (2): 219–236. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
  35. 1998 “Threatening Revisited”. Forensic Linguistics5 (2): 159–173. 10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159
     https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159 [Google Scholar]
  36. Goffman, Erving
    2005 (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hattaway, Michael
    (ed.) 2006 The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture3 (2): 295–317. 10.1515/PR.2007.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Heinze, Eric
    2009 “Power Politics and the Rule of Law: Shakespeare’s First Historical Tetralogy and Law’s Foundations”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies29 (1): 139–168. 10.1093/ojls/gqp003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqp003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Howard, Jean E.
    1997 “The First Part of Henry the Sixth”. InStephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katherine Eisaman Maus (eds), The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Based on the Oxford Edition, 247–254. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hydén, Margareta
    1995 “Verbal Aggression as Prehistory of Woman Battering”. Journal of Family Violence10 (1): 55–71. 10.1007/BF02110537
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110537 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kádár, Dániel Z. and Michael Haugh
    2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kantorowicz, Ernst H.
    1957 The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kasper, Gabriele
    1990 “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues”. Journal of Politeness14 (2): 193–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2008 “Impoliteness and Emotional Arguments”. Journal of Politeness Research4 (2): 243–265. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kizelbach, Urszula
    2014 The Pragmatics of Early Modern Politics: Power and Kingship in Shakespeare’s History Plays. New York and Amsterdam: Brill/Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2017 “(Im)politeness in Fiction”. InMiriam A. Locher and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Pragmatics of Fiction, 425–454. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431094‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431094-014 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2020 “Blunders and (Un)intentional Offence in Shakespeare”. InAndreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Manners, Norms and Transgressions in the History of English, 75–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.312.04kiz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.312.04kiz [Google Scholar]
  49. Knowles, Ronald
    (ed.) 2001 William Shakespeare’sKing Henry VI, Part 2. London: The Arden Shakespeare.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kopytko, Roman
    1995 “Linguistic Politeness Strategies in Shakespeare’s Plays”. InAndreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Developments in the History of English, 515–541. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35.27kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.27kop [Google Scholar]
  51. Lachenicht, L. G.
    1980 “Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language”. International Journal of Human Communication13 (4): 607–688. 10.1080/08351818009370513
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818009370513 [Google Scholar]
  52. Leech, Geoffrey
    1980 Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.i.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.i.5 [Google Scholar]
  53. 1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Leggatt, Alexander
    1988 Shakespeare’s Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lim, Tae-Seop
    1994 “Facework and Interpersonal Relationships”. InStella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, 209–229. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Limberg, Holger
    2009 “Impoliteness and Threat Responses”. Journal of Pragmatics41 (7): 1376–1394. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  57. Loncraine, Richard
    1995 Richard III. (Directed by Richard Loncraine.) UK and USA: Guild Film Distribution.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Lull, Janice
    2006 “Plantagenets, Lancastrians, Yorkists, and Tudors: 1–3 Henry VI, Richard III, Edward III”. InMichael Hattaway (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, 89–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. McIntyre, Dan
    2008 “Integrating Multimodal Analysis and the Stylistics of Drama: A Multimodal Perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III”. Language and Literature17 (4): 309–334. 10.1177/0963947008095961
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947008095961 [Google Scholar]
  60. McIntyre, Dan and Derek Bousfield
    2017 “(Im)politeness in Fictional Texts”. InJonathan Culpeper, Daniel Haugh and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 759–783. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_29
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_29 [Google Scholar]
  61. Manheim, Michael
    1973 The Weak King Dilemma in the Shakespearean History Play. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Mills, Sara
    2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  63. Porter, Joseph A.
    1979 The Drama of Speech Acts: Shakespeare’s Lancastrian Tetralogy. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520348769
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520348769 [Google Scholar]
  64. Rackin, Phyllis
    2006 “Women’s Roles in the Elizabethan History Plays”. InMichael Hattaway (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, 71–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Reese, M. M.
    1961 The Cease of Majesty: A Study of Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rudanko, Juhani
    1993 Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2006 “Aggravated Impoliteness and Two Types of Speaker Intention in an Episode in Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens”. Journal of Pragmatics38 (6): 829–841. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2007 “Concepts for Analyzing Deception in Discourse Intended to be Persuasive: Two Case Studies from Shakespearean Drama”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics8 (1): 109–126. 10.1075/jhp.8.1.06rud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.1.06rud [Google Scholar]
  69. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations”. Journal of Pragmatics341: 529–545. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  70. 2008 “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport”. InHelen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 11–47. (Second edition.) London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Terkourafi, Marina
    2005 “Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research”. Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 237–262. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008 “Toward a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness”. InDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 45–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2009 “Perceptions of the In-Group”. InFrancesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Michael Haugh (eds), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 269–288. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Tillyard, E. M. W.
    1959 The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 1962 Shakespeare’s History Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Watts, Richard J.
    2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.19012.kiz
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): history play; impoliteness; politeness; political face; pragmatics of Early Modern politics; royal discourse; Shakespeare

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error