Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1566-5852
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9854



The notion of impoliteness may not trigger prompt associations with earlier women writing, especially non-fiction, in the pre-scientific period. Evidence drawn from seventeenth-century scientific and technical writings reveals that women make use of impoliteness strategies in order to claim and delineate their place within their community of practice. In our texts, we have detected that membership to communities of practice justifies the women’s use of positive impoliteness and sarcasm devices. Interestingly, the stereotypical female weakness represents a source for sarcastic speech, as this may offer women writers a protective shield against male critical stance. Negative impoliteness seems to be potentially related to establish power relationships and position in relation to knowledge. The idea is that scientific and technical contributions should be impartially appraised without considering the sex of the author. Impoliteness appears to be a potential means of legitimising women writers’ voices.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Boursier, Louise Bourgeois
    1663The Compleat Midwife’s Practice Enlarged in the Most Weighty and High Concernments of the Birth of Man. [London]: Printed for Nath. Brook at the Angel in Corn-hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chudleigh Lady, Mary Lee
    1687The female advocate; or, A plea for the just liberty of the tender sex, and particularly of married women. Being reflections on a late rude and disingenuous discourse, delivered by Mr. John Sprint, in a sermon at a wedding, May 11th, at Sherburn in Dorsetshire, 1699. / By a Lady of Quality. (Early English Books Online). London: Printed for Andrew Bell at the Cross-Keys and Bible in Cornhil, near Stockmarket.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cockeram, Henry
    1623The English Dictionarie: Or, An Interpreter of Hard English Words. Enabling as well Ladies and Gentlewomen, Young Schollers, Clarkes, Merchants, as Also Strangers of Any Nation, to the Vnderstanding of the More Difficult Authors already printed in Our Language, and the More Speedy Attaining of an Elegant Perfection of the English Tongue, both in Reading, Speaking and Writing. London: Printed for Edmund Weauer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Evelyn, Mary
    1690Mundus muliebris: or, The ladies dressing-room unlock’d, and her toilette spread In burlesque. Together with the fop-dictionary, compiled for the use of the fair sex. (Ed.) John Evelyn. London: printed for R. Bentley, in Russel-Street in Covent-Garden.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jocelin, Elizabeth
    1635The mothers legacie to her unborne childe by Elizabeth Joceline. (Ed.) Thomas Goad. London: Printed by F.K. for Robert Allot, and are to be sold in Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Black Beare.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kent Countess of, Elizabeth Grey
    Kent Countess of, Elizabeth Grey 1653A choice manval of rare and select secrets in physick and chyrurgery; collected and practised by the Right Honorable, the Countesse of Kent late deceased. As also most exquisite ways of preserving, conserving, candying, &c. Published by W.J., Gent. (Ed.) W J. London: Printed by R. Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lady
    Lady 1696The whole duty of a woman: or a guide to the female sex From the age of sixteen to sixty, &c. Being directions, how women of all qualities and conditions, ought to behave themselves in the various circumstances of this life, for their obtaining not only present, but future happiness. I. Directions how to obtain the divine and moral virtues of piety, meekness, modesty, chastity, humility, compassion, temperance and affability, with their advantages, and how to avoyd the opposite vices. II. The duty of virgins, directing them what they ought to do, and what to avoyd, for gaining all the accomplishments required in that state. With the whole art of love, &c. 3. The whole duty of a wife, 4. The whole duty of a widow, &c. Also choice receipts in physick and chirurgery. With the whole art of cookery, preserving, candying, beautifying, &c. Written by a lady. London: printed for J. Gwillim, against the Great James Tavern in Bishopsgate-street.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lincoln Countess of., Elizabeth Clinton
    Lincoln Countess of., Elizabeth Clinton 1622The Countesse of Lincolnes nurserie (Ed.) Thomas Lodge. AtOxford: Printed by Iohn Lichfield, and Iames Short printers to the famous Vniversitie.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish
    Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish 1663Philosophical and physical opinions written by … the Lady Marchioness of Newcastle. (Ed.) William Cavendish Newcastle Duke of. London: Printed by William Wilson.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish
    Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish 1663Philosophical and Physical Opinions Written by the Thrice Noble, Illustrious, and Excellent Princess, the Lady Marchioness of Newcastle. London: Printed by William Wilson.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish
    Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish 1664Philosophical letters, or, Modest reflections upon some opinions in natural philosophy maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters / by the thrice noble, illustrious, and excellent princess the Lady Marchioness of Newcastle. London: [s.n.].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish
    Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish 1668aObservations upon experimental philosophy to which is added, The description of a new blazing world / written by … Princesse, the Duchess of Newcastle. London: Printed by A. Maxwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish
    Newcastle Duchess of, Margaret Cavendish 1668bGround of natural philosophy divided into thirteen parts: with an appendix containing five parts / written by the … Dvchess of Newcastle. London: Printed by A. Maxwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Owen of God-stow., Jane
    Owen of God-stow., Jane 1634Antidote against purgatory. Or discourse, wherein is shewed that good-workes, and almes-deeds, performed in the name of Christ, are a chiefe meanes for the preuenting, or migatating the torments of purgatory. Written by that vertuous, and rightworthy gentle-woman (the honour of her sexe for learning in England) Ms. Iane Owen, late of God-stow, in Oxfordshire, deceased, and now published after her death. [Saint-Omer: English College Press], Printed M.DC.XXXIIII [1634].
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Russell Lady, Elizabeth Cooke Hoby
    Russell Lady, Elizabeth Cooke Hoby 1605A way of reconciliation of a good and learned man touching the trueth, nature, and substance of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. Translated out of Latin by the right honorable Lady Elizabeth Russell, dowager to the right honourable the Lord Iohn Russell, Baron, and sonne and heire to Francis Earle of Bedford. At London: Printed by R. B[arker].
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sharp Mrs., Jane
    Sharp Mrs., Jane 1671The midwives book, or, The whole art of midwifry discovered. Directing childbearing women how to behave themselves in their conception, breeding, bearing, and nursing of children in six books, viz. … / By Mrs. Jane Sharp practitioner in the art of midwifry above thirty years. London: Printed for Simon Miller, at the Star at the West End of St. Pauls.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Stubbe, Henry
    1670Campanella Revived, or an Enquiry into the History of the Royal Society, whether the Virtuosi There Do not Pursue the Projects of Campanella for Reducing England unto Popery. London: Printed for the Author.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Woolley, Hannah
    1662The ladies directory in choice experiments & curiosities of preserving in jellies, and candying both fruits & flowers. Also, an excellent way of making cakes, comfits, and rich court-perfumes. With rarities of many precious waters; among which, are Doctor Stephens’s water, Dr. Matthias’s palsie-water; and an excellent water against the plague: with severall consumption drinks, approved by the ablest physicians. / By Hanna Wolley …London: Printed by T.M. for Peter Dring, at the Sun, next dore to the Rose Taverne in the Poultry.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1664The cook’s guide: or, Rare receipts for cookery Published and set forth particularly for ladies and gentlwomen; being very beneficial for all those that desire the true way of dressing of all sorts of flesh, fowles, and fish; the best directions for all manner of kickshaws, and the most ho-good sawces: whereby noble persons and others in their hospitalities may be gratified in their gusto’s. Never before printed. By Hannah Wolley. London: [p]rinted for Peter Dring at the Sun in the Poultry, next door to the Rose-Tavern.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1673The gentlewomans companion; or, A guide to the female sex containing directions of behaviour, in all places, companies, relations, and conditions, from their childhood down to old age: viz. As, children to parents. Scholars to governours. Single to servants. Virgins to suitors. Married to husbands. Huswifes to the house Mistresses to servants. Mothers to children. Widows to the world Prudent to all. With letters and discourses upon all occasions. Whereunto is added, a guide for cook-maids, dairy-maids, chamber-maids, and all others that go to service. The whole being an exact rule for the female sex in general. By Hannah Woolley. (Ed.) William Faithorne. London: printed by A. Maxwell for Dorman Newman at the Kings-Arms in the Poultry.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1686The Accomplish’d ladies delight in preserving, physick, beautifying, and cookery. Containing I. The art of preserving, and candying fruits and flowers, and the making of all sorts of conserves, syrups, and jellies. II. The physical cabinet, or excellent re[c]eipts in physick and chirurgery, together with s[o]me rare beautifying waters, to adorn and add l[ov]eliness to the face and body: and also some n[e]w and excellent secrets and experiments in the art of angling. III. The compl[e]at cook’s guide, or, directions fo[r] dressing all sorts of flesh, fowl and fish […] English and French mode, […]; and the making pyes, […] with the forms and […] (Ed.) T P. S.l.: Printed for Sarah Harris.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco and Margarita Mele-Marrero
    2014 “Stancetaking in Seventeenth-Century Prefaces on Obstetrics”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics15 (1): 1–35. doi:  10.1075/jhp.15.1.01alo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.15.1.01alo [Google Scholar]
  23. Archer, Dawn E.
    2008 “Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related or Synonymous?” InDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 181–207. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Babaii, Esmat
    2011 “Hard Science, Hard Talk? The Study of Negative Comments in Physics Book Reviews”. InFrançoise Salager-Mayer and Beverly A. Lewin (eds), Crossed Words: Criticism in Scholarly Writing, 55–77. Switzerland: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bax, Marcel and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2012 “The Historical Understanding of Historical (Im)Politeness. Introduction”. InMarcel Bax and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness: Relational Linguistic Practice over Time and across Cultures, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.41.01bax
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.41.01bax [Google Scholar]
  26. Blas Arroyo, José Luis
    2001 “‘No Digachorradas…’ La Descortesía En El Debate Político Cara a Cara. Una Aproximación Pragma-Variacionista” [‘“Don’t talk rubbish…” Impoliteness in Face-to-Face Political Debate: A Pragmatic–Variationist Approach’]. Oralia4: 9–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  28. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  29. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
    1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies”. Language in Society18 (2): 159–212. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500013464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013464 [Google Scholar]
  30. Csulich, Gabriela
    2016 “(Im)Politeness, Social Status, and Roles in the Early Modern English Courtroom: Your Lordship and Traitor in High Treason and Ordinary Criminal Trials”. InMinna Nevala, Ursula Lutzky, Gabriella Mazzon and Carla Suhr (eds), The Pragmatics and Stylistics of Identity Construction and Characterisation. (Volume17.) Helsinki: VARIENG Research Unit. Available online at: https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/17/csulich/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture1 (1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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 and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208344.1.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 “The Metalanguage of Impoliteness: Using Sketch Engine to Explore the Oxford English Corpus”. InPaul Baker (ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, 65–86. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2016a “Impoliteness Strategies”. InAlessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo and Marco Carpezza (eds), Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology, 421–445. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016b “Impoliteness Strategies”. InAlessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey (eds), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, 421–445. London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017 “The Influence of Italian Manners on Politeness in England, 1550–1620”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics18 (2): 195–213. doi:  10.1075/jhp.00002.cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00002.cul [Google Scholar]
  39. Culpeper, Jonathan and Dawn Archer
    2008 “Request and Directedness in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play-texts, 1640–1760”. InAndreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Speech Acts in the History of English, 45–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.176.05cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.176.05cul [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00118‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Eales, Jacqueline
    1998Women in Early Modern England, 1500–1700. London: University College London Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Eckerle, Julie A.
    2007 “Prefacing Texts, Authorizing Authors, and Constructing Selves: The Prefaces as Autobiographical Space”. InMichelle M. Dowd and Julie A. Eckerle (eds), Genre and Women’s Life Writing in Early Modern England, 97–113. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1999 “New Generalizations and Explanations in Language and Gender Research”. Language in Society28 (2): 185–201. doi:  10.1017/S0047404599002031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002031 [Google Scholar]
  44. Elk, Martine van
    2017Early Modern Women’s Writing. Domesticity, Privacy, and the Public Sphere in England and the Dutch Republic. Amsterdam: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑33222‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33222-2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Evenden, Doreen
    2000The Midwives of Seventeenth Century London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gallois, Cynthia
    1994 “Group Membership, Social Rules, and Power: A Social-Psychological Perspective on Emotional Communication”. Journal of Pragmatics22 (3–4): 301–324. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90114‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90114-7 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gil-Salom, Luz and Carmen Soler-Monreal
    2009 “Interacting with the Reader: Politeness Strategies in Engineering Research Article Discussions”. International Journal of English Studies9 (3): 175–189. doi: 10.6018/ijes.1.1.99581
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.1.1.99581 [Google Scholar]
  48. Golinski, Jan
    2002 “The Care of the Self and the Masculine Birth of Science”. History of Science40 (2): 125–145. doi:  10.1177/007327530204000201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530204000201 [Google Scholar]
  49. Gray, Catherine
    2007Women Writers and Public Debate in 17th-Century Britain. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230605565
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230605565 [Google Scholar]
  50. Heyd, Michael
    1995“BE SOBER AND REASONABLE” The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. 10.1163/9789004247178
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247178 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hyland, Ken
    2005 “Prudence, Precision, and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing”. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics10 (2005): 99–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Jacob, James R.
    1983Henry Stubbe, Radical Protestantism and the Early Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511560606
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511560606 [Google Scholar]
  53. Jucker, Andreas H.
    2000 “‘Thou’ in the History of English: A Case for Historical Semantics or Pragmatics?” InChristiane Dalton-Puffer and Nikolaus Ritt (eds), Words: Structure, Meaning, Function. Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky, 153–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1515/9783110809169.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809169.153 [Google Scholar]
  54. Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen
    2013English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kádár, Dániel Z. and Jonathan Culpeper
    2010 “Historical (Im)Politeness: An Introduction”. InJonathan Culpeper and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Historical (Im)Politeness, 9–36. Bern, Berlin and New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Khosravi, Mohadese
    2015 “A Pragmatic Analysis of Impoliteness in Reply Articles as an Instance of Academic Conflict”. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research2 (3): 223–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1997 “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances”. Functions of Language4 (2): 251–287. doi:  10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie [Google Scholar]
  58. Kopaczyk, Joanna and Andreas H. Jucker
    (eds) 2013Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.235
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.235 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lakoff, Robin
    1975Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lakoff, Robin T.
    2005 “Introduction: Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness”. InRobin T. Lakoff and Sachiko Ide (eds), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.139.03lak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.03lak [Google Scholar]
  61. Lancashire, Ian
    2009 “The Two Tongues of Early Modern English”. InChristopher M. Cain and Geoffrey Russom (eds), Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English, 105–141. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  63. Leaper, Campbell and Rachael D. Robnett
    2010 “Women Are More Likely than Men to Use Tentative Language, Aren’t They? A Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators”. Psychology of Women Quarterly35 (1): 129–142. doi:  10.1177/0361684310392728
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310392728 [Google Scholar]
  64. Leech, Geoffrey
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  65. Marín-Arrese, Juana
    2009 “Effective vs. Epistemic Stance, and Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity in Political Discourse: A Case Study”. InAnastasios Tsangalidis and Roberta Facchinetti (eds), Studies on English modality: In honour of Frank R. Palmer, 35–52. Bern and New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Martilla, Ville
    2014 “New Arguments for New Audiences: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Interpersonal Strategies in Early Modern English Medical Recipes”. InIrma Taavitsainen, Irma and Päivi Pahta (eds), Medical Writing in Early Modern English, 135–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2005 “Gender and Impoliteness”. Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 263–280. doi:  10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2009 “Impoliteness in a Cultural Context”. Journal of Pragmatics41 (5): 1047–1060. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014 [Google Scholar]
  70. Myers, Greg
    1989 “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles”. Applied Linguistics10 (1): 1–35. doi:  10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ostovich, Helen and Elizabeth Sauer
    2004a “Introduction. Rereading Women’s Literary History”. InHelen Ostovich and Elizabeth Sauer (eds), Reading Early Modern Women: An Anthology of Texts in Manuscript and Print, 1500–1700, 1–13. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203643921
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203643921 [Google Scholar]
  72. (eds) 2004bReading Early Modern Women: An Anthology of Texts in Manuscript and Print, 1500–1700. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203643921
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203643921 [Google Scholar]
  73. Peters, Christine
    2004Women in Early Modern Britain, 1450–1640. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑0‑230‑21278‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21278-7 [Google Scholar]
  74. Taavitsainen, Irma
    2014 “Dissemination and Appropriation of Medical Knowledge: Humoral Theory in Early Modern English Medical Writing and Lay Texts”. InIrma Taavitsainen and Päivi Pahta (eds), Medical Writing in Early Modern English, 94–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Trye, Mary
    1675Medicatrix, or, The Woman-Physician. London: Printed by T.R. & N.T., and sold by Henry Broome and John Leete.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Watts, Richard J.
    1999 “Language and Politeness in Early Eighteenth Century Britain”. Pragmatics9 (1): 5–20. 10.1075/prag.9.1.02wat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.02wat [Google Scholar]
  77. Whaley, Leigh
    2011Women and the Practice of Medical Care in Early Modern Europe, 1400–1800. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230295179
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230295179 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): community of practice; impoliteness; stance; women’s writing
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