Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Am I politic?
View graph of relations

Am I politic?: (Im)politeness in Shakespeare’s soliloquies

Research output: Contribution to conference - Without ISBN/ISSN Conference paper

Published

Standard

Am I politic? (Im)politeness in Shakespeare’s soliloquies. / Murphy, Sean Edward.
2015. 1-19 Paper presented at PALA 2015, Canterbury, United Kingdom.

Research output: Contribution to conference - Without ISBN/ISSN Conference paper

Harvard

Murphy, SE 2015, 'Am I politic? (Im)politeness in Shakespeare’s soliloquies', Paper presented at PALA 2015, Canterbury, United Kingdom, 15/07/15 - 18/07/15 pp. 1-19. <http://www.pala.ac.uk/uploads/2/5/1/0/25105678/murphy_sean.pdf>

APA

Vancouver

Murphy SE. Am I politic? (Im)politeness in Shakespeare’s soliloquies. 2015. Paper presented at PALA 2015, Canterbury, United Kingdom.

Author

Murphy, Sean Edward. / Am I politic? (Im)politeness in Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Paper presented at PALA 2015, Canterbury, United Kingdom.19 p.

Bibtex

@conference{f3c69546eefd4262809c99a02a64b6d2,
title = "Am I politic?: (Im)politeness in Shakespeare{\textquoteright}s soliloquies",
abstract = "This paper reports on a study of (im)politeness in soliloquies in Shakespeare{\textquoteright}s plays. Iargue that classic theories of politeness such as Brown and Levinson (1987) cannot fullyaccount for politeness phenomena in soliloquies. There is therefore a need for a modelof self-politeness such as that proposed by Chen (2001) which can compensate for someof the deficiencies in the Brown and Levinson model. I apply Chen{\textquoteright}s model tosoliloquies and provide examples of self-politeness output strategies. Shakespeare{\textquoteright}scharacters use a variety of impolite and self-impolite forms in their self-talk, which Idiscuss using Culpeper{\textquoteright}s (2011) typology of conventionalised impolite formulae. Iconclude that aspects of soliloquies can be described in terms of self-politeness; that themotive for soliloquy may be a threat to self-face as soliloquies often involve internalconflict; and that for Shakespeare impoliteness proved to be a particularly useful devicein soliloquy. ",
keywords = "soliloquies , self-politeness, self-face, impoliteness ",
author = "Murphy, {Sean Edward}",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
pages = "1--19",
note = "PALA 2015 : Creative Style ; Conference date: 15-07-2015 Through 18-07-2015",
url = "https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/creative-style-conference/",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - Am I politic?

T2 - PALA 2015

AU - Murphy, Sean Edward

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This paper reports on a study of (im)politeness in soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays. Iargue that classic theories of politeness such as Brown and Levinson (1987) cannot fullyaccount for politeness phenomena in soliloquies. There is therefore a need for a modelof self-politeness such as that proposed by Chen (2001) which can compensate for someof the deficiencies in the Brown and Levinson model. I apply Chen’s model tosoliloquies and provide examples of self-politeness output strategies. Shakespeare’scharacters use a variety of impolite and self-impolite forms in their self-talk, which Idiscuss using Culpeper’s (2011) typology of conventionalised impolite formulae. Iconclude that aspects of soliloquies can be described in terms of self-politeness; that themotive for soliloquy may be a threat to self-face as soliloquies often involve internalconflict; and that for Shakespeare impoliteness proved to be a particularly useful devicein soliloquy.

AB - This paper reports on a study of (im)politeness in soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays. Iargue that classic theories of politeness such as Brown and Levinson (1987) cannot fullyaccount for politeness phenomena in soliloquies. There is therefore a need for a modelof self-politeness such as that proposed by Chen (2001) which can compensate for someof the deficiencies in the Brown and Levinson model. I apply Chen’s model tosoliloquies and provide examples of self-politeness output strategies. Shakespeare’scharacters use a variety of impolite and self-impolite forms in their self-talk, which Idiscuss using Culpeper’s (2011) typology of conventionalised impolite formulae. Iconclude that aspects of soliloquies can be described in terms of self-politeness; that themotive for soliloquy may be a threat to self-face as soliloquies often involve internalconflict; and that for Shakespeare impoliteness proved to be a particularly useful devicein soliloquy.

KW - soliloquies

KW - self-politeness

KW - self-face

KW - impoliteness

M3 - Conference paper

SP - 1

EP - 19

Y2 - 15 July 2015 through 18 July 2015

ER -