To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The opening sequence is a delicate phase of any conversation. Through ritualized acts, interlocutors come into contact, reveal their respective stances toward each other and prepare themselves to broach the first topic of the discussion. Their positioning in the opening sequence influences the subsequent phases of the interaction. An integrated pragmatic approach that combines Conversation Analysis, Speech Act Theory and Im/Politeness Research is well-suited to studying this communicative stage in its complexity.
This chapter examines the opening phase in the dialogues of Menander’s comedy from such a perspective. After showing that, in Menander’s Athens, conversational openings follow rules analogous to those in our society, it then demonstrates how Menander exploits the social delicateness of the phase. Clear patterns in the development of Menandrean conversational openings are identified, which are linked to the communicative situation as well as to the speakers’ state of mind and relationship. Finally, the chapter discusses how in Dyskolos the poet plays with im/politeness in conversational openings to characterize the protagonist, structure the plot and generate humour.
The chapter endeavours to extend the search for politeness rituals in non-literary sources where some dialogue interaction is represented. Significant dialogic interaction is preserved in Roman juridical texts, a source hitherto neglected in studies of ancient politeness. Transcripts of political meetings, of magistrates’ and emperors’ hearings and, above all, of court sessions have been preserved both in papyrus documents and in medieval manuscripts; they enable scholars to widen their knowledge of the forms of linguistic interaction in court debate beyond the little that is known anecdotically about Roman advocacy, and also to observe the evolution of politeness formulae across time.
The role of third-party politeness, in the sense of (im)politeness that pertains not (primarily) to the face of the addressee but is aimed at the face of a third party, has not received much attention in politeness studies, but plays an important role in public interaction in the Late Roman Republic. Both in private letters, which often circulated in a wider circle, and in speeches we find courtesies to or critical remarks about ‘others’ that were clearly meant to be heard or read by the persons involved. As such, third-party politeness appears to have been one of the complicated ways in which the Roman elite maintained and shaped their social relations. After a brief discussion of the various forms of third-party politeness, three case studies, concerning Cicero’s relations with Vatinius, Appius and Dolabella, serve as a first exploration of the phenomenon. It turns out that third-party politeness can be used to fulfil the same interpersonal functions which were discussed by Hall (2009) with regard to addressee-oriented politeness, viz. affiliative politeness, politeness of respect and compensation for FTAs.
This chapter examines Varro’s depictions of teasing and banter in his dialogue De Re Rustica, with particular reference to issues of im/politeness. In many cases, this banter involves some kind of provocation of the addressee, and so risks being construed as impolite. In most instances, however, the witty phrasing conveys a playful intent, which ensures that the remark does not cause offence. The end result is usually heightened rapport among the participants. In several cases Varro’s teasing involves ‘collaborative’ banter, in which both participants contribute to the construction of a playful conceit. In other instances, however, the teasing quips are one-sided, with no response reported. In such cases the emphasis seems to be on the display of quick-witted inventiveness for its own sake. This energetic interaction differs from the highly conventionalized language of social negotiation typically used by the Roman elite. Indeed, it is significant that Cicero’s real-life epistolary relationship with Varro was marked by a degree of formality that eschewed the use of banter. In this respect, the right to tease was one extended only to a privileged sub-set of personal acquaintances