Cover not available
Article published In:
Exploring (im)politeness in ancient languages
Edited by Kim Ridealgh
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20:2] 2019
► pp. 286–312

Conceptualizations of linguistic politeness in Latin

The emic perspective

| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

This paper presents an analysis of conceptions of linguistic politeness in ancient Rome. Using lexical analysis, it scrutinizes first-order data recoverable from the Latin sources at our disposal, in order to determine the notions and dimensions of politeness that Romans were sensitive to. This kind of approach is helpful, primarily, when developing a suitable theoretical framework for dealing with the particular expressions of linguistic politeness in Latin. Moreover, it provides us with additional explanations of the historical dimension of politeness and of the creation and development of notions of politeness in Europe.

Keywords: emic conceptions, Latin, lexical analysis, politeness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Possible ways to approach politeness1 in ancient languages
    • 2.1Extra-textual evidence: Normative texts and comments from grammarians
    • 2.2Intratextual evidence: The participants’ assessments, emerging politeness in discourse, frequency and distribution
  • 3.Emic perspectives on Latin politeness: The metalanguage of politeness
    • 3.1Social face
    • 3.2Acceptable linguistic behaviour
      • 3.2.1Urbanitas, lepidus, facetus
      • 3.2.2Verecundia, modestia, humilitas
      • 3.2.3Decorum
      • 3.2.4Deferential treatment of the addressee: Comitas, affabilitas, obsequentia
  • 4.Discussion: The structure of Latin politeness system
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Editions and translations of Latin texts
Published online: 10 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00033.gom
References
Arundale, Robert B.
2006 “Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness”. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (2): 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca
2003 “Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts)”. Journal of Pragmatics 351: 1453–1469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrios-Lech, Peter
2016 Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, Marcel and Dániel Z. Kádár
2012 “The Historical Understanding of Historical (Im)politeness”. In Marcel Bax and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béranger, Jean
1970 “Ordres et classes d’après Cicéron”. In Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l’antiquité classique (Caen 25–26 avril 1969), 225–242. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Bettini, Maurizio
2009 “Comparare i Romani. Per una antropologia del mondo antico”. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 8 (1–4): 1–48.Google Scholar
Bloomer, Marin W.
1997 “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education”. Classical Antiquity 16 (1): 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies”. Language in Society 18 (2): 159–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1998 “(Im)politeness in Dramatic Dialogue”. In Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short and Peter Verdonk (eds), Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, 83–95. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Aloja, Chiara
2011 Sensi e attribuzioni del concetto di maiestas. Lecce: Grifo.Google Scholar
De Saint-Denis, Eugène
1939 “Évolution sémantique de urbanus-urbanitas ”. Latomus 3 (1): 5–24.Google Scholar
De Vaan, Michiel
2008 Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor
2002 Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 “The Rules of Politeness and Latin Request Formulae”. In Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds), Laws and Rules in Indo-European, 313–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dutsch, Dorota
2008 Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferri, Rolando
2008 “Politeness in Latin Comedy: Some Preliminary Thoughts”. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 611: 19–32.Google Scholar
2016 “An Ancient Grammarian’s View of How the Spoken Language Works: Pragmalinguistic Observations in Donatus’ Commentum Terentii ”. In Rolando Ferri and Anna Zago (eds), The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World, 237–275. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Gaide, Françoise
2001 “À propos des interactions verbales dans le thêatre de Plaute”. In Claude Moussy (ed.), De lingua latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xè Colloque International de Linguistique Latine (Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999), 959–969. Louvain, Paris and Sterling, Virginia: Peeters.Google Scholar
García-Hernández, Benjamín
2013 “El origen de facētus o la gracia en el gesto facial”. In José Antonio Beltrán Cebollada, Alfredo Encuentra Ortega, Gonzalo Fontana Elboj, Ana Isabel Magallón García and Rosa María Marina Sáez (eds), Otium cum dignitate: Estudios en homenaje al profesor José Javier Iso Echegoyen, 81–92. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 “On Face-Work”. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, 5–45. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Guérin, Charles
2011 Persona. L’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J. -C. Volume II. Théorisation cicéronienne de la persona oratoire. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Hall, Jon
2005 “Politeness and Formality in Cicero’s Letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27)”. Museum Helveticum 621: 193–213.Google Scholar
2009 Politeness and Politics in Cicero’s Letters. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Seneca’s De Beneficiis and Nonverbal Politeness in Ancient Rome”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 20 (2): 226–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2006 “Emic Perspectives on the Positive–Negative Politeness Distinction”. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación 31: 17–26.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker
1995 “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas
2016 “Politeness in Eighteenth-Century Drama: A Discursive Approach”. Journal of Politeness Research 12 (1): 95–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. and Jonathan Culpeper
2010 “Historical (Im)Politeness: An Introduction”. In Jonathan Culpeper and Dániel Z. Kádar (eds), Historical (Im)Politeness, 9–36. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kaster, Robert A.
2005 Emotion, Restraint and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krostenko, Brian A.
2001 Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krylová, Barbara
2015 “Latin Directives and (im)Politeness: How Do Modifications of Illocutionary Force (not) Modify the (im)Politeness Status of Directives”. Paper presented at the 18th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics 10th June 2015. University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts
2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work”. Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
2013 “Relational Work and Interpersonal Pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 581: 145–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchese, Rosa Rita
2016 Uno sguardo che vede. L’idea di rispetto in Cicerone e in Seneca. Palermo: Palumbo.Google Scholar
Mencacci, Francesca
2010 “ Modestia vs. Licentia. Seneca on Childhood and Status in the Roman Family”. In Véronique Dasen and Thomas Späth (eds), Children, Memory and Family Identity in Roman Culture, 233–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “ Praeter consuetudinem. (Im)politeness e stili comunicativi a Roma”. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 541: 91–115.Google Scholar
Michel, Alain
1970 “Ordres et classes chez les historiens romaines”. In Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l’antiquité classique (Caen 25–26 avril 1969), 243–257. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Miller, Anna B.
1914 Roman Etiquette of the Late Republic as Revealed by the Correspondence of Cicero. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Lancaster: Press of the New Era Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Moreau, Philippe
2002 “Positions du corps, gestes et hiérarchie social à Rome”. In Philippe Moreau (ed.), Corps romains, 179–200. Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.Google Scholar
Narducci, Emanuele
1989 Modelli etici e società. Un’idea di Cicerone. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara
2007 “The Lexical Mapping of Politeness in British English and Japanese”. Journal of Politeness Research 31: 207–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramage, Edwin S.
1973 Urbanitas. Ancient Sophistication and Refinement. Norman: Oklahoma University Press.Google Scholar
Risselada, Rodie
1993 Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roesch, Sophie
2004 “La politesse dans la correspondance de Cicéron”. In Léon Nadjo and Elisabeth Gavoille (eds), Epistulae antiquae III: Actes du IIIe colloque international “L’Épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens”, 139–152. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Dániel Z. Kádár
2016 “The Bases of (Im)politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East–West Debate”. East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1): 73–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte
2017 “The Relationship between Irony and Sarcasm: Insights from a First-order Metalanguage Investigation”. Journal of Politeness Research 13 (2): 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2005 “Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research”. Journal of Politeness Research 11: 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Towards a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness and Rudeness”. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 45–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 “From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking Norms of Im/Politeness across Time and Space”. Journal of Politeness Research 71: 159–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jean-François
2012 “Sur la lexicalisation de l’idée de honte en latin”. In Renaud Alexandre, Charles Guérin and Mathieu Jacotot (eds), Rubor et pudor. Vivre et penser la honte dans la Rome ancienne, 13–31. Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm.Google Scholar
2016 “ Pudor et uerecundia: deux formes de la conscience morale”. Euphrosyne 341: 355–368.Google Scholar
Toner, Jerry
2009 Popular Culture in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, Luis
2008 “Incidencia de factores pragmáticos en la evolución semántica del verbo rogare ”. In Ghislaine Viré (ed.), Autour du lexique latin. Communications faites lors du XIIIe Colloque International de Linguistique Latine (Bruxelles-Liege, 4 au 9 avril 2005), 244–255. Brussels: Latomus.Google Scholar
2009 La petición verbal en latín. Estudio léxico, semántico y pragmático. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
2010 “La expresión del agradecimiento en la comedia latina”. In Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik (Innsbruck, 4–9 April 2009), 625–637. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
2014a “La politesse linguistique en latin: Bilan d’une étude en cours”. In Michèle Fruyt (ed.), Dictionnaire historique et encyclopédie linguistique du latin. Paris: Sorbonne. Accessed 6 October 2017 at: [URL]
2014b “Pedir perdón en latín. El acto de habla de la disculpa en las obras de Plauto y Terencio”. Emerita 82 (1): 69–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a “La respuesta al agradecimiento en la comedia de Plauto y Terencio”. Pallas. Revue d’Études Antiques 102 (1): 229–236.Google Scholar
2016b “Congratulations in Latin Comedy: Types and Functions”. Journal of Politeness Research 12 (2): 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Gli studi sulla (s)cortesia linguistica in latino. Possibilità di analisi e proposte per il futuro”. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 56 (2): 9–37.Google Scholar
Valenti, Rossana
1976 “Per un’analisi semantica di urbanitas in Cicerone”. Bolletino di Studi Latini 61: 54–61.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
1992 “Linguistic Politeness and Politic Verbal Behaviour: Reconsidering Claims for Universality”. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 43–69. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Historical Politeness”. In Marcel Bax and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness, 103–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Editions and translations of Latin texts

Falconer, W. A.
1923 Cicero. On Old Age. On Friendship. On Divination. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, B. O.
1919 Livy. History of Rome, Volume I: Books 1–2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hubbell, H. M.
1949 Cicero. On Invention. The Best Kind of Orator. Topics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Melo, Wolfgang
2011 Plautus. Amphitryon. The Comedy of Asses. The Pot of Gold. The Two Bacchises. The Captives. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2011 Plautus. The Merchant. The Braggart Soldier. The Ghost. The Persian. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Walter
1913 Cicero. On Duties. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rackham, H.
1914 Cicero. On Ends. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rolfe, J. C.
1927 Gellius. Attic Nights, Volume I: Books 1–5. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Donald A.
2002 Quintilian. The Orator’s Education, Volume I: Books 1–2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R.
1999 Cicero. Letters to Atticus, Volume I. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warmington, E. H.
1935 Ennius, Caecilius. Remains of Old Latin, Volume I: Ennius. Caecilius. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Torzi, Ilaria
2022. Il concilio degli dèi (Verg.Aen.10.1-117), fraars rhetoricae(im)politeness. Lexis :1 DOI logo
Unceta Gómez, Luis
2023.  Facetus and the birth of “European” politeness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 24:1 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.