Politeness Theory and Shakespeare's Four Major Tragedies Author(s): Roger Brown and Albert Gilman Reviewed work(s):

Source: Language in Society, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 159-212 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168029 . Accessed: 30/03/2012 09:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Lang. Soc. i8,

159-212.

Printed in the United States of America

Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies*

ROGER BROWN Department of Psychology Harvard University ALBERT GILMAN

Department of English Boston University

ABSTRACT

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (i987) have proposed that power (P), distance (D), and the ranked extremity (R) of a facethreateningact are the universaldeterminantsof politeness levels in dyadicdiscourse. Thisclaimis testedherefor Shakespeare's of Early use
Modern English in Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello. The

tragediesare used because:(i) dramatic texts providethe best information on colloquialspeechof the period;(2) the psychological soliloquies in the tragediesprovidethe access to inner life that is necessaryfor a propertest of politenesstheory;and (3) the tragediesrepresent full the rangeof societyin a periodof high relevanceto politenesstheory. The four plays are systematically searchedfor pairs of minimallycontrasting dyadswherethe dimensions contrastare power(P), distance(D), of and intrinsicextremity(R). Wheneversuch a pair is found, there are two speechesto be scored for politenessand a predictionfrom theory as to whichshouldbe morepolite. The resultsfor P and for R are those predicted theory,but the resultsfor D are not. The two components by of D, interactiveclosenessand affect, are not closely associatedin the plays. Affect stronglyinfluencespoliteness(increasedliking increases politenessand decreasedliking decreasespoliteness);interactivecloseness has little or no effect on politeness.The uses of politenessfor the in delineationof character the tragediesare illustrated.(Politenesstheory, speechact theory,pragmatics, sociolinguistics, theoryof literature, Shakespeare studies)
INTRODUCTION

Act II, scene i, lines 31-32,'

Go Macbeth (to servant):2 bid thy mistress,when my drink is ready, She strike upon the bell.
?
I989 Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/89 $5.00 + .00

159

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

The same play, IV, ii, 63-67, Messenger(to Lady Macduff): Bless you, fair dame! I am not to you known, Thoughin your state of honor I am perfect. [I am fully informedof your honorablerank.]3 I doubt [fear] some dangerdoes approachyou nearly: If you will take a homely [plain]man's advice, Be not found here. As speechacts (Austin I962; LevinsonI983; SearleI969), both speechesare "directives" (Searle1976)or attemptsto inducethe hearerto do something. The most notable contrastin the two speecheslies in the efficiency of the first and the politenessof the second. Macbethsays just as much as, but not one word more than is necessary to makehis intentionunambiguous. orderto the servantperfectlysatisThe fies Grice's(1975) maximsof conversation.It is, however,brusque,as the messenger's adviceto LadyMacduffis not. The latterspeechsays morethan efficiencyin orderto accomplishsomeis strictlynecessary so sacrifices and thing not mentionedin Grice'smaxims. The messengeris concernedto be meansputtingthingsin a way that takesaccountof the polite, and politeness other person'sfeelings. "Bless speechis politenessfound?The salutation Wherein the messenger's you, fair dame!" is more than routinelywarm, and "dame"is a form of in addressfor a womanof rank.Deferenceis expressed the line "Thoughin "a and your state of honor I am perfect" also in the self-deprecating homely man's advice." There is delicate sympathyin the verb doubt of "I doubt some dangerdoes approachyou nearly"whetherdoubt is understoodas a hedgeon know or as fear. Finally,the requestitself is not an action imperin ative but an agentlesspassive(Blake I983) whichhas no presumption it. Why should Macbeth'sorder to his servantbe brisklyGriceanand the messenger'sadvice to Lady Macduff most thoughtfully courteous? An of answercould be given in termsof the uniqueparticulars each situation, but we are interestedin an abstractanswerthat rendersthe two cases comparable with one another and with infinitely many additional discourse dyads. We must first considersocial station (or status or power);the ranking of speakerand hearer.Macbeth,the speaker,standshigherthan his servant and so, as far as powerconsiderations need feel no compulsionto go, be polite. The messengerstandslower than Lady Macduff and so has reaSecson to be somewhatpolite, even if stationwerethe only consideration. ond, we must think of the horizontalsocial distancebetweenspeakerand Familiarscan be, and usuallyare, hearer.Are they familiarsor strangers? more casual. Thereis less horizontalsocial distancebetweenMacbethand his servantthan betweenLady Macduff and the previouslyunknownmes160

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

in senger.Finally,we must ask how greata thingis requested the two cases. Both speakersintend actions to be taken, but the actions are differentially disruptivefor the two addressees.Of Macbeth'sservant,only a routineservice is required.LadyMacduffis urgedto take her childrenand flee the casintrusion,eventhoughit is in the hearer's tle as soon as possible.The greater own interest, seems to requiregreaterattentionto the hearer'sfeelings. of The three variablespostulatedas determinants the strong contrastin politenessbetweenthe two speechesfrom Macbethwe shall call power (P), distance (D), and rankedextremity(R). Brown and Levinson (1987) have levels of determinants politeness proposedthat P, D, and R are the universal in speechacts though the ways in whichP, D, and R are calculatedare culturallyspecific. In this article, we determinewhetherthe Brown/Levinson in use claim holds for Shakespeare's of EarlyModernEnglish (I500-1700)
Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello and, in addition, illustrate the

uses of politenessin drama. There is, finally, somethingunsatisfactoryin our analysis of the messenger'sspeech. It is not only polite, not only politerthan Macbeth'sorder to his servant,it is one of the politest speechesin the play. Why should so much considerationfor Lady Macduff be necessaryin advisingher to flee five for herlife? Speechact theorysuggeststhe answer.The messenger's lines constitute not one but two speech acts: a directiveand an assertion. The next line is: "Hence in baldlyexpressed the messenger's senseof the directive with your little ones." The sense of the assertionwould seem to be: "Some dangerdoes approachyou nearly,"but it is moreextremethan that because it is alreadytoo late for the lady and her little ones to escape.The murderers mind are almost immediatelyupon them. The assertionin the messenger's is: "Youare lost." And the politenessis therenot just to make the directive tolerablebut from pity for Lady Macduff'sterrifyingplight.
POLITENESS THEORY

Politenessmeansputtingthingsin such a way as to take accountof the feeltheory,are of just ings of the hearer.Thesefeelings,in the Brown/Levinson with positiveface and those with negativeface.4 two kinds:those concerned Positiveface is everyperson'swant(the authors'carefullychosenword)that his or her wants be desirableto at least some others, not all others for all aspects of face, but the significant ones for each aspect. Very exactly whateach personwantsis that otherswant for him what he wants expressed, for himself;for example:life, health,honor, a positiveself-image.Negative face is also a matterof wants:everyperson'swant to be free from imposition and distractionand to have her personal prerogativesand territory respected.The two speechesfrom Macbethboth threatenthe hearer'snegof ative face since the speakerintrudesupon the free self-determination the 161

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

hearer. The messenger's speech also threatens the hearer's positive face since the bad news delivered is that there are some who threaten the hearer's life. The problem of politeness only arises, in the Brown/Levinson theory, when there is a speech act to be performed, for some reason other than politeness, which is however intrinsically face threatening (a face-threatening act or FTA). Any directive or request, for example, is a negative FTA and any criticism or insult is a positive FTA. The central goal of the theory is to specify the circumstances in which each of five politeness strategies will be selected.5 These strategies, ordered on a principle that is explained later, are: i. Do the FTA on record without redressive action, baldly. 2. Do the FTA on record with redressive action of the kind called positive politeness. 3. Do the FTA on record with redressive action of the kind called negative politeness. 4. Do the FTA off record. 5. Don't do the FTA. Positive politeness is simply defined as any effort to meet positive face needs. The phrase "Have a good day," renewed daily, is a quintessential act of positive politeness: The speaker wishes for the hearer what the hearer wishes for himself. Negative politeness is defined as any attempt to meet negative face wants, but negative politeness, unlike positive, is designed to redress just the specific FTA that creates the occasion for politeness. On record FTAs are speech acts for which the "speaker's meaning" or intention is unambiguous. An FTA is off record when the speaker's intention is ambiguous and can only be worked out by inference. Because off record FTAs are ambiguous, the speaker cannot be held accountable and any inferred meaning is deniable. Politeness theory holds that the selection of strategies is universally determined by just three variables. Two concern the relationship between speaker and hearer: vertical social distance or power and horizontal social distance or solidarity. These are the same dimensions that Roger Brown and Albert Gilman used in I960 to describe the semantics of European oronouns of address as typified by the French tu/vous (T/V) distinction and which have been reported since I960 to be the dimensions underlying pronominal (and other) address in at least 28 different languages, many of them unrelated (Alrabaa I985; Fang & Heng I983; Friedrich I966; Kempff I985; Kroger, Wood, & Kim I984; Lambert & Tucker 1976; Levinson I977, I982; Mehrotra I98I; Ogino I986; Paulston 1976; Yassin I975; and others). Pronouns of address have relational rather than referential meanings and in this way they are like kin terms. Just as it is not a property of a person to be always addressed as dad or son, so it is not a property of a person to be always addressed as T or as V; in both cases the form used varies with a 162

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

The difrelation,the relationbetweenspeakerand addressee. veryimportant ference between kin terms and pronouns is that the former (unless "extended"or "fictive")serve to relate only some membersof a social group with some others, whereasthe latter serve to relate each one to each other one and so constitute a fully connected language of relationship. If the dimensionsgoverningsuch relationalforms are universalacrosslanguages, wouldseemto havea privileged fundamental statusfor then suchdimensions the analysis of social life. On presentevidencethey are universaland, in politenesstheory,they are calledpower and distance,symbolizedas, respectively, P and D. Thereis a thirdvariable that affectsthe choiceof a politenessstrategyand act. this is the intrinsicextremityof the face-threatening In the cultureand situationin question,how much does the FTA interferewith self-determination (negativeface) and approval(positive face)? The assumptionmade is that therewill be a fairlyconstantrankingof impositionsin termsof expendituresin time, expertise,and goods and also a rankingof threatsto positive face in terms of desiredattributeslike honor, beauty, and generosity. The necessaryoperationsare not all at hand, but the idea is clear: Telling someonethat a certainlieutenant,newlymet, drinksto excess(e.g., lago to than tellinga man his wife is guilty of Montanoof Cassio)is less disruptive adultery(e.g., lago to Othello of Desdemona). Brownand Levinsoncombineadditivelythe three variablesaffecting the selection of a strategyinto the formula Wx = D(S, H) + P(H, S) + Rx,6 is whichin words says that the weightinessor riskinessof FTAX a function of the social distancebetweenspeaker(S) and addressee(H) plus the power of the addressee(H) over the speaker(S) plus the culturallyrankedintrinsic threat(Rx)posed by the FTA. In crudeoperationalterms, W should be (e.g., Macbeth)than if H is a subordinate greaterif H is a superordinate country(e.g., servant);W should be greaterif S and H are long-separated men (e.g., Ross and Malcolmin Macbeth)than if S and H are old friends (e.g., Hamlet and Horatio);and W should be greaterif R is an accusation of murderand incest (Hamlet to the king) than if R is an accusation of meddling(Hamletto Polonius). stratThe overallclaimis that the inclinationto selecta higher-numbered or egy will increasewith the intrinsicweightiness perceivedrisk of the FTA. For the lowest levels of risk, strategy(i): Do the FTA on record without redressiveaction, baldly, will seem ideal since it is maximallyefficient and thereis no risk. Suchis the case with Macbeth'sorderto his servant.At the highest levels of weightinessor risk, the right strategywill seem to be (5): Don't do the FTA. Suchis the case for Hamletwhen he darenot accusethe levelsof perceived are risk his king of havingmurdered father.Intermediate numberedstrategies. claimedto be associatedwith intermediate Brownand Levinsonfirst publishedtheirpolitenesstheory as a 3oo-page 163

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

article that was awkwardly packaged with a short essay on questions to make a book entitled Questions and politeness (Goody 1978). In I987, Cambridge University Press reissued the article as a book, Politeness: Some universals of language usage, which includes a new 5o-page review (by Brown and Levinson) of research inspired by the original article. The authors do not in their 1987 book revise their theory but, rather, reprint exactly the 1978 article. In their up-to-date critical review of research, they grant that recent work has made them question several points in the 1978 theory even though it has not convinced them of error on any point. New research has not, of course, stopped with the I987 review and we do not know how Brown and Levinson will respond to the more recent empirical findings and theoretical criticisms (e.g., Holtgraves I986; Holtgraves, Srull, & Socall, in press; Slugoski & Turnbull, in press). In this situation investigators who want to work with the Brown/Levinson theory of politeness must pick a version. We have done this - after reading most of what has been done and making our own critical evaluations. It seems best not to defend our decisions in a detailed way but simply to set them down, pointing out the differences from the original theory and taking responsibility for our judgments. Our version of the Brown/Levinson theory is graphically represented in Figure i, using all the conventions of the original so as to make evident the many points of identity and also two differences. The point of view is that of the speaker. The mental processes modeled are hers and they are assumed to be swift and unconscious though it is generally necessary in discussing them to use words that suggest deliberation. The problem the speaker is considering is whether or not to perform some single face-threatening act, and if the decision is to perform it, then how to perform it, in what way. The FTA is addressed to the hearer (H) and taking account of the feelings of the hearer is the problem of politeness. The relevant feelings concern positive face and negative face. There are four numbered strategies in Figure i. These four strategies are actually superstrategiessince Brown and Levinson list 15 subvarieties of positive politeness and io subvarieties of negative politeness and say that even these lists are not exhaustive. The principal empirical claim of this version of the theory, as of the original, is that the superstrategies are ordered (as in Figure i) against a scale of lesser to greater estimated risk to face. In the original (unmodified) Brown/Levinson theory there are five numbered super-strategies.Strategy (2) in Figure i is, in the original, divided into Do the FTA on record with redressive action of the positive politeness (2): kind; and (3): Do the FTA on record with redressive action of the negative politeness kind. The original then claims that positive politeness and negative politeness are mutually exclusive strategies and are ordered relative to one another and against the Wx as, respectively, (2) and (3). Our modified 164

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

Circumstances determining choice of strategy: Lesser

(1) without Few redressive action, baldly on record (2) with redressive action (positive politeness and/or negative politeness) Many (4) Don't do the FTA

Do the FTA Do the FTA

(3) off record

Greater

Wx = D(S, H) + P(H, S) + Rx Politeness increases as Distance goes up. Politeness increases as Power of H over S increases. Politeness increases as Risk of imposition goes up.
FIGURE I:

Super-strategies of politeness ordered against estimated risk of face loss (after Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), but modified as described in the text).

version(Figurei) does not makethese claimsbut substitutesa single superstrategyof redressin which acts of positiveand negativepolitenessmay be mixed but need not be. Brown and Levinson, in their I987 review of reI985; (e.g., BaxterI984; Blum-Kulka search,discussevidenceand arguments Harris I984) favoring the modificationwe have made and concede, with "we qualifications: mayhavebeenin errorto set up the threesuper-strategies, positivepoliteness,negativepoliteness,and off recordas rankedunidimenin to (17). We ourselves deciding colsionallyto achievemutualexclusivity" have been less lapse positiveand negativepolitenessinto one super-strategy 165

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

influenced by the published empirical data, which we think unconvincing, than by the naturalistic evidence of our ears, attentive for many months to politeness in everyday conversation. Our version (Figure i) does not, incidentally, alter the Brown/Levinson treatment of (3): Do the FTA off record. The original theory does not include the "few-many" scale for (2): Do the FTA on record with redressive actions (positive politeness and/or negative politeness). Our addition here makes the claim that when an FTA is redressed, the amount of redress, the number of codable substrategies, will increase (from few to many) as the estimated risk of face loss or weightiness (Wy) increases. This is to say that redressed FTAs are not all at the same level of politeness but show a range correlated with W,, values. We have listed in Table i the i5 substrategies of positive politeness and in Table 2 the I0 substrategies of negative politeness with one or more illustrations from the tragedies of each substrategy. Tables i and 2 are based on Brown and Levinson (1978, I987), but we have omitted several levels of superordinate headings and our definitions are always selective from the original rich discussion and sometimes slightly modify the original statements. Although Brown and Levinson do not build into their model a quantity of redress ("few-many") scale, many of their examples and several incidental remarks suggest that it belongs there. "In general, the more effort S expends in face-maintaining linguistic behavior, the more S communicates his sincere desire that H's face wants be satisfied.... He may achieve this effort simply by compounding the branching means to achieve wants, or by elaborate realization of particular means, or both" (I987:93). They offer an example that includes apology, reluctance to impose, deference to H, and self-abasement: "I'm terribly sorry to bother you with a thing like this and in normal circumstances I wouldn't dream of it since I know you're very busy but I'm simply unable to do it myself" (I987:93). Our modified politeness theory retains the original formula for weightiness (Wx), but there is good reason to be doubtful about horizontal distance (D). In a general way, one can hardly doubt that P, D, and R are basic determinants of social interaction7 (see, e.g., Brown I965; Grimshaw ig80a, i98ob, I98oc), and there is experimental support for the role of P in politeness (Baxter I984; Falbo & Peplau I980; Holtgraves I986), as well as for R

(Baxter I984; Cody, McLaughlin,& SchneiderI98I; Lustig& King I980).

Studies of D (Baxter I984; Slugoski I985; Slugoski & Turnbull, in press) all suggest that it has been too simply conceptualized in politeness theory. The assumption that interactive distance can be counted on always to covary with affect (liking associated with intimacy) seems to be wrong. Slugoski and Turnbull composed vignettes about Jill and Sue, members of a college faculty, who were (i) either near-strangers or collaborators in teaching a course for the past io years and who (2) either liked one another a great deal or disliked one another a great deal. Subjects read vignettes that 166

TABLE i.

of Substrategies positive politeness

1. Notice admirable qualities, possessions, etc. First Senator: Adieu, brave Moor. (Othello, I, iii, 286) Desdemona: Alas, thrice-gentle Cassio. (Othello, III, iv, 122) 2. Exaggerate sympathy, approval, etc. Goneril (to King Lear): A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable: Beyond all manner of so much I love you. (I, i, 62-63) Regan (to King Lear): And find I am alone felicitate In your dear Highness' love. (I, i, 77-78) 3. Intensify the interest of the hearer in the speaker's contribution. Othello (to the Duke and others): And of the Cannibals that each other eat, The Anthropophagi, and men whose heads Grew beneath their shoulders. (I, iii, 142-144) 4. Use in-group identity markers in speech. Hamlet (to Horatio): Sir, my good friend, I'll change that name with you. (I, ii, 163) 5. Seek agreement in safe topics. Edgar (to Edmund): How now, brother Edmund; what serious contemplation are you in? (King Lear, I, ii, 149-150) 6. Avoid possible disagreement by hedging your statements. Knight (to King Lear): My lord, I know not what the matter is; but to my judgment. (I, iv, 57-58) 7. Assert common ground. King (to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of themselves and Hamlet): I entreat you both That, being of so young days brought up with him, And sith so neighbored to his youth and havior. (II, ii, 10-12) 8. Joke to put the hearer at ease. Macduff (to porter): Was it so late, friend, ere you went to bed, That you do lie so late? (Macbeth, II, iii, 23-24) 9. Assert knowledge of the hearer's wants and indicate you are taking account of them. Regan (to Oswald of himself and Goneril): I know you are of her bosom. (King Lear, IV, v, 26) 10. Offer, promise. Regan (to Oswald): I'll love thee much, Let me unseal the letter. (King Lear, IV, v, 21-22) 11. Be optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants, that the FTA is slight. Desdemona (to Othello of Cassio): How now, my lord? I have been talking with a suitor here, A man that languishes in your displeasure. (III, iii, 41-43) Desdemona (to Othello of Cassio): I prithee call him back. (III, iii, 51) Desdemona (to Othello of Cassio): Why, this is not a boon; 'Tis as I should entreat you wear your gloves. (III, iii, 76-77) 12. Use an inclusive form to include both speaker and hearer in the activity. Goneril (to Regan): Pray you, let's hit [agree] together; if our father carry authority with such disposition as he bears [continues in this frame of mind], this last surrender [recent abdication] of his will but offend [vex] us. (King Lear, I, i, 306-309) 13. Give reasons why speaker wants what he or she does so that it will seem reasonable to the hearer. Regan (to Edmund): Our troops set forth tomorrow: stay with us; The ways are dangerous. (King Lear, IV, v, 16-17) 14. Assert reciprocal exchange or tit for tat. Macbeth (to Banquo): If you shall cleave to my consent, when 'tis Uoin my cause when the time comes], It shall make honor for you. (II, i, 25-26) 15. Give something desired: gifts, position, sympathy, understanding. Goneril (to Edmund): Decline your head. This kiss, if it durst speak, Would stretch thy spirits up into the air. (King Lear, IV, ii, 22-23)

ROGER BROWN AND ALBERT GILMAN

TABLE 2.

Substrategies of negative politeness

1. Be conventionally indirect. Iago (to Othello): You were best go in. (I, ii, 29) Banquo: Worthy Macbeth, we stay upon your leisure [convenience]. (I, iii, 148) 2. Do not assume willingness to comply. Question, hedge. Queen (to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern): If it will please you To show us so much gentry [courtesy] and good will. (Hamlet, II, ii, 21-22) 3. Be pessimistic about ability or willingness to comply. Use the subjunctive. Osric (to Hamlet): Sweet lord, if your lordship were at leisure, I should impart a thing to you from his Majesty. (V, ii, 91-92) 4. Minimize the imposition. Edgar (to Albany): Hear me one word. (King Lear, V, i, 39) 5. Give deference. Othello (to the Duke and Venetian Senators): Most potent, grave, and reverend signiors, My very noble and approved good masters. (I, iii, 76-77) 6. Apologize. Admit the impingement, express reluctance, ask forgiveness. Ross (to Macduff): Let not your ears despise my tongue for ever, Which shall possess them with the heaviest sound That ever yet they heard. (Macbeth, IV, iii, 201-203) 7. Impersonalize the speaker and hearer. Use the passive without agent. Knight (to King Lear): your Highness is not entertained with that ceremonious affection as you were wont. (I, iv, 58-60) 8. State the FTA as an instance of a general rule to soften the offense. Gloucester (to King Lear): My dear lord, You know the fiery quality of the Duke, How unremovable and fixed he is In his own course. (II, iv, 90-93) 9. Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality. King (to Hamlet): But to persever In obstinate condolement is a course Of impious stubbornness. (I, ii, 92-94) 10. Go on record as incurring a debt. Queen (to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern): Your visitation shall receive such thanks As fits a king's remembrance. (Hamlet, II, ii, 25-26) Source: After Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), but much modified.

combined interaction and feeling in various ways and judged how given remarks by one young woman (e.g., a literal insult or a literal compliment) would be interpreted by the other. The important general finding is that distance and affect had to be treated separately and, for the problems presented, affect was the more important variable by far. We leave the Brown/ Levinson formula as they presented it but expect to find that our results call for a revision of D. From Macbeth we have had an example of super-strategy (i), and that is Macbeth's on record, unredressed command to his servant. From the same play we have had an example of super-strategy(2), which included both positive politeness and several kinds of negative politeness, and that was the messenger's advice to Lady Macduff. Strategy (3): Do the FTA off record, 168

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

may be looked for in circumstances wherethe estimationof riskis veryhigh - almost high enough to forbid doing the FTA at all. lago, in II, iii, of The Othello,is in just suchcircumstances. intrinsically comface-threatening municationhe has in mind is telling Othello (falsely) that Desdemonaand the honorable Cassioare secretlovers.This act wouldthreatenOthello'spositive face since it would besmirchthe two people closest to his heartand by implication himself- a cuckoldedMoor. The threat(Rx)is extremeand the power of the hearer(Othello)over the speaker(lago) is great. No amount of redressivepolitenesswould make it possibleto speak on record. The point in going off record(strategy is to communicate intention (3)) an with enoughambiguityso that you cannotbe held strictlyaccountable.The Brown/Levinsontreatment(unmodifiedby us) is elegant. Since the hearer must interpret whathe hears,mustgo from whatis saidto somethinghinted at, theremust be a triggerto alerthim to do morethan the usualamountof interpretive work. What should the triggerbe? Some violation, the theory proposes, of the Griceanmaximsof cooperativeconversation.The speaker must say too little - or too much - must say somethingnot clearlyrelevant, must be vague or self-contradictory. triggeris a signal to look for what A speech act theory calls an implicatureor inference, somethingimplied by what has been said, together with the situation and the personalities involved.
Act III, Scene iii, lines 35-40

Iago: Ha! I like not that. (Ellipsisviolatingthe maxim of quantity) Othello: What dost thou say? (Registering violation) the Iago: Nothing,my lord;or if - I knownot what. (Vague,contradictory, and elliptical,violatingthe maximsof quality,quantity,and manner) Othello: Was not that Cassio partedfrom my wife? Iago: Cassio, my lord? No, sure, I cannot think it That he would steal away so guilty-like, Seeingyour coming. (Hint, violatingthe maxim of relevance) Finally, there is strategy(4): Don't do the FTA, which is the strategyto adopt when the risk of speakingis prohibitivelygreat. One might think it impossibleto providean examplesinceit is necessary know not only that to was something not said but that it was thoughtand suppressed. Thisis where
the psychological soliloquies in Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello

are of inestimable help. Hamlet, in I, ii, is askedby his uncle and now stepfather:"How is it that the clouds still hang on you?"and he answers:"Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun."For an attentiveand well-prepared audience, Hamlet'sresponseis off record. We can infer the meaning:too much in royal favor, with a pun on son. The king makesno responseto the speechand it is fair to supposethat it eitherseemedirrelevant unwiseto or 169

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

acknowledge. When Hamlet's mother, the queen, urges "cast thy nighted color off," Hamlet speaks only of the intensity of his grief. From what he says to them, Claudius and Gertrude could not infer his thought: 0, most wicked speed, to post With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! (I, ii, 156-157) which is expressed in the soliloquy that immediately follows upon their exit, and which ends: But break my heart, for I must hold my tongue. (I, ii, That is strategy (4): Don't do the FTA.
THE FOUR PLAYS

159)

Brown and Levinson (1978, I987) developed politeness theory with continual reference not only to British and American English, but also to Tamil and Mayan Tzeltal and occasional reference to several other languages. It cannot be said that they tested their theory on any language but, rather, that they paid attention to a variety of languages in their constructivist task so as to have a good idea what things might be universal and what things were likely to be culture specific. In this article we extend the theory to Early Modern English (1500-1700) and, to a limited extent, even test the theory against this "new" language. Why use Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello as the corpus for a study of politeness in Early Modern English? Or - to put a prior question - why use plays? Primarily because there is nothing else. There are letters, but letters cannot inform us about the colloquial spoken language. The only possible source is "the language written to be uttered as though spontaneously arising from a given situation which we find in dramatic texts." Salmon (I987:265) said that in justifying her use of plays to work out the sentence structuresof colloquial Elizabethan English. If it is granted that plays are the only possible source, the question is whether it is wise to use plays by William Shakespeare. Salmon did use them and her argument was: "the more skilful the dramatist the more skilful he will be, if presenting the normal life of his time, in authenticating the action by an acceptable version of contemporary speech" (I987:265). The word skilful points us toward Shakespeare, and authorities (e.g., Blake I983; Hulme I962) are agreed that what made his Early Modern English special was skill or genius rather than the use of constructions not shared with his contemporaries. Still, one would hardly claim that Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello constitute a representative sample. We claim, instead, that for a study of politeness theory, they are just about ideal. Politeness theory is a very psychological theory that cannot be tested with 170

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

a speaker's words alone; it is sometimes necessary to know unspoken at (4)) thoughts.If an FTA is too riskyto be expressed all (super-strategy or off (3)), so riskythat it can only be expressed record(super-strategy an outinnerlife. sidercannotknow whatis going on withoutaccessto the speaker's And in the four major tragedies,Shakespeare providessuch access. England,interestin psychologywas high and Elizabethan In Elizabethan dramatistsdeveloped techniques for exploring psychology, especiallythe in plays, usedthe soliloquyprinsoliloquyand aside. Shakespeare, his earlier cipally for exposition. As a techniquefor revealingtrue feelings and intentruthand subtletyin Hamlet tions, he broughtit to a level of incomparable and Macbeth.In Othello, lago has greatsoliloquiesbut Othellohas, strictly speaking- which means alone on stage - just one. Instead, Othello speaks indicatesby one of his innerthoughtsin the presence othersand Shakespeare means and another, includingan incoherenttelegraphicsyntax that might but pass for the languageof thoughtitself, that the othersare not addressed In disregarded. King Lear, Edmundkeeps us advisedof his Machiavellian plans in soliloquy. Learhimselfdoes not soliloquize,in the strictsense, but sometimesspeaksin half-madunconcernfor hearers,and his Fool "serves flashes, as it were, readto some extent as a screenon which Shakespeare ings from the psychiclife of the protagonist"(Mack I963:206). and The periodof EarlyModernEnglish,the periodof Elizabethan Jacobean England,is a good period for the study of politeness.Ascribedstatus was still the basis of social structureand there were elaborate politeness of aristocracy. addition,however,the In ritualsfor eachgradation hereditary social mobilityand has periodfrom 1540 to I640 was a periodof increasing magbeen characterized Stone as "a seismicupheavalof unprecedented by
nitude" (I966:48). There was a great scramble to achieve position in a noble

court and greatuneasinessamong the nobilityat this pressurefrom below. Ambitionand insecuritycreateda heightenedconcernfor the signs of true gentility,verbaland nonverbalpoliteness.And a specialgenreof literature for came into being;courtesybooks, whichwereguidesto advancement the lowly and assurancesof superiorityfor the lordly (Whigham1984). Altogether, then, it seems an interestingtime for a theory of politeness with claims on universality. Shakespeare'sfour major tragedies were written in the middle of this period, from 1540 to I640, and in them we find the whole rangeof his socipainted,as Bradleysays, "withentirefidelity" ety and of humanexperience a The playsrepresent social span from greatkingsthroughall the (1905:25). as levelsof court societyto the gentryand the lowliestof the "ungentle" well and as a familialspanthat includesparents,adultoffspring,married unmarried, and even children.Thereare a good numberof have-notsaspiringto high station. Edmundin King Lear is the bastardson of the Earl of Glousoldierwho has been passedover for promocester;lago is an experienced 171

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

tion; Othello is a Moor who has won the daughterof a VenetianSenator; and even Claudiusin Hamlet is a youngerbrother.Thereare two plotting Machiavels, lago and Edmund,whoseschemesand truefeelingscan only be expressedin soliloquy. There is an inept courtier, Osric in Hamlet, who he might have becomethe caricature is from too much readingof courtesy books. The four tragedies,in sum, seemideal for our purposesbecausethey versionsof colloquialspeechin conjunction with subtleand true are "skilful" of over a wide span of society in a representations innerlife for characters historicalperiod of exceptionalinterestfor politenesstheory. The tragediesare writtenin a combinationof verseand prose. The norm in these plays is clearlyblank verse, and the authoritativefigures - kings, nobility, leaders- use it mainly. But these same characterssometimesuse prose, and lower-classcharacterssometimesspeak verse. Hamlet speaks prose to everyonebut Horatio, the Ghost, and his motherin her closet; his soliloquiesare verse. Opheliain her madnessspeaksprose, except for dogspeaks both prose and verse. Salmon gerel verse; Lear in his "madness" the rulesof colloquialspeech (I987), becauseshe was tryingto reconstruct from dramatic texts, confinedher studyto the prosespeeches.Burton(I973), in becauseshe was interestedin the expressionof character syntax, a stylistic topic, used only the blankverse. We, becausewe are concernedwith the phenomena character and creation,haveusedboth wholerangeof politeness prose and verse, the full text. Thereis one majorrisk in this procedureand we have tried to allow for it: The metricalaspect of verse might influence lexical choices (e.g., an optional do auxiliary,an elided word), and these choices must not be mistakenfor politenessphenomena.
METHOD

The Shakespeareanon the team (Gilman) concentratedon readings of speeches, scenes, and entireplays in the criticalliteratureand in available the film and stage productions.Gilmanalso workedat determining politeness valuesof titles,salutations, indirect and found in Shakespeare's requests English, but not in contemporaryAmerican English. With which noble
ranks, for instance, are the titles my lord, your Grace and my dread lord

associated?What are the uses of singularthou andye? What of dame and madam,sir and sirrah?In the tragedies,thereare indirectrequestformsnot heardtoday. Can they be rankedin politeness,that is, in the degreeto which tools for answering thesequestions The they soften the imperative? principal are Shakespeare glossaries,e.g., Onions (I986) and the HarvardConcordance to Shakespeare (Spevack1973), and linguisticdescriptionsof Early ModernEnglishgenerally(e.g., Abbott 1925; Barber1976; Poutsma 1914) or of Shakespeare's English specifically (e.g., Blake I983; Burton I973;
Doran 1976; Hulme
I962;

Joseph I966; Quirk I987; Salmon

I987).

The psycholinguist the team (Brown),in an effort to improveupon the on 172

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

usual method of selective quotation, searched the plays for politenessof The difference relevantcontentunderthe discipline an explicitprocedure. in politenessin the two speechesfrom Macbeth quoted at the start of this to variablebecause,in the articlecannotbe attributed any singleweightiness dyadsinvolved,P, D, and R varytogetherin definingthe messenger-to-Lady FTA. To test politeness Macduffas the riskier theory,the effect of each variable in isolation neededto be known. The plan was to find pairsof speechesinvolvingthe same two characters such that the relationship betweenthe characters would be the same on the occasions of the two speecheswith respectto two out of three weightiness variables(P, D, and R) but clearlydifferenton the third. Politenesstheory as makesexplicitpredictions to the effect of each weightiness variableon the relativepolitenesslevels of such pairedspeeches.If, therefore,the speeches are scoredfor politeness,it would seemto be possibleto make an empirical test of the theory. Psychologistswould call the methodquasi-experimental; it for linguistsand some ethnographers, is a searchfor contrasts.The logic is unimpeachable, in practiceit provedimpossibleto make all the scorbut ings objectiveand independent.Still, a good-faith effort was made and so the methodwill be describedin detail and the resultsreported,but we shall not take any numbers seriously to reporttests of statistical so as significance. In orderto find speechesthat may be regardedas minimalcontrastsand scorethem for politeness,a performance the text mustbe created- in the of mind of the personscoring.It follows that the intonationor expressive quality of a line, as the scorerimaginesit, mightbe otherwiseexecutedin some actual performanceand with a differencerelevantto politeness. There is no escapingthe epistemologicalposition since only a performancecan be of scored.However,the primedeterminant any performance the text itself is and so imaginedperformances, withina giventime and tradition,shouldbe much alike. Sincethe occasionfor politeness(in the Brown/Levinson theory)is always and only a face-threatening attentionis limitedto these. Thereare many act, kinds of FTA, both positive and negative,but some are rare and some are difficultto identify.Of the FTAs that threatennegativeface, the most common and the easiest to identify are directives - including commands, requests,and advice. Directivesare defined as speechesintendedto induce the hearer take some action.Of FTAsthat threaten to positiveface, the most frequentand most easilyidentifiedare criticisms, and insults,disagreements, corrections.PositiveFTAs alwaysthreatento damage,directlyor indirectly, the hearer'sself-esteem.With attentionlimitedto just the obvious and frequent FTAs, one proceedsa step at a time. i. In each play for each pairof characters, recordthe first FTA - either or negative.In King Lear for the Duke of Albanyand Edgar, positive the son of the Earl of Gloucester,in disguise, that would be 173

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

Edgar: If e'er your Gracehad speechwith man so poor, Hear me one word. (V, i, 38-39) The lengthof the FTA, the amountof text recorded,is definedas all the text necessaryto specify the FTA plus all continuousantecedent and subsequenttext that does not belong to a new speech act. 2. Code the FTA for the threevariables definingits intrinsic weightiness: P, D, and R. Power was coded as equal or as hearerhigher than speaker,or as speakerhigherthan hearer.The Duke of Albany has a muchhigherstationthan the disguisedEdgarand so the value of P in the exampleis hearerhigher.Distancewas simplycoded as high or low and since Albany and Edgarwere little acquainted,the value of D was low. The intrinsicextremity (Rx)of the FTA was coded as low (routine),moderate,or high. A requestto be heardwould be but a slight imposition, and so Rx was coded low. 3. Scorethe total speechfor politeness.This is done by first identifying the super-strategy employed,and in the present casethat wouldbe (2): On recordwith redressiveaction. When the super-strategy involves redressive action, the speechis scoredfurtherby assigningone point for each instanceof any of the 15 substrategies positivepoliteness of and one point for each instanceof the io substrategies negative of politenessand totalingthe points. For two negativepolitenessstrategies involving deference,
(i)

and (5), a wider scoring range was used:

from - i to +2. This decisionis explainedlater. In Edgar'sspeech, thereare four instancesof negativepolitenessredressing request. the
The request itself is indirect
(i);

"Your Grace" gives deference (5);

"man so poor" is self-abasing(5); and "one word" minimizesthe imposition(4). So we have super-strategy with a politenessredress (2) score of +4. 4. Search for a second FTA involvingthe same two charactersas the first (e.g., Edgarand Albany) such that the two FTAs are matched with respectto two out of threeof the variables:P, D, R. This kind of near-match often appears verynearthe firstspeechbut it neednot; the near-match may be widelyseparatedin the play as, often, when two characters who are friendlyat the start (low D) fall out later on (e.g., Hamlet with Rosencrantzand Guildenstern).In the present example,the second FTA is immediatelyresponsiveto the first:
Albany: Speak. (V, i, 39)

Distance (D) and extremity(R) are unchangedbut since it is now Albany who speaks, the P value for the hearer(Edgar)is now lower than the valuefor the speaker.The politeness is super-strategy (i): On 174

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

'S TRAGEDIES

recordwithoutredressive action. The command"Speak" says all and intention.Politeto the only whatis necessary communicate speaker's ness theory predictsthat, for two FTAs matchedwith respectto D and R but not P, the speech from the lower to the higherwill be the more polite. Edgar is much more polite than Albany and so this examplecounts as one confirmingcase for politenesstheory. Passagesmatchedwith respectto everythingbut P are more frequentin the playsthan criticalpairsthat isolateD or R for the reasonthat a contrast in P often involvesonly a switchin the personsspeakingand hearing.However, clear cases of the other sorts are numerousenough to test politeness for theorypredictions distance(D) and extremity (R). Examplesof D and R contrastsare presentedin the section called Results.
DEFERENCE IN SHAKESPEAREAN ENGLISH

Two strategies negativepoliteness,(i) and (5), involvegivingdeferenceto of the hearer. Explicit acknowledgmentof the higher power of the hearer serves,Brownand Levinsonreason,to soften the impositionof a requestby expressing speaker's the reluctance makeit and by assuring hearerthat to the coercionis out of the question. For the Elizabethans,expressionof proper deferencein conversationwas a vital concern, subtle, complex, and neverending, and so it is also in the four tragedies.It was accomplishedthen, as now, in two ways: forms of address,includingtitles (5), and the formulation of requestsin conventionallyindirectways (i). The forms of address availableto Elizabethans well as the typesof indirectrequestwerenot the as same as those employedin Englishtoday and so it is necessaryto discuss them briefly. In addition,the scoringof just these two substrategies departs from the usual zero or + I. Becauseexpressionsof deferenceare especially importantand diverse, we scored them from -I to +2. Names and titles In the four tragedies,more than ioo different forms of addressare used, aside from Christiannamesand pronouns.Thereare nameswith honorific adjectives:valiantOthello, worthyMacbeth,good Hamlet, good Iago, and so on. There are unadornedtitles: general, captain, sir, madam, my lord, your Grace, your Majesty. There are adorned titles, that is, titles with honorificadjectives:good my lord, gentle lady, my dreadlord, sweet lord, good my liege. In scoringspeechesfor politenesssubstrategy Give defer(5): ence, we treatthe namealone (e.g., Desdemona,Iago, Macbeth,Laertes)as the neutrallevel, scoringno points for deference.We treatunadornedtitles (e.g., sir, madam, my lord, signior, your Grace) and names with one honorificadjective (e.g., worthy Montano,good Hamlet)the sameway:Any such scoresone point for deference.Titlesadornedwith honorificadjectives (e.g., my dreadlord, good your Grace,good madam,etc.) scoretwo points. 175

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

In assigning point for any singledeferential one termand two pointsfor two terms, we are following Brownand Levinson'sreasonablesuggestionthat "thegreaterthe numberof compatibleoutputsthe speakeruses the greater the politenesshe may be presumedto intend"(I987:143). In determining what should count as honorific, we are guidedby studiesof Shakespeare's language(e.g., Brook 1976; Quirk I987; Replogle I987; Salmon I987), as well as a Shakespeare glossary(Onions I986) and the OxfordEnglishDictionary.

We could make the scoring of addressforms more differentiatedif we chose. We know, for instancethat your Graceis addressedonly to a duke
and that your Majesty, my liege, and the adjective dread were for the king

only (ReplogleI987). The scoringis, however,more sensitivethan our summarystatementindicates.For one thing, titles such as captain,general,and lieutenantonly count as deferentialwhen used by a personof lower rank. Another fine point: To addressPrince Hamlet as Hamlet is certainlynot deferential,but neitheris it neutral.Only the king, the queen, the ghost of Hamlet'sfather and Laertesat the point of death use the Christianname, and so this use was scoredone point for positivepolitenessas an instanceof strategy(4): Use in-groupidentitymarkers.Finally, there is one form that is neitherneutralnor deferentialbut usuallydepreciative that is sirrah, and said to an adultby a personof higherstatus;to a child,sirrahwas affectionate. Use of sirrah to an adult causedus to subtractone point (- i) for (5): Give deference. AnyonereadingShakespeare, especially speechesin blankverse,might the reasonably doubtthat the manytitlesand especially manyreiterations the of the sametitle to the samepersonin a singleconversation could possiblyrepresent colloquial ElizabethanEnglish. Certainly,most of the population would have had no occasionin all theirlifetimesto use the noble titles, but we countit an advantage our purposes for that the tragedies represent speech acrossthe full social rangefrom king to clown (rustic).With respectto the nobility, Replogle(I987) says that, in everydayspeech,it was the customto use first the form corresponding the highesthonor (of many)that a perto son mightclaim and that it was good mannersoccasionallyto repeator eleIn gantlyvarya titlein a singleconversation. lettersof the periodtheremight be as manyas i i forms,varyingin lengthfrom a simpleyour lordship to my honorablegood lord. And that is just the way it is in the courtsrepresented
in Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, and Othello. Pronouns of address

In ElizabethanEnglishand in Shakespeare's plays there weretwo possible to pronounsof address a singleperson:thou andyou. Thouwas the nominative case form and thee, thy/thinewereaccusative oblique)and genitive. (or Ye appearsto have been a less common, free variantof you in eitherthe 176

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

nominativeor the accusative(MulhollandI987). The importantthing is the principleor principles governingthe choice betweenthou and you as forms of addressto one person. Casual grammarssay that you was the "polite" suggeststhat the form and thou the familiarform, and that characterization two singularpronounsof addressare relevantto the presentstudy. Ordinary unemotionaluse of thou (or its variants)and you (or ye) in the was singular governed socialstation(BarberI987; Brown& GilmanI960; by Byrne I936). Upper-classspeakers said you to one another; lower-class speakerssaid thou to one another;the between-classrule was you to the upperand thou to the lower. Who countedas upperclass? Membersof the king's court, nobility generally, country gentlemen, professionals, some includedspouses(e.g., tradespeople.In the tragedies, dyadsof you exchange Othelloand Desdemona),adultbrothers(Edmundand Edgarin KingLear), adult sisters(Cordelia,Regan, and Gonerilin KingLear), parentsand adult friendsas Hamoffspring(e.g., Poloniusand Laertes),and suchgentle-born let and Horatio.The lower,or ungentle,classesincludedservants,shepherds, farmers,seamen, and lesser clergy. In the tragedies,the lower classes are messengers, murderers, and, of mainlyrepresented anonymousretainers, by in course, the two gravediggers Hamlet. Reciprocalthou was usual between you membersof the ungentleclassesand nonreciprocal upward(murderers to Macbeth)and thou downward(Macbethto murderers). The status (or power) rule will not account for all uses of thou and you singular. It is necessaryto add an expressivecorollarysuch as: "In cases whereyou is expected,the occurrenceof thou indicatesthat the speakeris This amountsto makingyou the unmarked default or aroused." emotionally form and thou a form markedfor affect (MulhollandI987). Malcolm (in Macbeth)addresses Macduffwithyou, the properform for a Scottishthane, until an emotionalmomentin Act IV whenMalcolmsays: "ButGod above deal betweenthee and me" (IV, iii, I20-12i). The emotionsin this case are positive: gratitude and affection. Emilia, Desdemona's confidante, has Othelloas you and does so still in the confrontation the of alwaysaddressed last scene until he says that he has killed Desdemonaand that she was a whore.Then:"Thoudost belie her, and thou art a devil"(V, ii, 132). In this case, the emotions are negative:fury and contempt. Love or affection and shifts. angeror contemptare the emotionsthat accountfor most expressive that Englishthou andyou in Shakespeare's time Jespersen (1972) believed were more often shifted to expressmood and tone than were the cognate pronounsin continentallanguages,and that was certainlytrue for French and Germanand possiblyfor all. In Frenchand German,then as today, the by power and status rule was supplemented a rule of solidarity(Brown& who are close to one GilmanI960) or affectionateintimacy.Two individuals or anotherin the sense of intimacyor camaraderie just kinshipwill reciprocally exchangea T-type pronoun(of which thou is one), whereastwo rela177

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

tively unfamiliar individuals will exchange a V-type pronoun (of which you is one). A relationship between adult strangers that begins as a reciprocal exchange of V may with time, and the discovery of mutual interests and liking or affection, progress to a reciprocal exchange of T. This is true for very many languages, and the progression from V to T on the basis of positive feelings resembles the expressive use of thou (for positive feelings) where you would be expected in Elizabethan and ShakespeareanEnglish. There is, however, an important difference. When two speakers of French or German or whatever language advance to mutual-T, they will never again say V to one another or will do so only to sunder the relationship. The expressive thou works differently. Malcolm (in Macbeth), when the emotional moment has passed, resumes saying you to Macduff and there had been no falling out between the two of them. The identifying feature of an expressively affectionate pronominal shift, as opposed to a relational shift to intimacy, is easy retractibility. There are some good examples in the four tragedies. Hamlet, on first meeting and for a short time afterward, addresses Horatio as you. Later on: Hamlet: Give me that man That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him In my heart's core, ay in my heart of heart, As I do thee. (III, ii, 73-76) In a less confidential mood, Hamlet returns to you and still later it is thou again. Hamlet also moves back and forth between you and thou in his address to Ophelia, as does Macbeth to his lady and Othello to Desdemona. This kind of easy expressive shift, apparently responsive to fleeting moods, is, so far as we can tell, very unusual among world languages.8 The status rule and the expressive rule in combination and very sympathetically applied still cannot explain all instances of thou and you in Shakespeare or even in just the four tragedies (Barber I987; Byrne 1936). For example, the two gravediggers in Hamlet, V, i, mostly say thou to one another but each also says you once and, indeed, there is a shift within a single speech. Someone really devoted to the principle that "motive-less anything is un-Shakespearean"(Kittredge I9I6:49) could perhaps think of subtle gravediggerly moods that would explain these shifts, but that does not seem to be the right way to go. We think it wiser to assume that a simple pair involves a simple contrast (in this case, distance) and assign complications to context.9 One form (thou) always expresses less distance, the other (you) more, in relation to each other, but, in context, there are many uses we cannot explicitly account for. The fine tuning of thou and you in Shakespeareis analogous to something we fine tune in English today: the definite and indefinite articles the and a. We can explain the basic semantic contrast and illustrate it with clear cases, 178

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

but thereis also a largeresidueof cases on whichnative speakersagreebut which no one can explainto a non-native- to, for instance, a speakerof Japanese.Shakespeare surelyused thou andyou with a confidentintuition that mirrored generalElizabethan usage, but it is not alwayspossibleto say what the distancecontrastis doing in a given case. Thouandyou are not veryimportant scoringspeechfor politeness.This in is partly because there are quite a few shifts that we cannot confidently account for and it is partlybecause,in many of the clear cases that follow the status rule, the pronoun of address, an obligatoryaspect of speech, is automaticand ever-present and so does not function to redressan FTA. What we are left with is a small numberof unusualuses and shifts that can be confidentlyinterpreted. isolatedthou of contemptscores - I; an isoAn lated deferential scores+ i for negativepoliteness;and an isolatedthou you of affectionscores+ i for positivepoliteness(strategy Use in-groupiden(4): tity markers). Fromthis scoringit is necessary excludeall speechesto and to from nonnaturalbeings (e.g., ghosts, apparitions,witches)as the practice was invariablyto employ thou. Indirectrequests Thereare good studiesof the forms and uses of the imperativein Elizabethan English (Poutsma 1914; Salmon I987) and in Shakespeare(Abbott 1925; Burton 1973; Doran I976; Hulme I962; Hussey I982; Joseph I966; Quirk I987), but we have found no discussionthat separatesthe grammatical imperativefrom directivespeech acts and so no discussionof politely indirectrequests. These turn out to be, at least in the tragedies, of high interestfor speech act theory. Brownand Levinson(followingGordon& Lakoff 197I; Labov& Fanshel 1977; Sadock 1974) show that politeindirect requests be derivedin a syscan tematicway from the simpleimperativeand claim: "Mostof these ways of makingindirectspeechacts appearto be universalor at least independently developedin many languages" (I987:136). The indirectrequestsof the four tragedies constitutean excellenttest of the claimbecausethe common forms are not the same as those in Englishtoday and yet they are near enough to us so that we can have good intuitionsabout their meanings. Considerthe simpleimperative: Shut the door. It threatensto impose on the hearer's negativeface and, whenexpressed thus baldlyand on record,the threatis evident.Englishtoday is richin circumlocutious alternatives: Could you shut the door? Willyou shut the door? Is the door open again?I wish you wouldshut the door. Grammatically, these alternativesare not imperatives; they are syntacticinterrogatives declaratives. or The paradigmatic directfunction of imperativesyntaxis to commandor requestand the directfunctionof interrogative syntaxis to questionand the direct function of declarativesyntax is to assert. Each syntactictype has, 179

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

however,other possibleuses, indirectuses, and so functionsor speechacts from syntactictypes. When this distinctionis made, must be distinguished it turns out that the requestor directivespeech act can be unambiguously diverseways. Thereis no doubtthat the speaker's madein manysyntactically intentionis clearwhenshe says:Couldyou shut the door?since Yes directive or No, which are answersresponsiveto the grammar,would be eitherrude or a joke. Thereis similarlyno doubt of the intentionbehind the declaraare tive I wishthe door wereshut sinceDo you? or That'sinteresting understood to be playful. Evenvery young childrendo not makemistakesof this kind. Indirectrequestsin Englishtoday, in Tamil,Tzeltal,Malagasy,and other languagesare constructedin a principledway. The simpleimperativeShut its the door will not accomplish purposeunlesscertaincontextualrequisites are satisfied:(i) the hearershould be able to shut the door; (2) the hearer should be willingto shut the door; (3) the door shouldnot be alreadyshut; wantthe hearerto shut the door; and so on. (4) the speakershouldsincerely If suchcircumstances satisfied,then the worldis readyfor Shut the door are that to have its intendedeffect. The circumstances comprisea happysetting for Shut the door are called felicity conditions (Searle I969; after Austin are I962). Indirectrequestsmore polite than the imperative constructedby questioninga felicityconditionor callingattentionto a felicityconditionby assertingit. Could you shut the door? questionsthe hearer'sability to comply and Wouldyou shut the door? questionsthe hearer'swillingness.Is the door in open again?asks abouta necessary precondition the worldand I wishyou would shut the door asserts what the speakerwants. All polite forms by questioningor calling attention to a felicity condition seem to leave the heareran out. Perhaps,after all, he or she simplycannot shut the door or has a fixed objectionto doing so or finds the door alreadyshut or doubts that the speakerreallywants to have the door shut. There seems to be a contradictionin the argument.Many indirect(not interpretaimperative)requestsare, in situationalcontext, unambiguously ble as requestsand neverrespondedto as anythingbut requests.What can it mean, therefore,to say that by callingattentionto felicityconditionsthey the leavethe heareran out? It is the literalmeanings, grammatical meanings, that do that, but the literal meaningscannot do that unless the heareron some level takes them in. Thereis now good evidence(Clark& Lucy 1975; Clark& SchunkI980) that hearersprocessboth the literalmeaningand the directiveor speech act meaning. It is clear why the directivemeaning is to the needed;it identifies response be made.Why is the literalmeaningprocessed? It adds the politeness. In English today, indirectrequestsvary greatlyin how much politeness that they convey.Brownand Levinsonmakethe generalsuggestion the more 180

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

elaboratedthe requestis, the more polite it is, but this principledoes not make fine distinctions.Stanfordpsychologists Clarkand Schunk(I980) had subjectsrate the politenessof 54 requestsof i8 types. The speechact meaning was the same in all: "Tellme whereJordanHall is," but there were 54 varietiesof literal meaningor politeness. The form rated most polite was "MightI ask you whereJordanHall is?" - a requestfor permission. Least polite was "Shouldn'tyou tell me where JordanHall is?" - a statementof unexplainedobligation. Fraserand Nolen (I98I) asked native speakersto rate for deference,ratherthan politeness,some 25 requestswith the generic speech act meaning"Do that." Most deferentialwas: "I'd appreciateit if "Youhave to do that." It is worthnotyou'd do that"and least deferential: ing that "MightI ask?"and "Shouldn't you?" and "You have to" all question or assertfelicityconditionsin the hearer:permission obligation."I'd or appreciateit," by contrast, assertsthe sincerityof the speaker'swish. All forms used are derivablefrom felicity conditions. The world of Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, and King Lear is far from Jordan Hall. In the tragedies, indirectrequests suchphrasesas: I do beseech use you, I entreatyou, I pray you, Pray you, Prithee, I do require that, So " pleaseyour Majesty,If you willgive me leave, and "Getthee to a nunnery. Completelyabsentfrom the tragediesare the polite forms most often heard such as Could you and Wouldyou. today, the subjunctiveinterrogatives They werenot inventeduntil the igth century(Millward,personalcommunication). If I do beseechyou tell me whereJordanHall is sounds odd, so do Couldyou wakethe king?and Would you a littledisquantity your train? In spite of the surfacedifferences,however,Shakespeare's indirectrequests as are createdon the same principles the indirectrequestsof Englishtoday, and these principlesmay be universal. sincerewish that the One largeset of indirect requestsassertsthe speaker's hearerdo X and that is a major felicityconditionfor the directimperative: Do X. I beseechyou, I pray you, Prithee, I would that, I requirethat, and so on, though they vary in the amount of deferenceshown the hearer,all essentiallysay: "Speakersincerelywants hearerto do X." Also includedin this firstclassis a collectionof whatBurton(I973) calls optativeimperatives, such as, from the tragedies:"Let not light see my black and deep desires" (Macbeth,I, v, 5i); "O that this too too sulliedflesh would melt"(Hamlet, I, ii, 129); "Mayhis pernicioussoul/Rot half a grain a day!" (Othello, V, ii, 152-153). Optativein grammarmeans expressiveof wish or desire, and wish. Whetherthe operativeword assertsa speaker's an optativeimperative is may or let or that, the sense is alwaysthe same and, except for the levels of deferenceexpressed,equivalentto "I would that X be done." Thereis a secondlargeclass of indirectrequestsin the tragediesand these concerna felicity conditionin the hearer.They ask not whetherthe hearer could or woulddo something,but ratherif the heareris willing,seesfit, or 181

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

is pleased to do something.It comes to the samething. Unlessthe heareris willingor seesfit or is pleased to or could or woulddo X, then a requestto do X will not work;willingnesson the part of the heareris a felicitycondiand tion for the directimperative askingabout such willingnessis a way of that the modernparsayingDo X indirectly.It is, incidentally,interesting ent's magicwordplease did not exist in the 17th century,but such forms as If it please you and May it please you did, and it is from these phrases, which had the same magical function, that the word in isolation derives (Millward,personalcommunication). Even a very incomplete analysis of the forms of indirect request in of adds a little somethingto our understanding the plays. ConShakespeare his siderthe scenein Act I of KingLearwhenthe king requires threedaughof ters to make competitiveprotestations love. To Goneril,his eldestborn, and he uses the simpleimperative "Speak," he saysthe sameto Regan.However,to Cordelia,"ourjoy, althoughour last and least,"he firstasks:"What can you say to drawa thirdmoreopulentthanyoursisters?" And, only then: The "Speak." question"Whatcan you say?"is only grammatically interrogative. As a speechact it is a directiveor commandhavingthe exact sense of the subsequentimperative "Speak."The questionasks about a felicityconIs dition on speaking-so-as-to-win-a-more-opulent-third.there something that can be said and if so, what? In inquiringabout a felicity condition, it becomesan indirector polite request.To respondnot to the requestbut to the literal meaningof the questionwith "Nothing,my lord" is shockingly rude- a bit like askingsomeone:"Is thereany salt down there?" receivand ing as your only response:"Yes."The king reflectsthe shock with "Nothing?"And "Nothingwill come of nothing."Everyonereadingor seeingthe play feels the shock. The causeof the shock is Cordelia's choosingto speak as if she did not understandwhat every child understandsabout indirect requests.It demonstrates beyondan inabilityto "heaveup my heartinto my to mouth"an unwillingness do so and anger at the foolish game the king would have them play. In additionto the two kindsof polite requestbasedon felicityconditions, the tragediesincludemany simpleimperatives (Go, Come, etc.) and many followedby the 2nd personsubject(Go you, Retirethee, simpleimperatives
Take thou). Barber (1976), Poutsma
(1914),

and Salmon (I987) agree that

the second form is the more polite, but it is not quite clearwhichshouldbe consideredthe neutralbaseline,and we have treatedboth as neutralin that neitherscoresa point for deference.The case of the pronounin the archaic form is sometimesnominative(thou or ye) and sometimesoblique(thee or the casesis not governed you). Millward (I987) findsthat the choicebetween by age, sex, status, or any other social variable.Thereis a lot of free variation and some verb-classselection. For instance, a closed class of nine actionverbs(aroint,haste,get, hie, etc.) alwaystake thee, and so we can be 182

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

sure now, if we were not before, that Hamlet's:"Getthee to a nunnery" is not a softenedcommand.Finally,thereis what Burton(1973) calls the verbas less imperative in "Peace,Kent!"(KingLear), "Thystory quickly"(Macbeth), and "Peace,sirrah" (KingLear). We unhesitatingly agreewith Burton that these are not polite and not neutralbut rudely brusqueand we have scored them, like sirrah, among forms of address,as -I. We cannot, as Clark and Schunk (I980) did and as Fraser and Nolen (I98I) did, ask nativespeakers rateEarlyModern to Englishindirectrequests in termsof politenessor deference.However,the HarvardConcordanceto Shakespeare (SpevackI973) offered anotherpossibility.Enteringthe book with, for instance,the word beseechand startingat an arbitrary point in the citations(whichare orderedas the plays are orderedin the First Folio), we selectedthe first one hundredentrieshavingthe sense of "I beseechsomeone to do X" and recorded formof address,if any, that co-occurred the with the requestin the entry. In the case of beseech, 40 percentof the entries included some honorific title: your Majesty, your Grace, your Highness, your lordship,my lord - downto sir and madambut not below. The remaining 6o percentof the entriesincludedno form of address.The pronounin 96 percent of the cases was you rather than thee. Enteringthe book at anotherrandompoint withpray and examining first one hundredentries the with the sense "I pray you," only io percenthave co-occurringhonorific titles and these do not go higherthan sir; the familiarpronoun thee now accounts for 17 percentof all cases. Conclusion:"I beseech you" is more deferentialthan "I pray you" and it seems to be reasonableto assign two deferencepoints for beseechyou and just one for pray you. A comparison of "I pray you" and abbreviated "Prayyou" revealsno difference, and so they are scoredthe same. "Byyourleave"accessedwith leaveand "if you please"or "so pleaseyou" accessed with please almost exactly match one another and beseech with about 40 percenthonorificaddressforms from sir to your Majesty, and so these also were scored +2. Entreatin the sense of "I entreatyou" was less deferential than beseechbut nearerbeseechthanpray, and so scored+2. "I do beseechyou"is automatically in emphatic Englishtoday and so one might think it would be more deferentialthan the phrasewithoutdo, but it is not clearlyso, usingthe Concordance on analysis.Authorities Elizabethan English agreethat the auxiliarydo did not reliablytake on an emphaticsense until laterthan the 17thcentury.We wouldnot like to havehad to scoredo forms distinctivelyfor the reason that metricalconsiderationscould affect their in occurrence blankverseand so we are glad that thereis no reasonto do so. Before makinga Concordanceanalysisof prithee, we thought the form wouldbe on a continuum withprayyou but less deferential. did not prove It to be so. The addressforms with whichpritheeco-occursare: boy, my son, daughter, good friend, fellow student, shepherd, and various Christian 183

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

names - not honorific forms at all but terms of friendship,affection, and strategy Use in-group (4): intimacy.We scoredpritheefor positivepoliteness identityterms. The can The full procedure now be summarized. four plays weresystematically searchedfor pairs of minimallycontrastingdiscoursedyads where the dimensionsof contrastwere power (P), distance(D), and the intrinsic of such a pairwas found, a paircontrastextremity the FTA (R). Whenever ing only in P or only in D or only in R, therewould be two speechesto be scored for politenessand a predictionfrom theory as to which of the two oughtto be morepolite. The stretchof speechscoredwas to be long enough to specifythe full FTA but not so long as to includemore than one speech (2), to of act. In scoringthe politeness a speech,belonging super-strategy one point (+ i) was usuallygiven for each instanceof any substrategy,positive indirect) (i) or negative.With negativepolitenessstrategy (Be conventionally the and strategy (Givedeference) scoresrangedfrom - i to +2. The total (5) politenessscorefor a speechwas the sum of its points. If the speechin a pair predictedto be higherturnedout, in fact, to be higher, that counted as a stronglyconfirminginstancefor the relevantaspectof politenesstheory. If the outcome was reversed,that counted as a strong contradiction,and if there was no differenceor a differencedifficult to score but possibly contradictory,that counted as a weak contradiction.
RESULTS

Two qualitative principles

It would not be a fair test of politenesstheoryto go blindlyinto the plays scoringeveryspeechthat met the criteriaof minimalcontrastin termsof P, D, or R. There is an overridingprinciplestated by Brown and Levinson: usage may be stated simply:in gen"Theprimereason for bald-on-record eral wheneverS wants to do the FTA with maximumefficiencymore than he wantsto satisfyH's face, even to any degree,he will choose the bald-onrecordstrategy" (I987:95). Whenwill a speakercarenothingabout protectface? This can happenwhena messageis veryurgentor when ing a hearer's it are channels noisy, but in the tragedies happensmost often communication when a speakeris in a rage and not simplyindifferentto the hearer'sface but intent on cuttingit up. in Rage. The enragedcharacter the tragediesalwaysignoresP, D, and R and proceedswith maximalefficiency. Darknessand devils! Saddlemy horses;call my train together. Degeneratebastard,I'll not troublethee. 184

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

That is King Lear to daughterGoneril (I, iv, 258-260). "Come, swear it, damn thyself"(Othello, IV, ii, 34). That is Othelloto Desdemona,and this is Roderigoto lago: "O damnedlago! 0 inhumandog!" (Othello, V, i, 62). And Hamlet to his motherin her closet: Nay, but to live In the rank sweat of an enseamedbed, Stewedin corruption,honeyingand makinglove Over the nasty sty-(III, iv, 92-95). And Macduff, his lady and little ones slain, when at last he comes upon Macbeth:"Turn,hell-hound,turn!"(V, viii, 3). We have not scored these speechesfor politeness. Speechesproducedin a rage, though dense with FTAs, are alwaysbaldly on record. Politenessis wiped out. Everythinggoes, every last substrategy - in-groupidentityterms,commonground,empathy,approval,reciprocity, indirection,hedging,deference,apology - they vanishtogether.It is important that the pieces move togethersince that is what should happenif they are partsof one system,the politenesssystem.In the tragedies,politenessis like a veil whichlifts as a whole from the contortedface beneath.That is as by it shouldbe if the detailsare all generated a singledeep concern:the feelings of others; a concernfelt no longer when enraged. Furiousspeechis not shapedby P, D, and R values. It is not off record If and not redressed. it werescoredin the usualways for politeness,it would the We contradict usualpredictions. exemptall suchspeechfrom scoringand from tests of the theory. Does this decision make the theory impossibleto with It disconfirm? would if the groundsfor exemptionwerenoncompliance the theory, but they are not. Furiousspeech is identifiedindependentlyof bastard") and its relationto politenessin termsof content(e.g., "degenerate actions(e.g., lago has just treacherously stabbedRoderigo). accompanying This is a very easy thing to do with these greatdramasbecausewhen someone is in a rage the readerknows it. of It is specifically the angerand ragethat disengage machinery politeness and not emotion generally.Desdemonadying says: "Commendme to my kind lord" (Othello, V, ii, 124). Cordelia, with pity and love, says to her father:"How does my royal lord? How fares your Majesty?"(King Lear, IV, vii, 44). It is just those emotions that entail unconcernfor the feelings of others that erase politeness. in Madness. Thereis one other major circumstance which a speakeris unconcernedwith the face needs of hearersand that is madness. In mad found speech,however,thereis not the concernfor efficientcommunication in urgentand angryspeech. Thereis reasonto expectthe feelingsof others bald but to be disregarded no reasonwhy mad speechshouldbe consistently the and on record. The disturbancegoes deeper, overthrowing maxims of 185

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

cooperative conversation (Grice 1975) which make it possible to follow strategy (i) and be maximally efficient and clear. Mad speech may be spurious (violating the maxim of quality), may be elliptical or repetitive (the maxim of quantity), may be irrelevant (the maxim of relevance), and it may be ambiguous or obscure (the maxim of manner). The madness represented in Shakespeare's tragedies is as various as the persons who are mad, and that is exactly what truth requires. Psychiatry for its purpose creates diagnostic categories but the mad are as unlike one another as the sane. The categorical difference is that the sane pay more attention more of the time to both the maxims of conversation and the requirements of politeness. Ophelia's "distraction" is manifest in a change from blank verse to prose and in doggerel songs and poems which violate all Grice's maxims and are unmaidenly to boot. Her politeness also vanishes. For three acts, Ophelia has used deferential forms in almost every speech, but Ophelia, mad, uses none at all even to the king and queen. We do not count the mad scenes as sudden failures of politeness theory but rather exclude them from scoring. Mad speech, like enraged speech, is easily identified by content and the reactions of others. Othello's "epilepsy" or "seizure" (lago's terms) in Act IV is very unlike Ophelia's distraction: Lie with her? Lie on her? - We say lie on her when they belie her. - Lie with her! Zounds, that's fulsome [foul]. - Handkerchief - confessions (IV, i, 36-39)

- handkerchief!

Ophelia in Act IV of Hamlet can be said to violate the maxims of conversation because she seems to be in conversation. We infer conversation from the fact that she takes turns speaking with the king and queen and speaks in complete sentences which are related to one another. However, each "turn" Ophelia takes is irrelevant to the "turns" taken by the king and queen and obscure as a total speech act because we cannot tell what she intends. Othello's seizure does not violate the maxims of conversation because there is no conversation. It is speech for himself. lago is physically present; so the seizure is not a soliloquy. But lago is not addressed, so his hearing of the speech does not make him a hearer whose feelings must be considered. Therefore, politeness does not come into it. The seizure is a representationof inner speech and it has the telegraphic quality that characterizes inner speech (Vygotsky I962). It is also completely sincere, serious, relevant, and clear to its only addressees - Othello and ourselves. "Reason in madness!" Edgar says of King Lear (IV, vi, 177). The Elizabethans thought any passion in extremity was akin to madness and Lear runs the gamut from rage through obsession, hysteria, and delusion to, finally, 186

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

lunacy.But alwaysthereis some reasonin his madness.Some of his speeches were excludedfrom scoringbecausethey were spoken in fury or were addressedto the elementsor to no one at all. In what is calledthe "jointstool" scene(III, vi), Learbringsto phantasy trialhis daughters Goneriland Regan to find out what stuff their heartscan be made of, and his justices are the Fool and Poor Tom. He addressesthem reverentlyas "sapient sir" and "robedman of justice." This is not a disconfirmationof politenesstheory but a world turnedupside down. Hamlet'smadnessis feigned.Poloniussays:"Though be madness,yet this there is method in't" (II, ii, 207-208). Method not reason, as was said of Lear'smadness. It is a selectivemadnessput on for the king and all who servehim but neverfor Horatio or the Players, and a madnessput on with a purpose.The "mad" speechesare off recordexpressions the accusations of he cannot make plainly. The fact that Hamlet speaks off recordwhen the face risk is great is what politenesstheory predicts.
Contrasts of power (P) alone

Two speaker-hearer FTAs are comparedfor politenessscores. The persons are of clearlydifferentpowerand they switchroles (speakerand hearer)in the comparison cases, with D and R constant.For instance,Cordeliaand the doctor exchangedirectivesin Act IV of King Lear. Doctor: So please your Majesty That we may wake the King; he hath slept long. Cordelia:Be governedby your knowledge,and proceed I' th' sway of your own will. (IV, vii, 17-20) Both speechesare polite, but Cordelia,now queenof France,has the greater power, and so politenesstheorypredictsthat the doctor will be more polite
than she; and he is. The "So please . . ." indirect request scores
+2

and

"your Majesty"scores +i for deference;in addition, there is an inclusive pronoun(we), whichscores+ I, and a reasonwhy (positivepolitenessstrategy (13)), whichscoresanotherpoint, for a total of +5. Cordelia'sresponse scores+ i becauseit expresses respectfor the doctor'sknowledge and + i for the passive voice, making a total score of +2. Stripped of redress, the speeches would reduceto: "May I waken the king?"and "Use your own judgment." As spoken, with politeness added in unequal amounts, the matchedspeechesyield a resultthat is congruentwith politenesstheory. Table 3 reportsthe numbersof congruentoutcomes, outcomes strongly to contradictory theory, and outcomesweaklycontradictory theory. An to outcomeis congruentwhenthe personwith less powerspeaksmore politely. An outcomeis stronglycontradictory whenthe personhavinggreaterpower speaks more politely. An outcome is weaklycontradictory theory when to the two persons,unequalin power,speakwith whatseemsto be equalpoliteness but might conceivablybe read as unequalpoliteness.In short, there is 187

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

TABLE 3.

Contrasts of power alone

Strongly contradictory to theoryb 3 1 1
4 3

Play Hamlet King Lear Macbeth Othello

Total

Congruent with theorya 10 18 6 16

50

Weakly contradictory to theoryc 2

aThe person with less power is more polite. bThe person with more power is more polite. cThe two persons of unequal power are equally polite. Locations in text (ordered by first citation in each matched pair) Congruent with theory Hamlet [I,ii,50-51/I,ii,62] [I,ii,67/I,ii,92-941 [I,ii,68/I,ii,76]
[1, iv,79/1, iv,801 [II, i,1-2/11, i,351 [Il, ii,95/II, ii,96]

King Lear

Macbeth Othello

[II,ii, 174/II,ii,175] [II,ii,242-243/II,ii,2521 [V,i,121/V,i,124] [V,ii,91-92/V,ii,94] [I,i,28-29/I,ii,30] [I,i,122/I,i,123] [I,ii,27/I,ii,28-29] [I,iv,41/III,ii,61-63] [I,iv,57-60/I,iv,76-77] [I,iv,99/I,iv,131] [I,iv,110-111/I,iv,113] [I,iv,195/I,iv,225-229] [II,ii,66-67,II,ii,70] [II,ii,142/II,iv,307] [II,iv,90-93/I1,iv,97] [III,vii,73-77/III,vii,79] [IV, v, 16-17/IV,iv,17-18] [IV, vi, 190-191/IV,iv,193] [IV, vi,234-235/IV, vi,238] [IV, vii,6-7/IV, vii,8-11] [IV,vii,17-18/IV, vi,19-20] [V,i,38-39/V,i,39] [I, v,63-64/I, vii,28] [III,iv,21/III,iv,32] [IV,i,137/IV,i,135] [V,i,15-16/V,i,17-18] [V,iii,33/V,v,16] [V,v,29/V,v,30-32] [I,i,5-6/I,i,35] [I,i,75/I,i,94-95] [I,ii,29/I,iii,121] [I,ii,35-37/II,iii, 1] [I,ii,59-60/I,ii,84-86] [I,iii,52/I,iii,106]
[I, iii,176/l, iii,178-1791 [Il, i,116/Il, i,117] [Il, i,160/III, iii,3]

[III,iii,31/III,iii,32-33] [IV,i,242-243/IV,i,250] [IV,ii,97/IV,ii, 101] [IV,ii,3/IV,ii,6] [V,ii,295/V,ii,296] Strongly contradictory to theory King Lear [I,i,84-88/I,i,89] [I,iv,79-80/I,iv,81] Othello [II,iii,148-149/II,iii,150-151] Weakly contradictory to theory Hamlet [I,iii,3-4/I,iii,46-51] [III,i,93/III,i,951 Macbeth [IV,ii,30-3 1/IV,ii,37]

[IV,i, 105/IV,i, 106-107]

[II,ii, 158/III, vi,87]

an element of scoring ambiguity with "contradictory"being more likely than "congruent."There are fewer outcomes for Macbeth than for the other plays because Macbeth is only about two-thirds the length of the others. Table 3 shows that the outcomes are mostly congruent with politeness theory. The preponderance is so great as to make any tests of statistical significance supererogatory. The predictions of politeness theory for the P variable are confirmed. 188

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

The numberof outcomesin Table 3 is very much smallerthan the numto in ber of speeches the playthat havesome relevance powerand politeness. An "outcome"is a minimalcontrastin P, with D and R constant. In addition, both speechesmustbe FTAs. Furthermore, only the first such minimal is contrastfor any pair of characters scored. All of these constraintsoperate so as to select the most criticallyimportantinstancesto test, but such instancesare not, in the natureof things, very numerous.With respectto power(P), and also D and R, all the relevant evidencesupports outcomes the we document. The effect of the P variablesis so consistentlyin agreementwith theory as to makeone curiousaboutthe few stronglycontradictory outcomes.One of theseis a speechKingLearaddresses Oswald,stewardto Goneril,who to is entertaining king with scant ceremonyor affection. the Lear (to Oswald):0, you, sir, you! Come you hither, sir. Who am I,
sir? (I, iv, 79-80)

Our scoringsystemallocates+ i for each deferential and we (obtusebut sir honest)assignit a total scoreof +3, whereas Oswald's replyscoresno points at all for politeness. Oswald:My lady's father. Oswald'sreply is an FTA, a threat to positive face, because identifyinga king ("Whoam I?")in termsof his relationto someoneelse is to make him an appendage;an effect not lost on Lear. Lear: "My lady's father?"My lord's knave, you whoresondog, you slave, you cur! (I, iv, 82-83) It is, of course, a mistaketo score Lear'ssirs to Oswald as deferential. Takinginto accountthe mood establishedby what has precededas well as of the extremeincongruity a king'ssayingsir to a steward,we know for sure that these sirs are not deferentialbut imperiousand challengingand that is the way an actor would pronouncethem. One other seeminglycontradictory-to-theory outcome is actuallya result of insensitivescoring. Montano, governorof Cyprus,to Cassio, Othello's lieutenant: Montano: Nay, good lieutenant!I pray you, sir, hold your hand. And Cassio in reply: Cassio: Let me go, sir, or I'll knock you o'er the mazzard[head]. (II, iii, 148-I51) The governor'sspeech is too polite and Cassio'sis not polite enough. But Cassio is drunkand that accountsfor his incivility.However, drunkenness
189

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

was overlooked in the scoring. And Montano is attempting to pacify Cassio, which accounts for the excessive politeness, but pacification also was not considered in the scoring. So, the outcome was scored as contradictory to the power relation, but it ought not to have been. The scorer ought to have imagined the lines spoken, respectively, in a pacifying and drunken manner, and the scoring system should have allowed for these possibilities. For every speech in the plays, and not just the two discussed here, the scorer supplies an intonation implied by the full text. However, on a first pass through the pairs contrasted for power, the reader actually made the mistakes discussed because of a too-exclusive attention to codable forms in the speeches as print on the page. The two instances entered in Table 3 as "strongly contradictory" would have been rescored on subsequent readings, but it was instructive for us to see them briefly as contradictions and we thought it might be so also for the reader. For most of the critical contrasts in power, the politeness difference is within super-strategy(2) and is a matter of the number of points (few-many) of redress. However, for one pair of characters the contrast, in a sequence of speeches, is between two super-strategies:(i): Do the FTA on record without redress, baldly, and (3): Do the FTA off record. The characters are the Earl of Gloucester and his younger and illegitimate son, Edmund. In I, ii, of King Lear, Gloucester, the more powerful, consistently speaks on record baldly and Edmund consistently speaks off record. This outcome is consistent with theory, but why should the difference in politeness be greater than in most other cases? It must be greater because, in the first place, the difference in power is extreme; Edmund as a younger son and bastard has no prospects unless Gloucester loves him. In addition, the FTA Edmund has in mind is to turn Gloucester against his legitimate elder son, Edgar. This is an FTA almost as risky as telling Othello, untruly, that Desdemona is Cassio's lover. The two Machiavels, lago and Edmund, not only have very similar FTAs in mind; they also go about their intrigue in similar off record ways. Edmund's true intention is to disgrace his brother and inherit everything in his place, but he dare not let this be found out. Therefore, he cannot assert on record that Edgar plans to murder Gloucester. The assertion would suggest the motive and Edmund would be undone. No amount of redressive deference and indirection would disarm suspicion. Therefore, Edmund has created false evidence even as lago did with Desdemona's handkerchief. Edmund's evidence is a forged letter purportedly written by Edgar inviting Edmund to join in a conspiracy against Gloucester's life. Much depends, however, on the manner in which this letter shall come to Gloucester. It cannot be delivered by Edmund because that would suggest deliberate intent. It must seem to be forced from him by Gloucester. The scene opens with Edmund quickly putting away a paper he has been reading. 190

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

Gloucester:What paper were you reading? Edmund:Nothing, my lord. (King Lear, I, ii,

31-32)

The answercontradicts evidentfacts and so violatesthe Griceanmaxim the of quality ("Be truthful")and functions as a triggerserving notice to the hearerthat the speaker's meaningmust be workedout by inferenceas it will not be unambiguously expressed(Brown& Levinson I987:21 I). lago activates inferencewith just the same trigger. Iago: Ha! I like not that. What dost thou say? Othello: Iago: Nothing, my lord. (III, iii, 35-36) hint:Edmundhad hastilyput the With the triggertherecame a nonverbal letter away as Gloucesterapproached.A hint violates the relevancemaxim and so, of course: Gloucester:No? What neededthen that terribledispatchof it into your pocket?The qualityof nothinghath not such need to hide itself. (King
Lear, I, ii, 33-35)

GloucestercommandsEdmundto give up the letter and believes what he reads. Once Gloucesterhas been worked into a passion of indignation, Edmundadroitlypivots and pleadswith him to be temperate.Edmundthen becomeshis brother'sseemingadvocateand advisesGloucesterto suspend judgmentuntilhe has betterevidence:"I will placeyou whereyou shallhear us confer of this, and by an auricularassurance[proof heardby your own when it comes ears] have your satisfaction"(I, ii, 97-99). The "assurance" in II, i, has been rigged. lago's deceptionof Othello is a longer sustained,much elaborated,and of but subtlerprocessthan Edmund's deception Gloucester, the majormoves After the clear are so similaras to suggesta rhetoricmanualfor Machiavels. that initiatesthe inferential processcomes a succesviolationof truthfulness sion of hints to help inferencealong and then, when the deceivedman has been workedinto a passion, the beautifulpivot: Iago: 0, bewaremy lord, of jealousy! It is the green-eyedmonster, which doth mock The meat it feeds on. (III, iii, I65-I67) And eventuallythe test: Do but encave [hide]yourself Iago: looks or speeches],the gibes, and notable And markthe fleers[mocking scorns That dwell in every region of his face. (IV, i, 83-85) lago's test, like Edmund's,is rigged.
191

ROGER BROWN AND ALBERT GILMAN TABLE 4.

as Contrastsof distancealone with distanceinterpreted affect

Congruent with theorya Strongly contradictory to theoryb 3 2 1 3 9 Weakly contradictory to theoryc

Play Hamlet King Lear Macbeth Othello Total

aln the case marked by greater positive affect, speech is less polite. bIn the case marked by greater positive affect, speech is more polite. cIn cases differing in level of positive affect, there is no difference in politeness. Locations in text (ordered by first citation in each matched pair) Strongly contradictory to theory Hamlet King Lear Macbeth Othello [I,v,166-167/III,ii,80-82] [III, i,115/III,i,122] [V,ii,301/V,ii,314] [I,i,306-309/V,iii,67-69] [V,iii, 127/V,iii,168-169] [IV, iii,26-28/IV, iii,l 1 4-117] [I,i,5-6/IV,ii,198-199] [I,i,35-37/II,iii,380-381] [I,i,94-95/I,i,177]

Contrasts of distance (D) alone

To makea test of the effect of D we needtwo FTAs involvingthe sametwo personswith each personstayingin speakeror hearerrole. Power relations must remainthe same; the two FTAs must be matchedin extremity,but there must be a clearchangein D, which could be a changeof affection or interactiveclosenessor both. As it turnsout, the clearcases are all changes of affect, with changesof interactioneitherabsent or only implied. There are just nine minimalcontrasts. the is In Table4 "distance" affect and all nine contrastscontradict predicD in politenesstheory becausein all pairs the more polite tions made for speech is associatedwith lower D (positive affect) and the less polite with higherD (decreasedpositive affect). For D there are few minimalcontrastsbut, nevertheless,Shakespeare's texts make a clear contributionto knowledgeof this variable.This is possomethat are far frommincontrasts,including siblebecauseall the relevant imal, point to a singleconclusion,and that conclusionis the one for which us. prepared Politenessin the Slugoskiand Turnbull(in press)experiments the plays, insofar as it is governedby D, is governedby feeling;interactive intimacyis of little importance.With the extensionof positive feeling (liking or better), the speakerbecomes more polite; and if positive feeling is (dislike,hostility),the speakerbecomesless polite. But this is not withdrawn 192

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

the way that weightiness(Wy) is supposedto be affected by the D of the formula W = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + R. The Brown/Levinsonformula says that W, and so politeness, will increasewith D and an increasein D meansless intimateinteractionand less (not more)liking. The formulawas, no doubt, writtenfor the kind of familiar case in whichacquaintanceship ripensinto friendship,interactiongrows more intimateand likingincreases,but that kind of undramatic progression is not enactedin Shakespeare's tragedies.Whatis enactedis changeof feeling, both positive and negative, often extreme and sudden. Changes of futureintimacymay be impliedbut havenot occurred.The qualityof future interactionseems to be entirelydependenton what future feelingsmay be. In thesecircumstances, morethe speakerlikes the hearer,the greaterthe the concernwith the hearer's face and so the morepolitethe speech;the less the liking, the less the concernand also the politeness. Minimalcontrastsin D are few in the texts we have used, partlybecause of a naturalconfoundingin them betweenD and R. Othello telling Cassio to look to the guardtonight poses less of a threatto "Good Michael"than Othello strippingCassio of his lieutenancy.Brabantio, when he bids his daughterDesdemonaapproachand say whethershe loves the Moor, poses a less extremethreatthan when he relinquishesher to the Moor. We have not countedthese contrasts(plus one other) as "minimal" they are not and in represented Table4, but we do give them weight as evidencebecause, in all threecases, relativepolitenessis predicted the extensionor withdrawal by of affectionand this resultis not the resultpredicted R. In effect, the conby founding in the three cases describeddoes not really matter. In Shakespeare's tragedies,there are more passions than feelings, and many potentialpairsare not minimalbecausethe higherR speechexpresses
rage. We cannot make a pair out of King Lear saying in I, i, 55-56: Lear: and in I,
v,

Goneril, 269:

Our eldest born, speak first. Lear: Detested kite, thou liest. Nor can we make a pair of: I pritheegood lago. (II, i, 205) Othello: and Othello: Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore! (III, iii, 356) Nor of many more which are ruled out, not only becauseR values are not matched,but becausewe preferto treat rage as a state in which the entire apparatusof politenessis eliminated.Notice, however,that if rage is simas ply regarded an extremein the withdrawal affection, even into hatred, of 193

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

then speeches which can be matched except for fury, and such speeches are numerous, count as evidence for the affect theory because high values of R in politeness theory call for high levels of politeness, not its elimination. Bad feeling so strongly implies the absence of politeness that when the two are combined, the reader computes interesting speaker meanings. Regan (in King Lear), unwilling to leave Goneril with Edmund, whom both love, says: Regan: Sister, you'll go with us? (V, i, 34) and Regan: Tis most convenient [fitting]; pray you, go with us.(V, i, 36) This is clenched-teeth courtesy. Regan, seething with anger, couches a directive as a rare polite interrogative with in-group blandishments. The politeness here is not primarily a matter of deference, but rather of demeanor, not primarily a matter of what is owed to another but of what is owed to oneself (Goffman 1956; Hymes I983). Regan owes it to herself, with both Albany and Edmund present, to maintain composure. We have just nine good minimal contrasts, but they all come out the same way, that is, not in accordance with D in the Brown and Levinson formula but in clear accordance with the affect formulation of Slugoski and Turnbull. There is a good example in Macbeth. Malcolm, Duncan's son, first reproaches Macduff. Malcolm: Why in that rawness [unprotected condition] left you wife and child. (IV, iii, 26) Then comes a lengthy test of Macduff's loyalty, which, being passed, we have: Malcolm: Macduff, this noble passion, Child of integrity, hath from my soul Wiped the black scruples [suspicions], reconciled my thoughts To thy good truth and honor. (IV, iii, I 14-I I7) The FTA in this speech is the confession of unwarranted suspicions, and the politeness level is very high as the extension of affection predicts. In King Lear, we have a pair of speeches matched for R but not for R at low-to-middle level, as is usually the case, but at a rather high level. Edgar, a confronting at last the brother who has so greatly abused him, speaks to Edmund. Edgar: Draw thy sword. (V, iii, 127)

Edgar here is intense but not furious. Then, having wounded Edmund unto death, he speaks softly. 194

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

Edgar: Let's exchangecharity. I am no less in blood than thou art, Edmund. (V, iii, I68-I69) With the adventof good feelingscomes, as always,a heightenedpoliteness. A final exampleillustratesthe withdrawalof good feeling. In King Lear I, i, 306-307, Goneril,wishingto makecommoncausewith her sisterRegan, begins politely: "Pray you, let's hit [agree]together."In V, iii, however, the sisters have become competitorsfor Edmund'slove, and when Regan proclaimsthat she honors Edmundas her equal, Goneril breaks in with: "Not so hot" (line 67), which may be translatedas "Not so fast" - a verbless imperativescoring -i for politeness. Searching contrasts for relevant distanceor D, we have found only conto trasts of feeling, with contrasts of interactiveintimacy only implied and seeminglyfully dependent futurefeelings.Why, in our texts, have we not on found changesof interactive closenesswith changesof feeling, linkedin the way that the Brownand LevinsonD presupposes,intimacywith liking and distancewith dislike or indifference?
Our sources are dramas - Shakespearean tragedies - and the changes of

feeling enactedin them are suddenand so dramatic.Supposethat Brabantio and Desdemona,insteadof breakingwhen she said she loved the Moor, had "driftedapart"after her marriage over severalyearswith visits and letters less and less frequent. It would not make a play. It could be put in a play; most easilyas narration,but it wouldbe poor materialfor enactment. The love that developedbetween Othello and Desdemonawas, in fact, a gradualprocessdevelopingover many occasionsas he unfolded to her the tale of his life, but this is not a changewe witness. It is told by Othello (I,
iii, 127-I65).

Thereare some changesenactedin the tragediesthat requiremore than a few moments of performancetime, but these changes are not enacted as smoothlygraded.Othellodoes not in an instantpass from his greatlove for Desdemonato murderous hatredof her. Neitherdoes he drift into hatred. The change is enactedas a sequenceof discontinuousmoments;each one intenselydramaticwithinitself: not understanding lago's meaning,forcing lago to be moreclear,wantingproof, not wantingto know, resistingDesdemona's pleas for Cassio, yielding, frighteningher, strikingher, murdering her. There is movementback and forth and there is escalation from one moment to another, but the curve describedover the course of five acts is not a smoothone and politenesscomeswith the returnof affectionand goes with its withdrawal. Thereis, in principle,anotherkind of contrastthat might be used to test the predictionsof politeness theory for D; instead of changes over time withinone relationship shouldbe possibleto comparetwo varietiesof stait ble relationship: distancerelations,such as those betweenhusbandand low 195

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

wife, close kin, good friends;and high distancerelations, such as equalstatuscontactsbetweennear-strangers. Politenesstheorypredicts,probably correctly,more politenesswith high distance.Thereare in the tragediesstable low-D relationsbetweenman and wife, close kin, and friends,but where are the high-D relations to contrast with them? For the most part, they wouldbe betweenthe nameless supernumerariesthe lordsand ladies,attendants, gentlemen,soldiers,and officers,who are givenno linesto speakand so no opportunityto be eithercasual or formal. When one is given lines the porterin Macbeth,the first senatorin Othello, the clown in Hamlet they speak with a principalcharacterof higheror lower status than themhaveno use for the formalexchanges nearstrangers, selves.Tragedies of and so Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth,and Othelloare not good sourcesfor the study of high-D politeness. To summarize,in the tragedieswe find nothing relevant to D except changes of feeling that occur suddenlyratherthan graduallyand are not accompaniedby changes of interactivecloseness. The outcomes for the the changesof feelingexactlyreverse outcomespredicted the D of politeby ness theory,followinginsteadthe rulethat increase affectionis associated of with increase of politeness and decreasewith decrease. We conclude, in agreementwith Slugoski and Turnbull, that the Brown/Levinsonmodel requiresan additionalparameter "relationship affect." No one as yet has shown how such a new parameter oughtto be fitted into the presentmodel. Contrastsof extremity(R) alone In orderto test for the effects of the extremityof the FTA, a given speaker must make two face-threatening speeches,of clearlyunequalextremity,to a given hearer.Thereare 20 such contrastsin the plays and I9 of them are This is a clear confircongruentwith theory;one is weaklycontradictory. mation, for R, of politenesstheory (see Table 5). Thereare many nicely minimalcontrastsin R. Horatio, who usuallyaddressesHamletas "mylord,"says "Goodmy lord"whenattempting preto vent his Princefromgrappling with Laertes- a seriousphysicalintervention. him that she Ophelia,havingaddressedHamlet as "my lord"in reminding has "remembrances" his, whenhe denieshavinggivenher"aught," of comes back: Ophelia:My honoredlord, you know right well you did. (III, i, 97) Venturinga contradictioncalls for an increasedredress. lago, speakingto Othello, criticizesat one time and anotherBrabantio (Desdemona'sfather), Cassio (Othello'swell-lovedlieutenant),and Desdemona herself. Since these people are varyinglyclose to Othello'sheart, the attackspose varyinglyextremedangersto Othello'spositiveface and lago's politenessis nicely graded. Of Brabantiohe says: 196

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

TABLE 5.

Contrastsof extremityalone
Strongly contradictory to theoryb Weakly contradictory to theoryc

Play

Congruent with theorya

Hamlet KingLear Macbeth Othello

Total

5 8 3 2
18 0

aThe more extreme face threat is more politely expressed. bThe more extreme face threat is less politely expressed. cTwo face threats, differing in extremity, are expressed with equal politeness. Locations in text (ordered by first citation in each matched pair)

Congruentwith theory
Hamlet King Lear Macbeth Othello Hamlet [I,ii,61/III,i,183-186 [lI,ii,67/III,ii,240-2411 [I,ii,192/V,i,2671 [II,ii,10-14/III,i,26-27] [III,i,93-94/III,i,96] [I,ii,27/I,ii,311 [I,i,70/II,iv,154-155j [I,ii,171-172/II,i,22] [II,iv,137/II,iv,145-149] [III,v,15/III, vii,7-8] [IV,v,16-17/IV,v,21-22] [V,i,6-9/V,iii,75-79j [V,iii,42-44/V,iii,60-62] [1I,iii,153-155/II,i,22-24] [I, vi,24-25/I,vi,28-291 [IV, iii, 193-195/IV, iii,201-203] [I,ii,6-9/II,iii,220-221] [I,ii,6-9/III,iii,94-95] [I,ii,192-193/I,iv,811

to Weaklycontradictory theory

Nay but he prated, Iago: And spoke such scurvyand provokingterms Against your honor, that with the little godliness I have I did full hard forbearhim. (I, ii, 6-9) This is richly redressed,but when the target of criticismis Cassio, lago and changes super-strategies speaks off record. For MichaelCassio, Iago: I dare be sworn, I think that he is honest. (III, iii,
124-125)

No criticismin that. But where'sthe relevance?No one ever thought Cassio not honest. What can lago have in mind? When he speaks of Desdemona, we have alreadyseen that he begins severalleagues from his target. Excessiveredressin extremity. Two examplesdo morethan confirmtheory; they demonstratethat a politenesstoo great for the speaker'ssurface 197

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

meaning communicates a deeper meaning that carries a more extreme risk. On record speech that is very elaborately redressed, too elaborately redressed, approaches the off record super-strategy (see Figure i). There is a little ambiguity; more than one speaker's intention is possible and yet the communication is not off record because the hearer, taking in all the redress, is clear that the riskier meaning is the intended one. "Excessive redress" is a super-strategy not found in the Brown/Levinson theory but discovered in this study. In form, excessive redress falls between "on record with many redressive acts" and "off record" and it also falls between these strategies in riskiness and in ambiguity and deniability. This co-occurrence of systematic properties, consistent with the postulates of politeness theory, is good evidence for the theory as a whole. In I, iii, of Macbeth, following the Witches' prophecies and the fulfillment of the first (Thane of Cawdor), Macbeth in an aside to Banquo says: Think upon what hath chanced, and at more time, The interim having weighed it, let us speak

Our free heartseach to other. (153-155)

The speech is unambiguous and only slightly polite (an indirect imperative); it means just what it says. In II, i, after Macbeth and his Lady have plotted the murder of Duncan the king, Banquo observes to Macbeth that the weird sisters have spoken some truth, and Macbeth responds with a speech that closely matches the one just cited in surface meaning but not in politeness. Yet, when we can entreat an hour to serve, We would spend it in some words upon that business, If you would grant the time. (22-24) This very indirect request with its deferential entreat and grant, its subjunctives, nominalizations, and minimization is scored +8, which makes it one of the politest speeches in the play. Why this tremendous addition of redress to a request that is almost the same as the earlier one? It suggests that Macbeth has in mind a more extreme request than he has directly expressed. The conversation continues: Macbeth: If you shall cleave to my consent, when 'tis, [join my cause when the time comes] It shall make honor for you. Banquo: So I lose none In seeking to augment it. (25-27) And now we know the more extreme request - that Banquo should join his cause when the time comes, a cause linked to the prophecy that Macbeth shall be king, a cause possibly risking dishonor. Banquo's answer shows that he perfectly understands the deeper meaning, which is foreshadowed at the start by an aura of excessive politeness. 198

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

In Hamlet, thereis anotherexampleof excessivepolitenesscommunicatand ing a riskiermeaningthan appearson the surface.Rosencrantz Guildenstern have been sent for to Elsinoreto keep Hamlet company: I entreatyou both King: That, being of so [from such] young days broughtup with him, And sith so neighboredto his youth and havior, That you vouchsafeyour rest [consentto remain]here in our court Some little time. (II, ii, 10-14) The request,baldlyput, is to stay a while. However,the verbs entreatand the there vouchsafeexpressdeference; some little timeminimizes imposition; is much claimingof commongroundand nominalization,makinga politeness score of +8, which is extravagantlypolite for an invitation. Later, Rosencrantzand Guildensternaccede to the king's request and he soon themwithroutinecourtesy(e.g., ceasesto be extravagantly polite, addressing
III, i,
26-27).

The queen is as extremeas the king in secondinghis request. If it will please you Queen: To show us so much gentry [courtesy]and good will As to expendyour time with us awhile. (II, ii, 21-23) Rosencrantz politelysays that theirdreadMajestiesmight commandrather than entreatand Guildenstern addsthat they will fully obey and both understand exactly what they are to do. They are to find out what it is that so afflicts Hamlet and report it to the king and queen. They are to play informers to the court on their old schoolfriend. This request is more extremethan the surfaceinvitationto drawHamleton to pleasuresbecause it requiresthem to violate the confidencesof friendshipand become creaknow that they are and turesof the king. How do Rosencrantz Guildenstern asked to do somethingso extreme?They are asked too politely. Politeness in Shakespeare'stragedies increases with the power of the of with the extremity the face threat. speakeroverthe hearerand it increases of Politenessdecreaseswith the withdrawal affection and increaseswith an of are increase affection.The resultsfor powerand extremity those predicted by theory. If affectionis thoughtof as the D (or distance)of politenesstheory, then the resultscontradicttheory. It is more accurateto say that the affect resultscall for a reformulationof the D parameter. A student of the tragediesforms normativeconceptions of how much for politenessis appropriate variousvaluesof P, D, and R. Sometimesit is a consistentattributeof a character be more than normallypolite or less to so or to show a deviant patternof politeness. When this is so, politeness becomesone of the manythings definingcharacter.In Hamlet, the characters called Clownandyoung Osric,a courtier,have one sceneapiecetalking
199

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

characterized with Hamlet.Thesetwo minorfiguresare almostexhaustively by their odd politenessstyles, but they appearonly brieflyand their scenes are not centralto the play. Kentin KingLearoffers a contrast.He is a major in figure, characterized part by a certainpolitenessstyle, and this style has deep resonancesin the play as a whole.
EXAMPLES OF CHARACTER DELINEATION

A didacticand insolentclown clownsare not circusclownsbut clownishfellowsof the lower Shakespeare's class:court attendants,artisans,beggars,officials, soldiers,rustics.Clowns are very different from fools, not sophisticatedand witty, but broadly out humorous. Sometimesthe humor arises unintentionally of their own but and fastidious out and prickedpretensions pomposities, of malapropisms Shakespeare's audienceslaugh at clownsas well as with them, absurdlogic. whereasfools are almostneverlaughedat. Yet the clownshavealwaysa kind of sense, eithergardenvarietycommonsenseor streetsmarts.The gravediggers in Act V of Hamlet are designatedClown and Other. and Clown appearsto be the master-gravedigger Other only a journeyman. In a short scene betweenthe two, Clown manifeststhe genericcharacteristicsof pretension,malapropism,and ironic common sense. Hamlet are and Horatiocome on the sceneand, thoughnot recognized, clearlyidentified as aristocrats.In the exchangesthat follow, between Hamlet and Clown, the formersays sirrahand thou and the lattersir and you. These forms are normativeand do nothingto createClown'scharacter,but there is somethingin his style that does. His first responseto Hamlet involvesa and contradiction so violatesGrice'smaximof quality,signalingoff record speech and the need to use inferenceto work out meaning. Hamlet: Whose grave'sthis, sirrah? Clown: Mine, sir.
I24) Hamlet: I thinkit be thine indeed, for thou liest in't. (V, i, I19-12I, Hamlet's question could be intendedto ask either about ownershipor futureoccupancy."Whois the diggerof this grave?"or "Whois to fill this grave?"The linguisticambiguityis therebut, in context, it is clearthat the speakeris asking who will lie in the grave and that it is wantonlymischievous of Clown to pretendotherwise.But thereis no indicationthat Clown has a face-threatening in mind, no hint of any risky meaning. He is act pretendingto find Hamlet's question ambiguousand so pretendingthat Hamlet has been the first to violate the maximof quality. It is a challenge to a quickgame of off recordspeech.It is as if he had tossed Hamleta ball to start a game of catch.

200

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

Hamletinstantlyrecognizesthe playfullycompetitiveintent. He does not answer:"What!Thine! How can it be thine when thou'rt not dead?"but instead deliversa swift return:"I think it be thine for thou liest in't." The game is continued with the verb lie, which is ambiguousbetween "speak falsely"and "occupy"and it is witty in telling the gravedigger that if mine is his answerto the intendedoccupancyquestion, then it is a false answer and if mine is the gravedigger's answerto the question"Who is the digger of this grave,"then it is a redundantanswerbecausethere he obviously is - in the grave. And, of course, the quick, cleverresponserevealsHamlet's esprit. The two continue with sallies exploitingambiguitiesin quick ('alive' or 'fast') and man ('humankind' 'man not woman'), and Hamlet says to or Horatio:"How absolutethe knaveis! We must speakby the cardor equivocation will undo us" (V, i, 139-140). It seemsthe age is grownso fastidious that peasantsare catchingup with courtiers. Clown is not an aspirantto high status;he simplyenjoys tryingto score over his superiors.This is deliciouslyconveyedin his use of the indefinite your, a form that retains today the suggestion of didactic expertise, of pretensionand condescensionthat it had in the 17thcentury(Gillett 1987). Imaginea scholardiscoursing: "Yourclown in Shakespeare not the same is as your fool." Youraddsto the a richsenseof the insiderconveyingesoteric knowledge. Clownexplainsto Hamlet,"Yourwateris a sore decayerof your
whoreson dead body" (V, i, I72-173). This pretension to professionalism

offers ironic counterpointin a scene of death - the leveler. An inept courtier In Elizabethan England,thereweremanyyoungmen attempting enterthe to rulingelite, and there was a distinctivegenre of books telling them how to go about it. Concernfor the feelingsof otherswas evidentlynot enoughto generatethe fastidiousdetailsof dress, of sitting, walking, and bowing, of elegantlocution, gracefulposture,deference,and self-deprecation described
in Castiglione's The book of the courtier (I966) and in della Casa
(1958),

Ascham (1970), and Elyot (I962). The code was so intricatethat Whigham (I984) has suggested that its firstpurpose,for the aristocracy, to repress was mobility, and certainlyit was a filter that excludedmany. Among those in the tragedies who wereambitiousto rise are Oswald,Rosencrantz Guiland denstern,and "youngOsric,a courtier," who approaches Hamletand Horatio (in V, ii) with the king's invitationto Hamlet that he try his skill with rapierand daggeragainst Laertes. Osric:Sweetlord, if your lordshipwereat leisure,I shouldimparta thing to you from his Majesty. (91-92) The invitationwith its deference,question,subjunctives, nominalizaand tions scores +6 for politeness,and Osric'sspeeches,generally,are far above 201

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

the politenessnorm as are Hamlet'srepliesin whichhe mocks Osric'sstyle. of Politenesstheorypicks up the specialcharacter the affectedcourtierand Hamlet'sparody but politenessis not identicalwith Elizabethancourof toisie. The primarygoal of the courtierwas to create a brilliantself that at Thisis not politeness all but wouldarrestthe gaze and compeladmiration. a face threat;it risks the self-esteemof the other. Politenessis requiredto to agreeable the otheror, to redress brilliance, makethe self-presentation the at least, tolerable.Fromthe first, Osricis verypolite but, from the first, his politenessfails with Hamlet and with Horatio. Osric'sgreetingis "Yourlordshipis right welcome back to Denmark," which is surelyan agreeablesalutation,and yet Hamlet'saside to Horatio Fromthis we may concludethatthe way Osric is: "Dostknowthis waterfly?" looks - his apparel,movement,and gestures- establisheshim as a certain and to type, lightweight distasteful Hamlet.Osricwouldhavedoffed his hat, using his right hand, as prescribed,and executingthe full gesture as the He courtesybooks recommended. would have bowed, probablymore than once, and the placingof his foot, the exact mannerof drawingit back, the angle of the torso would all have been calculatedto add to the handsomeness of his person. But the performancemust have been excessiveor too obviously practicedbecauseit did not please. There follows the comedy of the doffed hat. Hamlet: Put your bonnet to his right use. 'Tis for the head. (V, ii, 94) addeda playfultone. thoughthe neuterhis probably This is a sharpdirective Wildebloodwrites:"Followinga salutationit was the acceptedpracticefor a superiorto requesthis inferiorto replacehis hat, and it was not out of in place for the latter,in complying,to show some slighthesitancy deference to his superior"(I965:I67). But the hesitancyought not to be overdone. Della Casa (1958) used, as an exampleof absurdsuperfluity,a man who could not comfortably his bonnetbackon his headwhilefacinghis supeput rior, and Osric was such a one. Osric: I thank your lordship,it is very hot. (V, ii, 95) Whichmeans:"Praydo not let the doffed hat troubleyou; it is for my own comfort." Hamlet, the masterof all languagegames, now entanglesOsric in contradictionsof courtliness.
Hamlet: No, believeme, 'tis very cold; the wind is northerly. Osric: It is indifferentcold, my lord, indeed. Hamlet: But yet methinksit is very sultryand hot for my complexion" [temperament]. Osric: Exceedingly, lord;it is verysultry,as 'twere I cannottell how. my (V, ii, 96-102)

202

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE'

S TRAGEDIES

The problemis that the courtiermust not disagreewith his lord'sreadingof the weather(a face-threatening act), but when contradictoryreadingsare issuedin succession,it becomesobviousthatthe secondings rule-governed are compliance,not sincereagreement.The effect is not brilliant. The changesof the weatherleave Osricno excuse for retaininghis hat in his hands and finally Hamlet gestureshim to put it on.'0 Osric:Nay, good my lord; for my ease, in good faith. (V, ii, io6) The poor gentleman unableto put on his hat whiletalkingwith the Prince is of Denmark.That is, we shall see, a crucialdefect in his performance.But he goes on: Osric:Sir, here is newly come to court Laertes- believeme, an absolute gentleman,full of most excellentdifferences[distinguishing characteristics]of very soft societyand greatshowing.Indeed,to speak feelingly [justly]of him, he is the card [chart] calendar gentry;for you shall or of find in him the continent [summary] what part a gentlemanwould of see. (V, ii, 107-I1I2) Nothing in Osric'slong speech is to the point, the point being the challenge. Brownand Levinsonwrite:"thereis an elementin formal politeness that sometimesdirectsone to minimizethe impositionby comingrapidlyto the point, avoiding the further imposition of prolixity and obscurity" (I987:130). When speakingto a superior,we know that a few extra words may be neededto expressdeference,but the preliminary "Sir"would here suffice. To what end, then, the prolix praiseof Laertes?It does not benefit absent Laertesand it does not benefit Hamlet or Horatio. What is said of Laertesis exactlywhat Osric fatuouslybelievesto be true of himself. It is self-praise,then, and Hamletis subjectedto all this prolixityso that Osric may make a brillianteffect. The courtesybooks enjoin the courtierto be modestand warnthat self-praise only tolerablewhenvery skillfullydone. is Osrichas sacrificedconsideration the hearerfor self-presentation. has of He not been well or properly"demeaned" in Goffman's (1956) sense. The languageOsric uses is a part of his self-presentation. strivesfor He eloquenceby using words in uncommonextendedways, inventingfigures, varyingword order, but the effect achievedis only affectation. The word continentis used in the sense of "sumand substance" the familiarsense not "landmass." The Oxford English Dictionary gives 1590 as the date of the firstuse in Osric'ssenseand the secondcitation(I604) is Osric'sspeechitself. Probablythen continentas "sumand substance" to be taken in the play is as the courtier'sinvention. What would the point of it have been? Card could mean "map"or "chart"and that suggestsan intention to evoke the "land mass" sense and make a kind of geographytrope, but it is a trope withoutpurposeand calendarreallywill not fit in at all. The resultis irritat203

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

ing redundancy morewordswithno additionof meaningand a vaguesense of failed cleverness. Hamlet'sresponseis a glorious parody not only of Osric but of several kinds of linguisticaffectation common in the period. He begins: "Sir, his in suffersno perdition you."Definementheremeans"definition" definement and it is borrowedfrom French. Young people who had traveledabroad loan words- usuallyfrom by theirexperience introducing liked to advertise Frenchor Italian. Perditionis simply a very long and rare word that can mean "loss"but to use it insteadof loss in this sentenceis grotesque. In saying:"Sir,his definitionsuffersno loss in you"Hamletnot only tells Osricthat he has describedLaerteswell but also says that Osric himself is not a lesser gentleman,which was Osric'sown vaingloriousthought. The to parodyis very broad, but Osric,too dull-witted recognizea parody,continues in the same style: "Yourlordshipspeaksmost infalliblyof him"(V,
, 122).

as What was it that made Osric'sperformance a courtierso poor and so distastefulto a prince?It identifiedhim as one of a breed"the drossy age dotes on" who "only got the tune of the time." Osric may have studied courtesybooks and learnedperfectlythe rules in them but the rules alone was would nevermake an ideal courtier.His self-presentation grosslybad. However,it mighthave been muchbetterand still lackedan essentialquality: spontaneity or sprezzatura (Castiglione I966). It was cruel of the

courtesybooks to lay down all mannerof rulesand strategiesto be learned and then say (almost)that it was all in vain becausethe most perfectlypreAnd therewas some had paredperformance no valuewithouteffortlessness. suggestionthat effortlessnessor sprezzaturamight, just possibly, not be to teachable.In any case, it was a qualitythat camenaturally the aristocracy themselvesas guidesto achievedstatus, and not easilyto others.Presenting that the books laid on one requirement mightnot be possibleto achieveand so there was some comfort in them for those having ascribedstatus - the seemsto functionas the essentialqualityof redresSprezzatura aristocracy. is sive politenessif a brilliantself-presentation to be made agreeable.
Rash but devoted; politeness and true feeling

Kent, in King Lear, like Osricand Clown in Hamlet, is a characterwith a strikingpolitenessstyle, but Kentis a majorfigurethroughoutthe play and the importantthing about Kent'sstyle is the way it patternsacrosscharacof ters and changeswith theirfortunes.The great-change fortunein the play is the downfallof the king. This changesKent'sbehaviorand the behavior of everyone- King Lear'smost of all. banisheshis best-lovedand most When King Lear in I, i, intemperately loving daughter,Cordelia,thereis one who protestshis folly - the Earl of Kent. 204

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

Kent: Good my liege Lear: Peace, Kent! Come not betweenthe Dragon and his wrath. (I, i,

122-I24)

Kentbeginswiththe deference everyoneshowsLearbut, havingbeensharply cut off and warnednot to intercede,he blunderson. Be Kent unmannerly Kent: When Lear is mad. What wouldst thou do, old man? (I, i,
147-148)

In our technicalsense of politeness,this speechis certainlyimpolite - an unredressed imposition and insult - which establishesKent's rash nature. However, the word impolite, in its usual sense, is too feeble for the power of the scene. Kent continues his rash attempt to check the king, though threatened: "Kenton thy life no more."In the end he is banished"turnthy hated back on our kingdom."The impetuousintervention,like Cordelia's too blunt "Nothingmy lord," feeds Lear'sangerand helps to bring on the terribleevents that follow. Kent, disguisedas Caius, is taken as a servantby the king and, in Act II, bearsthe king'sletterto Reganand the Duke of Cornwall.At their court, he drawshis swordon the detestable Oswaldand whenOswaldcalls for help a goodly companyof monsterscomes on the scene: Regan, Cornwall,and Edmund.Asked why he has attackedOswald,Kentreplies,in effect, that he does not like the man'slooks, whereupon Cornwallsays that Kentmay perchance also not like the looks of Cornwall,Edmund, even Regan. Kent's reply: Kent: Sir, 'tis my occupationto be plain: I have seen better faces in my time Than stands on any shoulderthat I see Before me at this instant. (II, ii, 94-97) He is still not puttingthings so as to take accountof the feelings of others. Cornwalland Regancommand:"Fetchforth the stocks!"Only the basest wretches wereput in the stocks.To put the king'smessenger therewas a violent outrageagainstthe king himself;a nonverbalFTA. When Learsees his in messenger, stocksby commandof his daughter her husband,he says: and "Theycould not, would not do't." Kent'srash acts and "plain"speechhave provided Regan and Cornwall with a pretext for the inhospitality they intend. Kent'sstyle is not alwaysless politethan the norm. With Lear,in the violent storm on the heath, he is gentle and deferential. Kent: Graciousmy lord, hard by here is a hovel; Some friendshipwill it lend you 'gainstthe tempest. (III, ii, 205
6I-62)

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

And, later on: Kent: Good my lord, enter here. Lear: Wilt break my heart? Kent: I had rather break mine own. Good my lord, enter. (III, iv, 4-5) From the time Lear loses his kingdom and is cast out of doors by "wolfish" Goneril and Regan, Kent never once fails to address him with forms of respect: sir, good my lord, your Grace, my good master. This is extraordinary politeness - not even matched by Ophelia speaking dutifully to her father. Bradley says: "His love for Lear is the passion of his life: it is his life." And "The King is not to him, old wayward, unreasonable, piteous: he

is still terrible,grand, the king of men" (I905:307).

Kent's character is not expressed in a consistent single style, as are the characters of Osric and Clown, but by a pattern across characters and in time: Plain-spoken but rash before the king's downfall, he is immensely respectful afterward. Kent's style is a melodic voice that runs the length of the play and rises and falls in meaningful relation to other voices. When King Lear falls from the heights to the depths, the behavior of every principal changes. Changes of politeness are important, not in themselves, but because they express changes of power, imposition, and feeling. Goneril and Regan in I, i, bid up the price of the kingdom in professions of love for Lear, but in the last scene of II they compete in cutting the size of his retinue. "What need you five and twenty?" "Ten, or five?" "What need one?" Cordelia, who in I, i, could not say more than: "I love your Majesty/According to my bond, no more nor less," does in IV, vii, most tenderly say: "How does my royal lord? How fares your Majesty?" The greatest change is in Lear himself. His exalted station in the first two acts appears in the differential scores for politeness of speech to Lear and speech from Lear. Gloucester, Kent, Burgundy, and France all speak to the king with elaborate politeness. Even Goneril and Regan retain the forms sir and my lord when their actions have made the forms ironic. And to all, Lear is bluntly imperious or unrestrainedly abusive. The average power differential is almost three times greater for Lear than for any other figure in the four tragedies and the reader feels the grandeur. In the first acts, Lear is more rash, more choleric than Kent. Wounded by Cordelia's restraint, he is instantly furious and disclaims her forever. When Kent intervenes, Lear becomes a dragon. When his Fool speaks too plainly, Lear warns: "Take heed, sirrah - the whip." How great, then, is the change on the heath after Lear has learned "to feel what wretches feel." Good my lord, enter here. Kent: Lear: Prithee go in thyself; seek thine own ease. This tempest will not give me leave to ponder 206

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

On things would hurt me more, but I'll go in. [To the Fool] In, boy; go first. (III, iv, 22-26) Kent'schange from rash action and plain speech yielding, on the downfall of the king, to a kind of gentle dignityis in tune with the transformaoutspokentenderness. The changes tion of Learhimselfand with Cordelia's in Goneril, Regan, and Edmundare parallelwith one anotherand are dismakeKent's cordantwith Kent, Lear,and Cordelia.All thesereverberations mannersintegralto the play in a way that the stylesof Osricand Clown are not integralto Hamlet. It is not too strongto say that King Lear makes a powerfulcommenton verbalpolitenessin general. In Act I, those who feel the greatestconsideration for others,if we go by theirwords, are Goneril,Regan, and Edmund, and those who seemto feel the least are Lear, Cordelia,and Kent. The true case is otherwise:The polite speakersare bent on advancingselfish causes, and those who are blunt, rash, and imperiousare also those who love. The play seems to say that politeness does not finally matter. It is deliberate behavior that can be put on in the interestsof greed, advancement,and desire. It is also civilizedbehavior,a late tenuous humanachievementthat can be overthrownin the instant by animal fury. Passions, the play seems to say, rule men's lives. caresfor her father, But whatin the end does anyonecareabout?Cordelia and Learfor his child, Edgarfor Gloucester, Kentfor his master.Politeness as a set of practices,as a way of puttingthings when makinga criticismor core of politeness a request,has been shownto be trivial,but the generative - concernfor the feelingsof others- is itself a passion,and it is alwaysable to generatenew, truerpractices. Samplingthe scene of reconciliation(IV, vii), we hear immenseconcern. Cordelia:0, thou good Kent, how shall I live and work, To match thy goodness?(1-2) Kent: Pardon, dear madam. (8) Cordelia:0 you kind gods! (14) Cordelia:0 my dear father, restorationhang Thy medicineon my lips.(26-27) Kent: Kind and dear princess.(29) Lear: I think this lady
To be my child Cordelia. (70)

Doctor: Be comforted, good madam. (78) The words dear, kind, and good are all terms of positive politenessbut, among such terms, they comprisea special set. All of them either directly or expressconcernfor another("dearfather,""dearprincess") else attribute concern to another ("good Kent," "kind princess,""kind gods"). In this 207

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

scene, we have no worthy,valiant,honest, noble, or any of the otherterms that separateone personfrom anotherbut only termsof concern.It is as if to In an abusedpolitenesssystemhad returned its wellspring. this scene, and again in Act V, we heartrue politeness,whichis as seriousas formulasand flatteryare trivial.Truepoliteness,becauseit is directlyresponsiveto feeling, needs no courtesybooks to teach it nor any strivingafter sprezzatura.
CONCLUSION

Dramatictexts offer good possibilitiesfor the study of politenesstheory. scope, and becausethe speech They offer wide social and characterological is not elicitedfrom informantsbut was inventedby authorsfor purposesof theirown, dramatic texts can surprise analysts,as Shakespeare surprised has us, into discoveriesthey had not envisioned.Studyinga dramatictext with politenesstheoryin mind has much in common with studyingprotocolsof spontaneouschild speech with a grammarand a theory of acquisitionin mind. You do not controlthe flow of data. It poursover you and you must cope as best you can. There are many deficienciesin such a naturalistic analysescannotbe fully approach.Data sets are often criticallyincomplete; We objective;tests of statisticalsignificanceare seldom appropriate. think the methodologicallylooser naturalisticstudy is a valuablesupplementto controlledexperimental methods.Both offer the analystrich opportunities the to be deceived,but the naturalist not likely, at least, to underestimate is complexityof the topic.
NOTES
* We are gratefulto Celia Millwardfor guidingus to severalsourceson Shakespeare's English. I.

The four major tragedies are Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello. All citations, by

act, scene,and lines,will be to the I963 New American Library, SignetClassiceditions: Hamlet (E. Hubler,ed.);KingLear(R. Fraser, ed.);Macbeth Barnet, (S. ed.); Othello(A. Kernan, ed.). 2. Parentheses alwaysidentifymaterialnot in the originaltext but addedby the authors. 3. Wherever text of the play includesunfamiliar the names,allusions,or constructions, the editor is likely to have added footnotes and we reprintthe notes from the cited edition, in brackets,followingthe text. Of course,the more difficultproblemis the word familiarto us in formandmeaning which,however, needsto be understood termsof a specifically in Elizabethan context.We discusstheseonly whenthey are directlyrelevantto the politenesslevelof a speech(Hussey I982). 4. Brownand Levinsondedicatetheir I987 book to ErvingGoffmanand so markwhat is clearlya greatintellectual debt, but they do not maptheirtheoryinto Goffman's(I956) terms. Hymes(I983) has pointedout the fact that the formulations intersect that the intersecdo but tion seemsto leaveGoffman's"demeanor" or (self-respect whatone owes to oneself) with no in equivalent politeness theory.The presentauthorsbelievethat the Brown/Levinson theoryis and for almost certainlyundercomplicated underspecified the whole domainof politeness;it is, however,an explicitand sensitiveattemptat synthetictheory. 5. The original,most formal statementof the predicted relationship betweenface risk or and strategyselectionis: "Giventhe followingset of strategies,the more an act weightiness

208

POLITENESS

THEORY

AND

SHAKESPEARE'S

TRAGEDIES

(Brown strategy" S's threatens or H's face, the moreS will wantto choose a higher-numbered that & LevinsonI987:60). It is clearthat the authorsdo not thinkof riskvaluesas algorithms or of levels,independently all otherconsiderations, as stimuliautomatically politeness generate theoryhas sometests research attempting quantitative of politeness Empirical responses. eliciting in actuallyuse these strategies interaction,in relatimesused "overtbehavior- how speakers tion to P, D and R assessments- [and sometimesused] subjectiveranking of perceived (ibid., 17). Brownand Levinson,in their 1987 reviewof research,stressthe necespoliteness" evaluationsof polite redresswith qualitativeanalysis,and quantitative sity of supplementing risk tragedies levelsare essential,becausein Shakespeare's we have foundthis to be absolutely to of determinants politeness.It is necessary know, for instance,when not the only important Hamletis feigningmadnessand whenOpheliais actuallymad, becauseboth statesthrowoff When sensiof the calibration risk and politenessthat operatesin more usualcircumstances. we the analysisprecedes quantitative, believe,with Brownand Levinson,that: tive qualitative be tests "Controlled experimental of the modelshould,however, possible,giventhe specificprethe dictionsit makesabout the rankingof super-strategies, rankingof politenesslevelswithin (ibid., 22). natureof P, D and R assessments" strategies,and the summative for 6. In the formulafor weightiness (Wx),the subscript power(P) is written"h, s" and the orderof the termsis intendedto signifythat it is the powerof the hearer(H) over the speaker is of the thatincreases weightiness the FTA. Whenthe speaker the morepowerfulperson(Machis beth addressing servant),the powervariablewouldhavea negativevalueand wouldlower for (W). The subscript distance(D) is written"s, h" and this orderis intendedto weightiness with S's distancefrom H equal to H's distancefrom S. signify symmetry 7. We are indebtedto Dell Hymesfor pointingout that a case can sometimesbe made for dimensions assigningdegreesto both the vertical(power)and horizontal(solidarity/distance) factor:degreeof discreatesa singleunderlying and summingthem. In effect, this procedure tance. Russiannovels. shifts in igth-century subtleexpressive 8. Friedrich (I966) has described us 9. We are indebtedto Dell Hymesfor reminding of this principle,whichis an improveof ment over the endlessproliferation doubtfulmeaningsto fit difficultcases. motionshim to put on his hat" IO. The inclusionin the text of the stagedirection."Hamlet the is an editorialdecisionand in performance directordecideswhetheror not Osricdoes put his hat back on. We think the text favorsnot puttingit back on.

REFERENCES Abbott, E. A. (1925). A Shakespearean grammar. London: Macmillan. Alrabaa, S. (I985). The use of address pronouns by Egyptian adults. Journal of Pragmatics Ascham, R. ([I570] 1970). The scholemaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, J. L. (I962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press. Barber, C. (1976). EarlymodernEnglish. London: Deutsch. III. LeedsStudiesin English ([I98I] I987). "You" and "thee" in Shakespeare's Richard Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language New Series I2:273-89. drama.Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 163-79. of Shakespearean Barnet, S. (ed.). (I963). Macbeth. (Signet Classic Shakespeare.) New York: New American Library. Baxter, L. A. (I984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Commu9:645-57.

nicationResearch10:427-56. An language: introduction.New York: St. Martin's. Blake, N. F. (1983). Shakespeare's Blum-Kulka, S. (I985). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different. Paper presented at the International Pragmatic Conference, Viareggio, Italy. Bradley, A. C. (1905). Shakespearean tragedy. London: Macmillan. London: Andre Deutsch. Brook, G. L. (I976). The languageof Shakespeare. Brown, R. (I965). Socialpsychology.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

209

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (I96o). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 253-76. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (I987). Politeness: Some universalsin language usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Burton, D. M. (1973). Shakespeare's grammatical style. Austin: University of Texas Press. Byrne, Sister St. Geraldine (1936). Shakespeare'suse of the pronoun of address. Its significance in characterization and motivation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America. Castiglione, B. ([1528] I966). The book of the courtier. Trans. by Sir Thomas Hoby, I56i. New York: Dutton Everyman. Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed results. Journal of VerbalLearning and VerbalBehavior 14:56-72. Clark, H. H., & Schunk, D. H. (I980). Polite response to polite requests. Cognition 8:111-43. Cody, M., McLaughlin, M., & Schneider, J. (I98I). The impact of relational consequences and intimacy on the selection of interpersonal persuasion tactics: A reanalysis. Communication Quarterly 29:91-I06. della Casa, G. ([I558] 1958). Galateo. Trans. by R. S. Pine-Coffin. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Doran, M. (1976). Shakespeare's dramatic language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Elias, N. ([I9391 I 978). The history of manners. Vol. i, The civilizing process. New York: Random House. Elyot, Sir Thomas ([I53I1 I962). The book named the Governor. Ed. by S. E. Lehmberg. New York: Dutton Everyman. Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (I980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38:6I8-28. Fang, H., & Heng, J. H. (I983). Social changes and changing address norms in China. Lan-

guage in Society 12:495-507.

Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (I98I). The association of deference with linguistic form. International

Journalof the Sociologyof Language27:93-109.

Fraser, R. (ed.). (I963). King Lear. (Signet Classic Shakespeare.) New York: New American Library. Friedrich, P. (I966). Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage. In W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 214-59. Gillett, P. J. ([I974] I987). Me, U, and Non-U: Class connotations of two Shakespearean idioms. Shakespeare Quarterly 25(3):297-309. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. I 17-29. Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist 58:473-502. Goody, E. N. (ed.). (1978). Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (I97 I). Conversational postulation. In Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago. 63-84. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, III: Speech acts. New York: Academic. 41-58. Grimshaw, A. D. (ig8oa). Social interactional and sociolinguistic rules. Social Forces 58:789-8I0. (ig8ob). Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other non-successes in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry 50:3I-74. (I98oc). Selection and labelling of instrumentalities of verbal manipulation. Discourse Processes 3:203-29. Harris, R. (I984). Truth and politeness: A study in the pragmatics of Egyptian Arabic conversation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University. Holtgraves, T. (I986). Language structurein social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Holtgraves, T., Srull, T. K., & Socall, D. (in press). Conversation memory: The effects of
51305-14.

210

POLITENESS

THEORY AND SHAKESPEARE

S TRAGEDIES

speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology.

Hubler, E. (ed.). (I963). Hamlet. (Signet Classic Shakespeare.) New York: New American Library.

in Someproblems wordmeaning Hulme,H. M. (I962). Explorations Shakespeare's language: of

in the dramatic text. New York: Longman. Hussey, S. S. (I982). The literarylanguageof Shakespeare. London: Longman. Hymes, D. (I983). Report from an undeveloped country. In B. Bain (ed.), The sociogenics of

languageand humanconduct.New York:Plenum.

Jespersen, 0. (I972). Growth andstructure theEnglishlanguage.gth ed. Oxford: Blackwell. of Joseph, Sister M. (I966). Shakespeare's of the arts of language.New York: Hafner. use Kempff, R. (I985). Pronouns and terms of address in Neues Deutschland. Languagein Soci-

ety I4:223-37.
Kernan, A. (ed.). (I963). Othello. (Signet Classic Shakespeare.) New York: New American Library. Kittredge, G. L. (I9I6). Shakespeare:An Address. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kroger, R. O., Wood, L. A., & Kim, V. (I984). Are the rules of address universal? III Comparison of Chinese, Greek, and Korean usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
15:273-84.

discourse:Psychotherapy discourse.New as Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic York: Academic. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1976). Tu, vous, usted. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Levinson, S. C. (I977). Social deixis in a Tamil village. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. (I982). Caste rank and verbal interaction in Tamilnadu. In D. B. McGilvray (ed.), Caste ideology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 99-235. (I983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lustig, M. W., & King, S. (I980). The effect of communication apprehension and situation on communication strategy choices. Human Communication Research7:74-82. Mack, M [(i960] I963). Jacobean Shakespeare: Some observations on the construction of the tragedies. In J. R. Brown & B. Harris (eds.), Stratford upon Avon studies: Jacobean theater Vol. I. London: Arnold. Reprinted in A. Kernan (ed.), Othello. (Signet Classic Shakespeare.) New York: New American Library. Mehrotra, R. R. (I98I). Non-kin forms of address in Hindi. International Journalof the Sociology of Language32:I21-37.
Millward, C. ([I966] I987). Pronominal cases in Shakespearean imperatives. Language 42:I0I7. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 30I-08. Mulholland, J. ([I967] I987). "Thou" and "you" in Shakespeare: A study in the second person pronoun. EnglishStudies48: I-9. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A readerin the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
153-6I.

Ogino, T. (I986). Quantification of politeness based on the usage patterns of honorific expressions. International Journalof the Sociologyof Language58:37-58. Onions, C. T. ([I9 I] I986). A Shakespeare glossary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paulston, C. B. (1976). Pronouns of address in Swedish: Social class semantics and a changing system. Language in Society 5:359-86. Poutsma, H. A. (1914). A grammar late modernEnglish.Groningen. of Quirk, R. ([971I] I987). Shakespeare and the English language. In K. Muir & S. Schoenbaum (eds.), A new companion to Shakespeare studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 67-82. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3-21. Replogle, C. ([I973] I987). Shakespeare's salutations: A study in stylistic etiquette. Studies in Philology 70:I72-86. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. IOI-15. a Towards linguistictheoryof speechacts. New York: Academic. Sadock, J. (974). Salmon, V. ([I965] I987). Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. Transactions

211

ROGER

BROWN

AND

ALBERT

GILMAN

of the Philological Society. I05-40. Reprinted in V. Salmon & E. Burness (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
265-300.

Searle, J. R. (I969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Languagein Society5:1-24. Slugoski, B. R. (I985). Grice's theory of conversation as a social psychological model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University. Slugoski, B. R., & Turnbull, W. (in press). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, ban-

ter, and social relations.Journalof Languageand Social Psychology.

Spevack, M. (I973). The Harvard concordance to Shakespeare. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Past and Present33:17-55. Stone, 0. (I966). Social mobility in England, I500-I700. Vygotsky, L. S. ([I934] I962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Whigham, F. (I984). Ambition and privilege: The social tropes of Elizabethan courtesy theory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wildeblood, J. (I965). The polite world. A guide to English manners and deportment from the thirteenth to the nineteenth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yassin, M. S. F. (I975). A linguistic study of forms of address in Kuwaiti colloquial Arabic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Leeds University.

212