Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson have proposed that power (P), distance (D), and the ranked extremity (R) of a face-threatening act are the universal determinants of politeness levels in dyadic discourse. This claim is tested here for Shakespeare's use of Early Modern English in Much Ado about Nothing, Measure for Measure, The Taming of the Shrew, and Twelfth Night. The comedies are used because: (1) dramatic texts provide the best information on colloquial speech of the period (2) the psychological soliloquies in the comedies provide the access to inner life that is necessary for a proper test of politeness theory and (3) the comedies represent the full range of society in a period of high relevance to politeness theory. The four plays are systematically searched for pairs of minimally contrasting dyads where the dimensions of contrast are power (P), distance (D), and intrinsic extremity (R). Whenever such a pair is found, there are two speeches to be scored for politeness and a prediction from theory as to which should be more polite. The results for P and for R are those predicted by theory, but the results for D are not. The two components of D, interactive closeness and affect, are not closely associated in the plays. Affect strongly influences politeness (increased liking increases politeness and decreased liking decreases politeness) interactive closeness has little or no effect on politeness. The uses of politeness for the delineation of character in the comedies are illustrated.

Textprobe: Kapitel 4.1.2.1, Strongly contradictory contrasts: In Much Ado about Nothing Hero, the daughter of the Governor of Messina, addresses her maid, Margaret, with a courteous speech. The deferential indirect request pray thee scores +1 for negative politeness, and the diminutive Meg adorned with the positive politeness hedge good adds two points for positive politeness, making a total score of +3. Margaret, in her response and in the whole scene is nervous and rapid and full of elision [...] she was dressed in Hero´s clothes and entertaining Borachio , thus unwittingly assisting the plot to discredit Hero before her wedding. Her nervousness and embarrassment may, therefore, account for her impoliteness to Hero. Her disagreement with Hero is a threat to Hero´s positive face because her choice of clothes is considered to be wrong and thus disapproved. Hero stands higher than her servant, and so far as power considerations go, should feel no compulsion to be polite. What happens in is quite the opposite. Hero is being polite, cf. dyad, in which Margaret´s speech causes Hero to be suddenly impolite to her. In Measure for Measure Isabella´s speech in is a challenge to Angelo and thus a threat to his positive face since she thinks he is unreasonable in his verdict to execute her brother, Claudio. Her bald on-record strategy can be observed in the use of the directives (Go to, Knock, ask, Let it), which unmask Angelo. First, although Isabella has not yet heard of Mariana, Angelo´s cast-off fiancée, her speech awakens his guilt for his past treatment of Mariana Go to your bosom [...] brother´s life second, Isabella´s speech motivates Angelo to confess his `guilty desire´ to have sexual intercourse in his soliloquy at the start of his response. Angelo does not react with utterances like `Away with her´ or `Let me be clear of thee´, as one may expect. On the contrary, he bids her farewell fare you well, which scores +1 for positive politeness. Angelo, although a lord, is being more polite than Isabella, who is only a nun. In Pompey, now a deputy executioner, is sent to fetch Barnardine, a `dissolute´ prisoner, for execution so that his head can be disguised as Claudio´s and sent to Angelo. The scoring system allocates +1 for each deferential sir and another point for the use of the `in-group identity´ term your friends (positive politeness), which gives a total score of +3. Barnardine´s response, although it scores +1 for giving reasons I am sleepy, is a threat to Pompey´s positive face because it contains an insult you rogue and the `verbless imperative´ away, which is used twice (-2). It is almost dawn and Barnardine is still a little under the effect of alcohol, which may account for his impoliteness. According to Brown and Gilman, drunkenness is overlooked in the scoring. However, Barnardine cannot be compared to the drunken Cassio´s incivility in Othello. The interesting aspect about the contrast in is, however, Pompey´s ironic language. To score his sirs as deferential and your friend as an instance of positive politeness would therefore be a mistake. The following quotation taken from Kendall can clarify this point: There are major analytic advantages to viewing humans as actors who create and interpret meanings rather than `subjects´ who respond to features. One of the most notable is that the former position renders intelligible all the highly creative plays on order and regularity that the latter position cannot touch. It allows one to account for ironic forms of address, whether they be humorous or sarcastic [...]. To understand that an instance of address is humorous, a person has to understand the conventional meaning of the form to be sure but the person must also understand that the speaker intends to use the form non-seriously. Accordingly, Pompey knows that Barnardine can recognise sarcastic intonation, i.e. the falseness of Pompey´s polite statement is made clear by a `contradictory tone of the utterance´. Barnardine can understand that the use of your friends does not imply `solidarity´. Likewise, he knows that the deferential sirs carry a more heavily ironic message because a deputy executioner does not address people who are sentenced to death with such terms. He also knows that a powerful person accords himself or herself the right to impose his or her power prerogative on persons with less power, i.e. to address them baldly on-record. In fact, is only an apparently contradictory contrast because Pompey is not really more polite than Barnardine. However, it is an interesting dyad because of its important implications for politeness theory, i.e. Pompey´s use of irony. In The Taming of the Shrew Katharina is in the course of being tamed by Petruchio´s behaviour, which is more outrageous and extravagant than her shrewdness. For instance, she is even denied food by Petruchio´s servant, Grumio. As a result she contents herself with whatever she is offered to eat, thereby implicitly abasing herself (negative politeness: +1) this is clearly observed in her exaggeration (passing good: +2) (positive politeness). In addition, there is an indirect request I prithee, which adds another point for giving deference (negative politeness), making a total score of +3. Grumio´s response proves that he is acting in collaboration with Petruchio as Katharina receives no food. On the contrary, Grumio decides to go on mocking her and suggests another sort of food. His ridicule of Katharina shows that he has no positive evaluation of her positive face. Katharina is more polite than Grumio. In Twelfth Night Olivia, thinking that Viola is a man, falls in love with her. Her change of attitude towards Cesario/Viola is reflected in her linguistic behaviour. In she is extremely polite, which is not the case in Olivia´s earlier speeches to her, cf. dyad. Her speech reveals a marked preference for negative politeness: the three indirect requests (Give me leave: +2, beseech you: +2, what might you think?: +1) score +5 for deference. Further deference is expressed by her self-abasement (so did I abuse myself, shameful cunning, and a cypress, not a bosom, hideth my heart: +3). In addition to giving deference, she begs forgiveness (I fear me: +1). Nominalisation is also at work (hard construction, shameful cunning, your receiving: +3). Moreover, the `hypothetical´ hedge might in the indirect request, cited above, indicates scepticism (+1), which brings the speech to a total score of +13 for negative politeness alone. Cesario/Olivia´s response, on the other hand, scores only +1 for positive politeness `I pity you´. The speech from the higher to the lower is the more polite. In Sir Toby, who permanently mocks Malvolio in the play, addresses Malvolio with man, a familiar form of address. Malvolio knows that Sir Toby, his social superior, is being unpleasant to him, and that the use of positive politeness man is insincere and ironic. However, this insincerity does not give Malvolio sufficient grounds for being impolite. First, he imposes on Sir Toby by asking him twice to go off second, he treats Sir Toby as if he were a worthless person: I discard you. Third, Malvolio claims the right to non-imposition let me enjoy my private. All these prerogatives belong to a duke, not to a steward like Malvolio. His powerful speech does not fit his social rank. Malvolio is less polite than Sir Toby.

• Politeness theory

• Discourse analysis

• Pragmatics

• Theory of literature

• Shakespeare studies

• Sociolinguistics

• Brown / Levinson

Abdelaziz Bouchara obtained his Ph.D. from the university of Heidelberg in 2001. He is presently Professor of linguistics and business German at the University of Casablanca. Current interests are politeness theory, intercultural communication and globalization. Bouchara is the author of Höflichkeitsformen in der Interaktion zwischen Deutschen und Arabern: Ein Beitrag zur interkulturellen Kommunikation (RGL/235, Niemeyer).