Courtesy and Politeness in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
PDF

Keywords

historical pragmatics
Middle English
politeness
courtesy
Middle English romance
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
terms of address

How to Cite

Jucker, A. H. (2015). Courtesy and Politeness in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 49(3), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/stap-2015-0007

Abstract

A close reading of three selected passages of the Middle English alliterative romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight provides a detailed picture of fictional and fairy-tale manifestations of courtly and polite behaviour in Middle English, a period that imported many new terms of courtesy and politeness from French. In the three passages Sir Gawain is visited in his bedchamber by the lady of the house, who tries to seduce him and thus puts him in a severe dilemma of having to be courteous to the lady and at the same time loyal to his host and to the code of chivalry. The analysis shows how Sir Gawain and the lady of the house engage in a discursive struggle of the true implications of courteous behaviour. It also shows how the two characters use nominal and pronominal terms of address to negotiate their respective positions of power, dominance and submission towards each other. And, finally, an analysis of requests reveals how the lady carefully selects appropriate strategies to reflect the severity of the imposition of her requests and her momentary standing in their discursive struggle.

https://doi.org/10.1515/stap-2015-0007
PDF

References

Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1894. Complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford.

Tolkien, Christopher (ed.). 1975. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfeo. Translated by J. R. R. Tolkien. London: Allen & Unwin. [2006] [Reprinted. Harper Collins]

Tolkien, J. R. R. & E. V. Gordon (ed.). 1967. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 2nd edn. Revised by Norman Davis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bouchara, Abdelaziz. 2009. Politeness in Shakespeare: Applying Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory to Shakespeare’s comedies. Hamburg: Diplomica.

Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18(2). 159-212.

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burlin, Robert B. 1995. Middle English romance: The structure of the genre. The Chaucer Review 30(1). 1-14.

Burnley, David. 1983. A guide to Chaucer’s language. London: Macmillan.

Burnley, David. 2003. The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 27-45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Busse, Beatrix. 2006. Vocative constructions in the language of Shakespeare (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic variation in the Shakespeare corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Busse, Ulrich. 2003. The co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare corpus: Who says thou or you to whom? In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 193-221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Busse, Ulrich & Beatrix Busse. 2010. Shakespeare. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8), 247-281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Politeness and impoliteness. In Gisle Andersen & Karin Aijmer (eds.). 2011, Pragmatics of society (Handbooks of Pragmatics 5), 393-438. Berlin: de Gruyter.

De Roo, Harvey. 1997. What’s in a name? Power dynamics in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The Chaucer Review 31(3). 232-255.

Evans, William W. 1967. Dramatic use of the second-person singular pronoun in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Neophilologica 39(1). 38-45.

Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories (Encounters 1). Manchester: St. Jerome.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 1998. The commerce of language in the pursuit of politeness in eighteenthcentury England. English Studies 79(4). 309-328.

Honegger, Thomas. 2003. “And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, thanne preye I thee, [...].”: Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H.

Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 61-84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Honegger, Thomas. 2005. ‘wyȝe welcum iwys to this place’: And never mind the alliteration: An inquiry into the use of forms of address in two alliterative ME romances. In Nikolaus Ritt & Herbert Schendl (eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and literary approaches, 169-178. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3): 223-248.

Jucker, Andreas H. 2006. “Thou art so loothly and so oold also”: The use of ye and thou in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Anglistik 17(2). 57-72.

Jucker, Andreas H. 2010. “In curteisie was set ful muchel hir lest”: Politeness in Middle English. In Jonathan Culpeper & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Historical (im)politeness (Linguistic Insights 65), 175-200. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

Jucker, Andreas H. 2012a. Changes in politeness cultures. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 422-433. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jucker, Andreas H. 2012b. “What’s in a name?”: Names and terms of address in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. In Sarah Chevalier and Thomas Honegger (eds.), Words, words, words: Philology and beyond. Festschrift for Andreas Fischer on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 77-97. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen. 2003. Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 1-25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jucker, Andreas H., Irma Taavitsainen & Gerold Schneider. 2012. Semantic corpus trawling: Expressions of “courtesy” and “politeness” in the Helsinki Corpus. In Carla Suhr & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Developing corpus methodology for historical pragmatics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 11). Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/11/prag/jucker_taavitsainen_schneider/

Knappe, Gabriele & Michael Schümann. 2006. Thou and ye: A collocational-phraseological approach to pronoun change in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42. 213-238.

Kohnen, Thomas. 2008. Linguistic politeness in Anglo-Saxon England? A study of Old English address terms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9(1). 140-158.

Kopytko, Roman. 1993. Polite discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.

Kopytko, Roman. 1995. Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Andreas H.

Jucker (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35), 515-540. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Locher, Miriam A. 2008. The rise of prescriptive grammars on English in the 18th century. In Miriam Locher & Jürg Strässler (eds.), English standards and norms in the language (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 95), 127-147. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Locher, Miriam. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernandez Amaya, Maria de la O. Hernandez Lopez, Reyes Gomez Moron, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 1-22. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 9-33.

Mazzon, Gabriella. 2000. Social relations and form of address in the Canterbury Tales. In Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics, 135-168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mazzon, Gabriella. 2010. Terms of address. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8), 351-376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2/3). 131-166.

Watts, Richard. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 43-70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, Richard. 2005. Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (2nd edn.), xi-xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wilcockson, Colin. 1980. Thou and ye in Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale. The Use of English 31(3). 37-43.