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 (78)
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 (3)

Cited by three other publications

Gioseffi, Massimo
2023.  Adulatio: A Word in the Lexicon of the Empire and its Transformations. Illinois Classical Studies 48:1-2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Unceta Gómez, Luis
2023.  Facetus and the birth of “European” politeness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 24:1 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Torzi, Ilaria
2022. Il concilio degli dèi (Verg.Aen.10.1-117), fraars rhetoricae(im)politeness. Lexis :1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 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.