Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 25:1 (2024) ► pp.1–32

The pragmatics of royal discourse in William Shakespeare’s Henry vi

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University
Politeness (Brown and Gilman 1989; Rudanko 1993; Kopytko 1995) and impoliteness (Culpeper 1996, 2001; Bousfield 2007) have a prominent place in the reading of Shakespearean drama and serve as a means of characterisation. In this study, I utilise (im)politeness and face theory to characterise the royal discourse in 1, 2, 3 Henry vi . The study aims to analyse the linguistic behaviour of King Henry vi to see how well his royal discourse reflects his kingship and how his linguistic inadequacy contributes to his political failures. I investigate Henry’s use of (im)politeness and facework to handle political negotiations and I evaluate his level of awareness of the “political face”, which is the king’s desire to preserve a positive public image and to save face in social interactions. I look at the examples of Henry’s inadequate linguistic behaviour and try to establish why this behaviour was inefficient in a given scene and context.
Keywords: history play, impoliteness, politeness, political face, pragmatics of Early Modern politics, royal discourse, Shakespeare
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: (Im)politeness
    • 2.1Pragma-stylistics and literary characterisation
  • 3.King Henry vi or Dignitas non moritur(?)
    • 3.1 1 Henry vi : Redressive politeness
    • 3.2 2 Henry vi : Failing to (re)act
    • 3.3 3 Henry vi : A king with a crown in his heart
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 20 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.19012.kiz
References (76)
Sources
King Henry VI, Part 1. William Shakespeare. 2000. (Edited by Edward Burns.) London: Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
King Henry VI, Part 2. William Shakespeare. 2001. (Edited by Ronald Knowles.) London: Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
King Henry VI, Part 3. William Shakespeare. 2001. (Edited by John D. Cox and Eric Rasmussen.) London: Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
King Richard II. William Shakespeare. 2002. (Edited by Charles R. Forker.) London: Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
King Richard III. William Shakespeare. 2006. (Edited by Anthony Hammond.) London: Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
The Prince. Niccolò Machiavelli. 2007. In Peter Constantine (editor and translator), The Essential Writings of Machiavelli, 3–100. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
References
Archer, Dawn and Derek Bousfield. 2010. “‘See Better, Lear’? See Lear Better! A Corpus-Based Pragma-Stylistic Investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear ”. In Beatrix Busse and Dan McIntyre (eds), Language and Style, 183–203. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer, Dawn, Jonathan Culpeper and Paul Rayson. 2009. “Love – ‘A Familiar or a Devil’? An Exploration of Key Domains in Shakespeare’s Comedies and Tragedies”. In Dawn Archer (ed.), What’s in a Word List? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, 137–158. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert. 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
Bousfield, Derek. 2007. “‘Never a Truer Word Said in Jest’: A Pragmastylistic Analysis of Impoliteness as Banter in Henry IV, Part 1 ”. In Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell (eds), Contemporary Stylistics, 209–220. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. “Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power”. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 127–154. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions”. In Miriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham (eds), Interpersonal Pragmatics, 101–134. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 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): 159–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bull, Peter. 2012. “The Microanalysis of Political Discourse”. Philologia Hispalensis 26 (1–2): 79–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burns, Edward (ed). 2000. William Shakespeare’s King Henry VI, Part 1. London: The Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
Chernaik, Warren. 2007. The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Amy. 2011. “Cognitive Interplay: How Blending Theory and Cognitive Science Reread Shakespeare”. In Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches, 246–268. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Computers, Language and Characterisation: An Analysis of Six Characters in Romeo and Juliet ”. In Ulla Melander-Marttala, Carin Ostman and Merja Kytö (eds), Conversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium, 11–30. Uppsala: Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link ”. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 35–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power”. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae”. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3232–3245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Carolina Fernandez-Quintanilla. 2017. “Fictional Characterisation”. In Miriam A. Locher and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Pragmatics of Fiction, 93–128. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Claire Hardaker. 2017. “Impoliteness”. In Jonathan Culpeper, Daniel Haugh and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 199–226. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield and Anne Wichmann. 2003. “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects”. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10–11): 1545–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Falco, Raphael. 1999. “Charismas in Conflict: Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke”. Exemplaria 11 (2): 473–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Threatening Revisited”. Forensic Linguistics 5 (2): 159–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 2005 (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Hattaway, Michael (ed.). 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative”. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 3 (2): 295–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinze, Eric. 2009. “Power Politics and the Rule of Law: Shakespeare’s First Historical Tetralogy and Law’s Foundations”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (1): 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, Jean E. 1997. “The First Part of Henry the Sixth”. In Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katherine Eisaman Maus (eds), The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Based on the Oxford Edition, 247–254. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Hydén, Margareta. 1995. “Verbal Aggression as Prehistory of Woman Battering”. Journal of Family Violence 10 (1): 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1957. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues”. Journal of Politeness 14 (2): 193–218.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 2008. “Impoliteness and Emotional Arguments”. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (2): 243–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizelbach, Urszula. 2014. The Pragmatics of Early Modern Politics: Power and Kingship in Shakespeare’s History Plays. New York and Amsterdam: Brill/Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2017. “(Im)politeness in Fiction”. In Miriam A. Locher and Andreas H. Jucker (eds), Pragmatics of Fiction, 425–454. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Blunders and (Un)intentional Offence in Shakespeare”. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Manners, Norms and Transgressions in the History of English, 75–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knowles, Ronald (ed.). 2001. William Shakespeare’s King Henry VI, Part 2. London: The Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
Kopytko, Roman. 1995. “Linguistic Politeness Strategies in Shakespeare’s Plays”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Developments in the History of English, 515–541. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lachenicht, L. G. 1980. “Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language”. International Journal of Human Communication 13 (4): 607–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Leggatt, Alexander. 1988. Shakespeare’s Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lim, Tae-Seop. 1994. “Facework and Interpersonal Relationships”. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, 209–229. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Limberg, Holger. 2009. “Impoliteness and Threat Responses”. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (7): 1376–1394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loncraine, Richard. 1995. Richard III. (Directed by Richard Loncraine.) UK and USA: Guild Film Distribution.Google Scholar
Lull, Janice. 2006. “Plantagenets, Lancastrians, Yorkists, and Tudors: 1–3 Henry VI, Richard III, Edward III ”. In Michael Hattaway (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, 89–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Dan. 2008. “Integrating Multimodal Analysis and the Stylistics of Drama: A Multimodal Perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III ”. Language and Literature 17 (4): 309–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Dan and Derek Bousfield. 2017. “(Im)politeness in Fictional Texts”. In Jonathan Culpeper, Daniel Haugh and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 759–783. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manheim, Michael. 1973. The Weak King Dilemma in the Shakespearean History Play. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, Joseph A. 1979. The Drama of Speech Acts: Shakespeare’s Lancastrian Tetralogy. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rackin, Phyllis. 2006. “Women’s Roles in the Elizabethan History Plays”. In Michael Hattaway (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, 71–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reese, M. M. 1961. The Cease of Majesty: A Study of Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 1993. Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Aggravated Impoliteness and Two Types of Speaker Intention in an Episode in Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens ”. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (6): 829–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Concepts for Analyzing Deception in Discourse Intended to be Persuasive: Two Case Studies from Shakespearean Drama”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (1): 109–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations”. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 529–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport”. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 11–47. (Second edition.) London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. “Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research”. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2): 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Toward 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: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Perceptions of the In-Group”. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Michael Haugh (eds), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 269–288. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Tillyard, E. M. W. 1959. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
1962. Shakespeare’s History Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar