Book contents
- Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin
- Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Expression of Im/Politeness
- Part III Im/Politeness in Use
- Part IV Ancient Perceptions on Im/Politeness
- Glossary
- References
- Index Rerum
- Index Locorum
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2022
Book contents
- Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin
- Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Expression of Im/Politeness
- Part III Im/Politeness in Use
- Part IV Ancient Perceptions on Im/Politeness
- Glossary
- References
- Index Rerum
- Index Locorum
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin , pp. 368 - 403Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adams, J. N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1997). I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, T. and Jansen Westvik, O., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E., Martínez Flor, A. and Safont Jordà, María P. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting. A socio-pragmatic approach. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 4, 1–35.Google Scholar
Arnott, W. G. (1964). The confrontation of Sostratos and Gorgias. Phoenix, 18, 110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnott, W. G. (1996). Menander, vol. II, Heros, Theophoroumene, Karchedonios, Kitharistes, Kolax, Koneiazomenai, Leukadia, Misoumenos, Perikeiromene, Perinthia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arnott, W. G. (1997 [1979]). Menander, vol. I, Aspis, Georgos, Dis Exapaton, Encheiridion, Epitrepontes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arnott, W. G. (2000). Menander, vol. III, Samia, Sikyonioi, Synaristosai, Phasma, Fabulae Incertae 1–9: New Book Fragments. Plot Summaries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baffy, M. (2020). Doing ‘being interrupted’ in political talk. Language in Society, 49(5), 689–715.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. (1997). Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Baratin, M. and Desbordes, F. (1987). La ‘troisième partie’ de l’Ars grammatica. In Taylor, D. J., ed., The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–66 [reprinted in Desbordes 2007, pp. 65–90].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. (2016). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. (2021). Developments in politeness from Aristophanes to Menander and Beyond. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama: Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Amsterdam: Brill, pp. 234–63.Google Scholar
Barrios-Lech, P. (forthcoming). Putting on a Fronto: Persona and patterns of language in Fronto’s correspondence. Schola Vivida: A Festschrift on the Occasion of Jacqui Carlon’s Retirement.Google Scholar
Barsby, J. (2001a). Terence, The Woman of Andros, The Self-Tormentor, The Eunuchus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barsby, J. (2001b). Terence, Phormio, The Mother-in-Law, The Brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barwick, K. and Kühnert, F. (1925–1964). Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V, Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Basore, J. W. (1928). Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. I, De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Basset, L. (1997). Ἀλλ’ ἐξόλοισθ’ αὐτῷ κοαξ. Réexamen des emplois de ἀλλά dans les Grenouilles d’Aristophane. In Rijksbaron, A., ed., New Approaches to Greek Particles. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäumlein, W. F. L. (1861). Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. B. Metzlerschen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bax, M. (2010). Epistolary presentation rituals. Face-work, politeness and ritual display in Early Modern Dutch letter-writing. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 37–86.Google Scholar
Bax, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2011). The Historical Understanding of Historical (Im)Politeness. Double Special Issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12 (1–2). Reprinted as Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness. Relational Linguistic Practice over Time and Across Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2012.Google Scholar
Bayraktaroǧlu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish. In Bayraktaroǧlu, A. and Sifianou, M., eds., Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, M. (2014). Laughter in Ancient Rome: On Joking, Tickling, and Cracking Up. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bellucci, P. (2005). A onor del vero. Fondamenti di linguistica giudiziaria. Turin: UTET Libreria.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. (1978). Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. In Perlmutter, D., Jaeger, J. J., Woodbury, A. C., Ackerman, F., Chiarello, C., Gensler, O. D., and Kingston, J., eds., Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California, pp.557–75.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2016a). Escenas de bienvenida en las comedias de Plauto. Scripta Classica, 13, 65–84.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2016b). Introducing the first topic slot in Plautine dialogues. Roczniki Humanistyczne. Filologia Klasyczna, 64, 89–110.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2016c). El humor de la salutatio en las comedias de Plauto: desautomatización de las fórmulas conversacionales. In Borrell i Vidal, E., Gómez i Cardó, P., and de la Cruz Palma, Ó, eds., Omnia mutantur. canvi, transformació i pervivència en la cultura clàssica, en les seves llengües i en el seu llegat. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 39–47.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2017a). Estrategias de la cortesía positiva en la apertura dialógica en Plauto y Terencio. Revista de Estudios Latinos, 17, 11–35.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2017b). The old man and linguistic politeness in the comedies of Plautus. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae, 27(3), 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2017c). Bendecir para saludar en Plauto. Redistribución de la función pragmática. Emerita, 85, 261–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2019). Gestión de los turnos conversacionales en Plauto y Terencio: entre el habla y los silencios. In López Gregoris, R., ed., Drama y dramaturgia en Roma. Zaragoza: Pórtico, pp. 281–309.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2020a). Turn taking and power relations in Plautus’ Casina. Graeco-Latina Brunensia, 25(1),19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2020b). Forms of talk in Roman comedy. Reading Plautus and Terence with Goffman and conversation analysts. Dionysus ex Machina, 11, 137–67.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2021a). Advice-giving in Roman comedy: Speech-act formulation and im/politeness. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 264–90.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2021b). Interruptions in Roman comedy: Gender, status, and power in interaction. Philologia Classica, 16(1), 57–76.Google Scholar
Berger, Ł. (2021c). Time, timing, and (im)politeness in Roman comedy, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 50(3), 543–60.Google Scholar
Bernal, M. (2008). Do insults always insult? Genuine impoliteness versus non-genuine impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. Pragmatics, 18, 775–802.Google Scholar
Bernard, J.-E. (2013). La Sociabilité épistolaire chez Cicéron. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Bertocchi, A., Maraldi, M., and Orlandini, A. (2009). Quantification. In Baldi, P. and Cuzzolin, P., eds., Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, vol. II, New Perspectives on Historical Syntax. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 19–173.Google Scholar
Bettini, M. (1978). Su alcuni modelli antropologici della Roma più arcaica: designazioni linguistiche e pratiche cultuali (I). Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 1, 123–75.Google Scholar
Bicket, A. M. (1983). Psogos: The Use of Invective in Greek Literature from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century b.c. Diss. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Biraud, M. (2010). Les Interjections du théâtre grec ancien. Étude sémantique et pragmatique, Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37–71.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (2005 [1992]). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255–80.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., and House, J. (1989). Investigating cross cultural pragmatics. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, M. (1998). Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language in Cicero’s letters. In Risselada, R., ed., Latin in Use. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Bonifazi, A., Drummen, A., and de Kreij, M. (2016). Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use across Genres. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6391.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. F. (1977). Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. (2013). The sympotic tease. In Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D., and Szymanski, M., eds., The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, G. (2015). Investigating aristocracy in archaic Rome and central Italy: Social mobility, ideology and cultural influences. In Fisher, N. and van Wees, H., eds., ‘Aristocracy’ in Antiquity. Redefining Greek and Roman Elites. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, pp. 85–124.Google Scholar
Brookins, T. (2010). A politeness analysis of Catullus’ polymetric poems: Can Leech’s GSP cross the Ancient-Modern divide? Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1283–95.Google Scholar
Brown, L. and Prieto, P. (2017). (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 357–79.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–76.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunius-Nilsson, E. (1955). ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. (1965). Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 191, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds. (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau, B. et al. (2009). Hyperdonat, édition électronique de commentaires anciens, Donat, Commentaire des comédies de Térence. http://hyperdonat.huma-num.fr/.Google Scholar
Burian, P. (1985). Logos and pathos: The politics of the Suppliant Women. In Burian, P., ed., Directions in Euripidean Criticism: A Collection of Essays. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 129–55Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1997). First words: A valedictory lecture. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 43, 1–20.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (2006). Metapragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 83–8.Google Scholar
Cardauns, B. (2001). Marcus Terentius Varro: Einführung in sein Werk. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caspers, C. (2010). The pragmatic function and textual status of Euripidean οὔ που and ἦ που. Classical Quarterly, 60(2), 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catrambone, M. (2016). Off-record politeness in Sophocles: The patterned dialogues of female characters. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 173–95.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 261–72.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2010). Idiom(s) and literariness in classical literary criticism. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–64.Google Scholar
Clackson, J. (2010). Colloquial language in linguistic studies. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. (2016). The language of a Pompeian tavern: Submerged Latin? In Adams, J. and Vincent, N., eds., Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., and Tearsley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially-Shared Cognition. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 151–66.Google Scholar
Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches, definition. In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 235–48.Google Scholar
Coker, A. (2019). How filthy was Cleopatra? Looking for dysphemistic words in Ancient Greek. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 186–203.Google Scholar
Coleman, K. M. (2012). Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 142, 189–238.Google Scholar
Coles, R. A. (1966). Reports of Proceedings in Papyri. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.Google Scholar
Collard, C. (2018). Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (revised and enlarged edition of Stevens’, P. T. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. Hermes Einzelschriften, 113).Google Scholar
Collins, D. (2004). Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek Poetry. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.Google Scholar
Collins, J. H. (1952). Tullia’s engagement and marriage to Dolabella. Classical Journal, 47(5), 164–8.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. (1996). Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. (2002). Ciceronian invective. In May, J. M., ed., Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric. Leiden, Brill, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar
Corcoran, S. (1996). The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government a.d. 284–324. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, H. M. (1981). Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire. Königstein: Hain.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239–66.Google Scholar
Coventry, L. (1990). The role of the interlocutor in Plato’s dialogues: Theory and practice. In Pelling, C., ed., Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 174–96.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television show: ‘The Weakest Link’. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011a). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics, vol. 5, Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391–436.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In Capone, A. and Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 421–45.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. (2008). Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2010). Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., and Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, I. C. (2004). Herodas, Mimiambi, cum appendice fragmentorum mimorum Papyraceorum. Munich/Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, P. (2010). Evidentialitätsstrategien im Lateinischen. Vorläufige Bemerkungen. In Anreiter, P. and Kienpointner, M., eds., Latin Linguistics Today: Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, Innsbruck, 4–9 April 2009. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 247–56.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, H. (1935). M. Terentius Varro. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 6, 1172–277.Google Scholar
David, M. K., Kuang, C. H., and DeAlwis, C. (2012). Politeness strategies in openings and closings of service encounters in two Malaysian agencies. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 4(2), 61–76.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understanding of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2010). Possessive pronouns in Plautus. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–99.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2011a). Plautus, Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The two Bacchises, The Captives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2011b). Plautus, Casina, The Casket Comedy, Curculio, Epidicus, The Two Menaechmuses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2011c). Plautus, The Merchant, The Braggart Soldier, The Ghost, The Persian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2012). Plautus, The Little Carthaginian, Pseudolus, The Rope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Melo, W. C. (2013). Plautus, Stichus, Three Dollar Day, Truculentus, The Tale of a Traveling Bag, Fragments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Debut, J. (1984). Les Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana. Une Méthode d’apprentissage des langues pour grands débutants. Koinonia, 8(1), 61–85.Google Scholar
Demetriou, C. (2014). Aelius Donatus and his commentary on Terence’s comedies. In Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 782–99.Google Scholar
Deniaux, E. (1993). Clientèles et pouvoir à l’époque de Cicéron. Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar
Denizot, C. (2011). Donner des ordres en grec ancien: étude linguistique des formes de l’injonction, Mont-Saint-Aignan: Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.Google Scholar
Denizot, C. (2012). Impolite orders in Ancient Greek? The οὐκ ἐρεῖς; type. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 110–28.Google Scholar
Denniston, J. D. (1950). The Greek Particles, 2nd edn revised by Dover, K. J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Desbordes, F. (2007). Idées grecques et romaines sur le langage. Travaux d’histoire et d’épistémologie. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (1995). Forms of address and conversational language in Aristophanes and Menander. Mnemosyne, 48(4), 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (1996). Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2001). Κύριε, δέσποτα, domine. Greek politeness in the Roman Empire. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 121, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2002). Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2010a). Latin influence and Greek request formulae. In Evans, T. V. and Obbink, D. D., eds., The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–20.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2010b). Forms of address and markers of status. In Bakker, E., ed., A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 328–37.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2010c). Introduction. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2010d). Preliminary conclusions. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2012a). The rules of politeness and Latin request formulae. In Probert, P. and Willi, A., eds., Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.313–28.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2012b). How to say ‘please’ in Classical Latin. Classical Quarterly, 62(2), 731–48.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2012c). The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, vol. I, Colloquia Monacensia-Einsidlensia, Leidense-Stephani, and Stephani. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2014). A catalogue of works attributed to the grammarian Herodian. Classical Philology, 109, 325‒45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2015a). How to say ‘please’ in post-Classical Latin: Fronto and the importance of archaism. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 14, 17–31.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2015b). The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, vol. II, Colloquium Harleianum, Colloquium Montepessulanum, Colloquium Celtis, and Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2016a). Politeness in ancient Rome: Can it help us evaluate modern politeness theories? Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 197–220.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2016b). Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters. In Sanders, E. and Johncock, M., eds., Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 237–62.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds. (2010). Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, S. (2007). Römische Agrarhandbücher zwischen Fachwissenschaft, Literatur und Ideologie, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diggle, J. (2004). Theophrastus. Characters. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dinter, M. T. (ed.). (2019). The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionisotti, C. (1982). From Ausonius’ schooldays? A schoolbook and its relatives. The Journal of Roman Studies, 72, 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1995). Conversation analysis. In Smith, J., Harré, R., and van Langenhove, L., eds., Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 64–79.Google Scholar
Duckworth, G. E. (1994 [1952]). The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Dunbabin, J. M. D. and Slater, W. J. (2011). Roman dining. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–66.Google Scholar
Dunkel, G. E. (2000). Remarks on code-switching in Cicero’s letters to Atticus. Museum Helveticum, 57, 122–9.Google Scholar
Dutsch, D. (2008). Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and act locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–90.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. (1997). Optatus, Against the Donatists. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Ekonomidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 111–38.Google Scholar
Elder, O. and Mullen, A. (2019). The Language of Roman Letters: Bilingual Epistolography from Cicero to Fronto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elice, M. (2007). Romani Aquilae de figuris. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Englebretson, R., ed. (2007). Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1976). Is Sybil there: Some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (1996). Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language Sciences, 18, 629–50.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantham, E. (2004). The Roman World of Cicero’s De oratore. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Ch. (2017). Quapropter, quaeso? ‘Why, for pity’s sake?’ Questions and the pragmatic functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in Plautus. In Denizot, C. and Spevak, O., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–109.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. (2016). Beyond Greek. The Beginnings of Latin Literature. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2008a). Politeness in Latin comedy. Some preliminary thoughts. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 61, 15–28.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2008b). Il latino dei Colloquia Scholica. In Bellandi, F. and Ferri, R., eds., Aspetti della scuola nel mondo romano. Atti del convegno (Pisa, 5–6 dicembre 2006). Amsterdam: Hakkert, pp. 111–77.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2012). How to say ‘no’ in Latin: Negative turns, politeness and pragmatic variation. In Leiwo, M., Halla-aho, H., and Vierros, M., eds., Variation and Change in Greek and Latin. Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, pp. 105–27.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2015). Linguistic variation in patristic commentaries of Biblical texts. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 53(2),331–354.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2016). An ancient grammarian’s view of how the spoken language works. Pragmalinguistic observations in Donatus’ Commentum Terentii. In Ferri, R. and Zago, A., eds., The Latin of the Grammarians. Reflections about Language in the Roman World. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 237–75.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2020). Teaching Roman law in an ancient western school. The genre and language of the Fragmenta Augustodunensia. In Mantovani, D. and Babusiaux, U., eds., Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo. Pavia: Pavia University Press, pp. 565–77.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. and Probert, P. (2010). Roman authors on colloquial language. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12–41.Google Scholar
Finoli, A. M. (1958). Χαριεντισμός festiva dictio, Αστεϊσμός urbana dictio. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo. Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche, 92(2), 569–80.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. and Taavitsainen, I., eds. (2007). Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Flower, H. I. (2011). Elite self-representation in Rome. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–85.Google Scholar
Fortson, B. (2008). Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds., New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. and Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–110.Google Scholar
Freese, J. H. (2000 [1930]). Cicero, Pro Publio Quinctio; Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino; Pro Quinto Roscio Comoedo; De lege agrarian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, M. (1992). Cicero and the Roman Republic (transl. Yuill), W. E.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2013). Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese students, Japanese parents and American students of evaluations of attentiveness. Pragmatics, 23(2), 275–99.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. and Haugh, M. (2014). The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165–79.Google Scholar
Galinsky, K. (1996). Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galinsky, L. (2012). Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcea, A. (2016). Gli schemata dianoeas di Carisio: un unicum tra grammatica, retorica e letteratura. In Ferri, R. and Zago, A., eds., The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a). Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 535–59.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Hernández, B. (2007). De iure uerrino. El derecho, el aderezo culinario y el augurio de los nombres. Madrid: Dykinson.Google Scholar
Geyer, N. (2008). Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (2014a). Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): The cyclic nature of functional developments. In Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P., eds., Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (2014b). Politeness markers from Latin to Italian: Periphery, discourse structure and cyclicity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 307–37.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction. Insights from conversation analysis. In Evans, M. B., Jeffries, L., and O’Driscoll, J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict. London: Routledge, pp. 215–45.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power-and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(6), 883–903.Google Scholar
Gomme, A. W. and Sandbach, F. H. (1973). Menander: A Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283–307.Google Scholar
Goody, E. (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gotter, U. (2008). Cultural differences and cross-cultural contact: Greek and Roman concepts of power. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 104, 179–230.Google Scholar
Grainger, K. (2018). ‘We’re not in a club now’: A neo-Brown and Levinson approach to analyzing courtroom data. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
Green, C. M. C. (1997). Free as a bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3. American Journal of Philology, 118, 427–48.Google Scholar
Greenwood, L. H. G. (1928). Cicero, The Verrine Orations, vol. I, Against Caecilius. Against Verres, Part 1; Part 2, Books 1–2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2003). Asyl und Athen: Die Konstruktion kollektiver Identität in der griechischen Tragödie. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Grice, P (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Speech Acts, vol. III, Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grose Hodge, H. (2000 [1927]). Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia. Pro Caecina. Pro Cluentio. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guérin, C. (2009). Persona: l’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J.-C., vol. I, Antécédents grecs et première rhétorique latine, Paris: Éditions Vrin.Google Scholar
Guérin, C. (2015). Persona: l’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J.-C., vol. II, Théorisation cicéronienne de la persona oratoire. Paris: Éditions Vrin.Google Scholar
Gustafson, K. (1983). Final monosyllables – why elision? Symbolae Osloenses, 58(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
Hajdú, K. (1998). Ps.-Herodian, De figuris. Überlieferungsgeschichte und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hall, J. (1996). Social evasion and aristocratic manners in Cicero’s De Oratore. American Journal of Philology, 117(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. (2005). Politeness and formality in Cicero’s letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27). Museum Helveticum, 62, 193–213.Google Scholar
Hall, J. (2009). Politeness and Politics in Cicero’s Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. (2019). Seneca’s De Beneficiis and nonverbal politeness in Ancient Rome. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 225–43.Google Scholar
Halla-aho, H. and Kruschwitz, P. (2010). Colloquial and literary language in early Roman tragedy. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–53.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1991). The uses of laughter in Greek culture. Classical Quarterly, 41, 279–96.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1995). Forms of address: Socratic vocatives in Plato. In de Martino, F. and Sommerstein, A. H., eds., Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari: Levante, pp. 87–121.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (1999). Review of Dickey 1996. Échos du monde classique/Classical Views, 18, 110–18.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2008). Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, J. A. (1989). Apuleius, Metamorphoses, vol. II, Books VII–IX. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 295–317.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2106–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–34.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Impoliteness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2015a). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018a). Linguistic politeness. In Hasegawa, Y., ed., Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 608–27.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018b). Afterword: Theorizing (im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 153–65.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–114.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. P., eds., Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Intercultural (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 601–32.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2017). (Im)politeness theory. In Vine, B., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–42.Google Scholar
Hayashi, R. (1991). Floor structure of English and Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 227–55.Google Scholar
Hejtmanová, M. (2003). Hedging in vulgar Latin texts. In Solin, H., Leiwo, M., and Halla-aho, H., eds., Latin vulgaire, latin tardif. VI. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms/Weidmann, pp. 541–53.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (1998a). Aristophanes, Acharnians. Knights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (1998b). Aristophanes, Clouds. Wasps. Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2000). Aristophanes, Birds, Lysistrata, Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2002). Aristophanes, Frogs. Assemblywomen. Wealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2008). Conversation analysis as social theory. In Turner, B. S., ed., The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 300–20.Google Scholar
Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herman, V. (2002). Turn management in drama. In Culpeper, J., Short, M., and Verdonk, P., eds., Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar
Hesk, J. (2007). Combative capping in Aristophanic comedy. Cambridge Classical Journal, 53, 124–60.Google Scholar
Hilgard, A. (1901). Scholia in Dionysium Thracem, vol. I.3, Grammatici Graeci. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., and Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–71.Google Scholar
Hirzel, R. (1895). Der Dialog: ein literarhistorischer Versuch. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. E. (1983). Conversation openings in the comedies of Plautus. In Pinkster, H., ed., Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Amsterdam, April 1981). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.217–26.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. (2003). La lingua d’uso latina, 3rd edn (transl. Ricottilli, L.). Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1997 [1972]). Syntax und Stilistik, vol. II of Lateinische Grammatik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159–85.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 26–50.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–49.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holtz, L. (1979). Grammairiens et rhéteurs romains en concurrence pour l’enseignement des figures de rhétorique. In Chevallier, R., ed., Colloque sur la rhétorique. Calliope I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 207–20.Google Scholar
Holtz, L. (1981). Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe–IXe siècle) et édition critique. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Holwerda, D. (1982). Scholia uetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis.Google Scholar
Hooper, W. D. and Ash, H. B. (1934). Cato, Varro, On Agriculture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hübler, A. (2011). Metapragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–36.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. L. (1985). The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurschmann, R. (2006). Gruß. In Cancik, H, Schneider, H., and Landfester, M., eds., Der Neue Pauly, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e500080.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1992). Confrontation talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text & Talk, 12(3), 343–72.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices, and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (1998). Cicero’s Correspondence. A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 223–48.Google Scholar
Ide, S. (1992). On the notion of wakimae: Toward an integrated framework of linguistic politeness. In Takeuchi, M., ed., Kotoba no mozaiku. Collection of Papers in Honor of Professor Natsuko Okuda. Tokyo: Mejiro Linguistic Society, 298–305.Google Scholar
Ireland, S. (2010). New comedy. In Dobrov, G., ed., Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy. Leiden: Brill, pp. 333–96.Google Scholar
Iurescia, F. (2019a). Credo iam ut solet iurgabit: Pragmatica della lite a Roma. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Iurescia, F. (2019b). How to assess politeness in response to impoliteness: Some examples from Latin comedy. In van Gils, L., Kroon, C., and Risselada, R., eds., Lemmata Linguistica Latina, vol. II, Clause and Discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 887–903.Google Scholar
Iurescia, F. (2019c). Litigare in tragedia: per una pragmatica del conflitto. Emerita 87(2), 255–83.Google Scholar
Iurescia, F. (2020). Deadlocks in Roman tragedy. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 84, 113–44.Google Scholar
Iurescia, F. and Martin, G. (2019). Closing conflicts. Discourse strategies across Greek and Roman tragedies. Lingue e Linguaggi, 31, 233–54.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in Pragmatics. In Jucker, A., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobi, R. (1996). Die Kunst der Exegese im Terenzkommentar des Donat. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jekat, S. J. and Hohenstein, C., eds. (2012). Respect and the 3rd person in a multilingual perspective. Linguistik Online, 51(1), https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.51.301.Google Scholar
Jones, C. W. (1975). Beda, De Orthographia. In Jones, C. W., Kendall, C. B., King, M. H., Jones, C. W., and Lipp, F., eds., Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars I Didascalica, Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 7–57.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Kopaczyk, J. (2017). Historical (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 433–59.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Stanley, L. (2017). (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403–29.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Complimenting in the history of American English. A metacommunicative expression analysis. In Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H. and Tuominen, J., eds., Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257–76.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Taavitsainen, I. and Schneider, G. (2012). Semantic corpus trawling: expressions of ‘courtesy’ and ‘politeness’ in the Helsinki Corpus. In Suhr, C. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Helsinki, Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/11/jucker_taavitsainen_schneider.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2013). Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical im/politeness. An introduction. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (2013). Rethinking discernment. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2), 133–58.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2010). Pragmatics functions of parenthetical I think. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds., New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 237–66.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds. (2010). New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Kamen, D. (2020). Insults in Classical Athens. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description in Its Interactional Functions with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218.Google Scholar
Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (1998). Poetae Comici Graeci, Menander. Testimonia et fragmenta apud scriptores servata, vol. VI.2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (1988). Guardians of Language. The Grammarians and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (2005). Emotion, Restraint and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kauer, R. and Lindsay, W. M. (1958). P. Terenti Afri Comoediae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, J. G., Manning, J. G., and Yiftach-Firanko, U. (2014). Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest: A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keil, H. (1855). Diomedis Artis Grammaticae libri tres, vol. I, Grammatici Latini. Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 299–529.Google Scholar
Keil, H. (1874). Marii Plotii Sacerdotis Artium Grammaticarum libri tres, vol. VI, Grammatici Latini. Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 427–546.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., and Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–48.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., and Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–47.Google Scholar
Kendall, C. B. (1975). Beda, De arte metrica. De schematibus et tropis. In Jones, C. W., Kendall, C. B., King, M. H., Jones, C. W., and Lipp, F., eds., Bedae Venerabilis Opera. Pars I, Didascalica. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 142–71.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. W. and Camden, C. T. (1983). A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Communication, 47(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992). Les Interactions verbales, vol. II. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2010). L’impolitesse en interaction. Aperçus théoriques et étude de cas. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, HS 2, 35–60.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness. Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4(2), 251–87.Google Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. (2010). Banter – a case of phatic communication? In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M., and Piskorska, A., eds., In the Mind and across Minds. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 188–207.Google Scholar
Kitamura, N. (2000). Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘politeness’ theory to the analysis of casual conversation. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/kitamura.pdf.Google Scholar
Klebs, E. (1896). Axius no. 4. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2(2), cols. 2633–4.Google Scholar
Kleinke, S. and Bös, B. (2015). Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics, 25(1), 47–71.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (1997). Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2018). Praise and flattery in the Latin epic: A case of intratextuality. In Harrison, S., Frangoulidis, S., and Papanghelis, T. D., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 341–52.Google Scholar
Korhonen, K. (1996). On the composition of the Hermeneumata language manuals. Arctos, 30, 101–19.Google Scholar
Koster, S. (1980). Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur. Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (1996). Impoliteness and conversational joking: On relational politics. Folia Linguistica, 30, 299–324.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4–25.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. M. (2000). ‘I was only kidding!’: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231–41.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, L. (2009). Allegories of Farming from Greece and Rome: Philosophical Satire in Xenophon, Varro, and Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroon, C. (2005). The relationship between grammar and discourse: Evidence from the Latin particle quidem. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 9(2), 557–90.Google Scholar
Kroon, C. (2009). Latin linguistics between grammar and discourse. Units of analysis, levels of analysis. In Rieken, E. and Widmer, P., eds., Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 143–56.Google Scholar
Krostenko, B. A. (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krostenko, B. A. (2013). Etymologizing the conuiuium: Varro’s nescis quid uesper serus uehat. Palamedes, 8, 113–39.Google Scholar
Krüger, P., Mommsen, T., and Studemund, W. (1878). Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani in usum scholarum, vol. I. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P. (2012). Language, sex and (lack of) power. Reassessing the linguistic discourse about female speech in Latin sources. Athenaeum, 100, 197–229.Google Scholar
Kruschwitz, P. and Clary-Venables, A. (2013). How to apologise in Latin: a case study. In Moore, T. J. and Polleichtner, W., eds., Form und Bedeutung im lateinischen Drama/Form and Meaning in Latin Drama. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar
Krylová, B. (2015). Latin directives and (im)politeness: How do modifications of illocutionary force (not) modify the (im)politeness status of directives. Paper delivered at the 18th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Université de Toulouse, 10 June 2015.Google Scholar
Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. (1904). Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1912–14). Ausfürliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II. Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Laffi, U. (2013). In greco per i Greci. Ricerche sul lessico greco del processo civile e criminale romano nelle attestazioni di fonti documentarie romane. Pavia: Pavia University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–395.Google Scholar
Lamb, W. R. M. (1925). Plato, Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lammermann, K. (1935). Von der attischen Urbanität und ihrer Auswirkung in der Sprache, Diss. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Lancel, S. (1972–1991). Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411. 4 vols. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.Google Scholar
Lane, M. (2011). Reconsidering Socratic irony. In Morrison, D. R., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–59.Google Scholar
Lape, S. (2004). Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lapidge, M. (2010). Colloquial Latin in the insular Latin scholastic colloquia? In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 406–18.Google Scholar
Lattimore, R. (1979). Optatives of consent and refusal. In Bowersock, G. W., Burkert, W., and Putnam, M. C. J., eds., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 209–16.Google Scholar
Laughton, E. (1960). Observations on the style of Varro. Classical Quarterly, 10, 1–28.Google Scholar
Laughton, E. (1978). Humour in Varro. In Collart, J., ed., Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 105–11.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Studies. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In. Coulmas, F., ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, pp.289–304.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 167–206.Google Scholar
Leeman, A. D. and Pinkster, H. (1981). Marcus Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri tres. Kommentar: Erster Band, Buch I, 1–165. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2002). Power in communication: Implications for the semantics-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 893–908.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M. (2005). Greek tragedy as impolite conversation: Towards a practice approach in linguistic theory. In Marmaridou, S., Kiki, N., and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 191–208.Google Scholar
Lentini, G. (2013). The pragmatics of verbal abuse in Homer. In Tell, H., ed., The Rhetoric of Abuse in Greek Literature, Classics@, 11 (online journal at chs.harvard.edu).Google Scholar
Lentini, G. (2018). (Im)politeness in the Iliad: The pragmatics of the Homeric expression ἀγαθός περ ἐών. Trends in Classics, 10(2), 255–74.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–77.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–21.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H., ed. (2004). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Letessier, P. (2000). La salutatio chez Plaute. Adaptation ludique d’un rituel social. Lalies, 20, 151–63.Google Scholar
Levisen, C. and Waters, S. (2015). Lige, a Danish ‘magic word’? An ethnopragmatic analysis. International Journal of Language and Culture, 2, 244–67.Google Scholar
Li, H. Z. (2001). Cooperative and intrusive interruptions in inter- and intracultural dyadic discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(3), 259–84.Google Scholar
Lilja, S. (1965). Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Linderski, J. (1985). The dramatic date of Varro, De re rustica, book III and the elections in 54. Historia, 34, 248–54.Google Scholar
Linderski, J. (1989). Garden parlors: Nobles and birds. In Curtis, R. I., ed., Studia Pompeiana et Classica in Honor of Wilhemina F. Jashemski, vol. II, Classica. New Rochelle, NY: Orpheus, pp. 105–27.Google Scholar
Lindsay, W. M. (1916). The Latin grammarians of the empire. The American Journal of Philology, 37, 31–41.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. (2004). The politeness of Achilles: Off-record conversation strategies in Homer and the meaning of kertomia. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 124, 75–89.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. (2006). Sophocles in the light of face-threat politeness theory. In de Jong, I. J. F. and Rijksbaron, A., eds., Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects of Diction, Syntax and Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill, pp. 225–40.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. (2009). The language of the gods: Politeness in the prologue of the Troades. In Cousland, J. R. C. and Hume, J. R., eds., The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp. Leiden: Brill, pp. 183–92.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. (2013). Politeness/impoliteness. In Roisman, H. M., ed., Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy. Chichester: Wiley, p. 987.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. (2020). Politeness and impoliteness in Aristophanes. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama: Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden: Brill, pp. 213–33.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994a). Sophocles, Antigone. The Women of Trachis. Philoctetes. Oedipus at Colonus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994b). Sophocles, Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006a). Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249–67.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2006b). The discursive approach to polite behavior: A response to Glick. Language in Society, 35, 733–5.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2012). Politeness research form past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Amaya, L. Fernández, Hernández López, M. de la O., Morón, R. Gómez, Padilla Cruz, M., Mejías Borrero, M., and Relinque Barranca, M., eds., New Perspectives on (Im)Politeness and Interpersonal Communication. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 36–60.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, J. R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, J. R. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, B. (1977). Ars Laureshamensis. Expositio in Donatum Maiorem. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
López Gregoris, R. (2002). El amor en la comedia latina. Análisis léxico y semántico. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S. (1997). Omission of the direct object in Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen, 102, 239–57.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (1977). Conversation, politeness, and interruption. Paper in Linguistics, 10 (1–2), 25–53.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2007). The origins of ethnomethodology. In Turner, S. P. and Risjord, M. W., eds., Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 485–515.Google Scholar
Macdonald, C. (1977). Cicero, In Catilinam 1–4. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Macleod, M. D. (1970). A rare use of νή in Menander and Lucian. Classical Review, 20, 289.Google Scholar
Maier, J.-L. (1987). Le dossier du donatisme. Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mari, F. (2016). The stranger on the threshold. Telemachus welcomes Athena in Odyssey 1.102–143: A case study of polite interaction in ancient Greek culture. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 221–44.Google Scholar
Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds. (1997). Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. W. (2009). The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (repr. with corrections).Google Scholar
Martin, G. (2014). Failing communication in Menander. In Sommerstein, A., ed., Menander in Contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 116–36.Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1979). Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek Tragic Stage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–26.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1993). Linguistic politeness and cultural style: Observations. In Clancy, P. M., ed., Japanese and Korean Linguistics, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 55–67.Google Scholar
Matthews, J. (2010). The making of the code. In Harries, J. and Wood, I., eds., The Theodosian Code. London: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2013). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 11–31.Google Scholar
McCarthy, K. (2000). Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mencacci, F. (2010). Modestia vs. licentia: Seneca on childhood and status in the Roman family. In Dasen, V. and Späth, T., eds., Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–44.Google Scholar
Mencacci, F. (2012). La voce del banditore. Performance vocale et stili di communicazione a Roma. In Pittia, S. and Schettino, M. T., eds., Le Son du pouvoir dans les mondes anciens. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, pp. 329–48.Google Scholar
Mencacci, F. (2016). Praeter consuetudinem. (Im)politeness e stili comunicativi a Roma. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(2), 91–115.Google Scholar
Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse. Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
Meyerhoffer, M. (2002). Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.526–48.Google Scholar
Michelini, A. N. (1998). ΠΟΛΛΗ ΑΓΡΟΙΚΙΑ: Rudeness and irony in Plato’s Gorgias. Classical Philology, 93, 50–9.Google Scholar
Miller, W. (1914). Xenophon, Cyropaedia, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 19–56.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2017). English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Minchin, E. (2007). Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molinelli, P. (2010). From verbs to interactional discourse markers: The pragmaticalization of Latin rogo, quaeso. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 11, 181–92.Google Scholar
Moreau, P. (2006). Quem honoris causa appello. L’usage public des noms de personnes et ses règles à Rome. In Champeaux, J. and Chassignet, J., eds., Aere perennius: en homage à Hubert Zehnacker. Paris: PUPS, pp. 293–307.Google Scholar
Moussy, C. (2005). Champ lexical et polysémie. L’expression du pardon en latin. In Calboli, G., ed., Latina lingua! Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Rome: Herder, pp. 359–70.Google Scholar
Müller, R. (1997). Sprechen und Sprache: Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Müller, R. (1999). Der Varietätenraum der rusticitas. In Petersmann, H. and Kettemann, R., eds., Latin vulgaire/Latin tardif V. Actes du Ve colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 553–60.Google Scholar
Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 385–400.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.Google Scholar
Nelsestuen, G. A. (2011). Polishing Scrofa’s agronomical Eloquentia: Representation and revision in Varro’s De Re Rustica. Phoenix, 65, 315–51.Google Scholar
Nelsestuen, G. A. (2015). Varro the Agronomist: Political Philosophy, Satire, and Agriculture in the Late Republic. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J. (1994). The delivery and confidentiality of Cicero’s letters. The Classical Journal, 90, 33–63.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333–59.Google Scholar
O’Connell, D. C., Kowal, S., and Kaltenbacher, E. (1990). Turn-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(6), 345–73.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can – and can’t – help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 463–92.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2009). Erving Goffman. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O., and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2017). Face and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Macmillan, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
O’Meara, J. J. (1951). St. Augustine, Against the Academics. Westminster, MD: Newman Press.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, T. M. (2011). Walking in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oesterreicher, W. (1996). Lo hablado en lo escrito. Reflexiones metodológicas y aproximación a una tipología. In Kotschi, T., Oesterreicher, W., and Zimmermann, K., eds., El español hablado y la cultura oral en España e Hispanoamérica. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, pp. 317–40.Google Scholar
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., and Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235–58.Google Scholar
Olson, D. S. (2002). Aristophanes, Acharnians. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Opelt, I. (1965). Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Eine Typologie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Orlandini, A. and Poccetti, P. (2010). Stratégies discursives de non-interpellation et échecs de l’interpellation dans des dialogues latins. Corela: Cognition, Représentation, Langage, HS-8, http://journals.openedition.org/corela/1045.Google Scholar
Papathomas, A. (1996). Fünfundzwanzig griechische Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Wien und Kairo: (P. Heid. VII). Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Parker, H. (1989). Crucially funny or Tranio on the couch: The seruus callidus and jokes about torture. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 119, 233–46.Google Scholar
Paternoster, A. (2015). Cortesi e scortesi. Percorsi di pragmatica storica da Castiglioni a Collodi. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Pawluk, C. J. (1989). Social construction of teasing. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19, 145–67.Google Scholar
Peachin, M. (2011). Introduction. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Pecchiura, P. (1965). La figura di Catone Uticense nella letteratura latina. Turin: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (2010). The different Swedish tack: An ethnopragmatic investigation of Swedish thanking and related concepts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1258–65.Google Scholar
Perrin, B. (1914). Plutarch, Lives, vol. II. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pertsinidis, S. (2018). Theophrastus’ Characters. A New Introduction, London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 193–217.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967 [1954]). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In Hildum, D. C., ed., Language and Thought: An Enduring Problem in Psychology. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Norstrand Company, pp. 32–9.Google Scholar
Pinkster, H. (2010). Notes on the language of Marcus Caelius Rufus. In Dickey, E. and Chaoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–202.Google Scholar
Poccetti, P. (2010). Greeting and farewell expressions as evidence for colloquial language: Between literary and epigraphical texts. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 100–26.Google Scholar
Poccetti, P. (2014). Politeness/courtesy expressions. In Giannakis, G., ed., Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill Online, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-ancient-greek-language-and-linguistics.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. (1988). Cicero, Cato maior de senectute. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. (2013). Cicero’s style. In Steel, C., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Cicero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. and Paterson, J. (2004). Introduction. In Powell, J. G. F. and Paterson, J., eds., Cicero the Advocate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
Prauscello, L. (2002). Men. Epitr. 861 χεῖρα δεῦρό μοι τὴν δίδου: A misconceived stage direction. Mnemosyne, 55(6), 724–28.Google Scholar
Price, R. and Gaddis, M. (2007). The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Quincey, J. H. (1966). Greek expressions for thanks. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 86, 133–58.Google Scholar
Raccanelli, R. (2021). The kiss in Plautus’ Stichus: Notes on gestures and words in view of a pragmatics of comic communication. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 382–402.Google Scholar
Rackham, H. (1951[1933]). Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods. Academics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rackham, H. (1942). Cicero, On the Orator: Book 3. On Fate. Stoic Paradoxes. Divisions of Oratory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radice, B. (1969a). Pliny the Younger, Letters, vol. I, Books 1–7. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radice, B. (1969b). Pliny the Younger, Letters, vol. II, Books 8–10. Panegyricus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramage, E. S. (1973). Urbanitas. Ancient Sophistication and Refinement. Norman: Oklahoma University Press.Google Scholar
Rash, F. (2004). Linguistic politeness and greeting rituals in German-speaking Switzerland. Linguistik Online, 20(3), 47–72.Google Scholar
Reeve, M. D. (2014). Aristophanes, Acharnians 833. The Classical Quarterly, 64(2), 835–7.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (1992). The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (2014). Talking to slaves in the Plautine audience. Classical Antiquity, 33(1), 174–226.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (2017). Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricottilli, L. (1984). La scelta del silenzio. Menandro e l’aposiopesi. Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar
Ridealgh, K., ed. (2016a). Case Studies in Historical Politeness (Ancient Languages). Special Issue of Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2).Google Scholar
Ridealgh, K. (2016b). Polite like an Egyptian? Case Studies of Politeness in the Late Ramesside Letters. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 245–66.Google Scholar
Ridealgh, K., ed. (2019). Politeness in Ancient Languages. Special Issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2).Google Scholar
Ridealgh, K. and Jucker, A. (2019). Late Egyptian, Old English and the re-evaluation of discernment politeness in remote cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 144, 56–66.Google Scholar
Ridealgh, K. and Unceta Gómez, L. (2020). Potestas and the language of power: Conceptualising an approach to power and discernment politeness in ancient languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 231–44.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (1998). Bystander deixis. In Matras, Y., ed., The Romani Element in Non-Standard Speech. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. (1993). Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. (1994). Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives. In Herman, H., ed., Linguistic Studies on Latin. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 319–43.Google Scholar
Risselada, R. (2021). How to anchor reactions: Interactional common ground, preference structure and (im)politeness in Roman comedy. In Martín Rodríguez, A. M, ed., Linguisticae Dissertationes. Current Perspectives on Latin Grammar, Lexicon and Pragmatics. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, pp. 717–32.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of ‘explicit’ apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 291–330.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Piedrabuena, S. (2020). Hipercortesía verbal en Eurípides. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae, 30, 75–97.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. (2002). Les stratégies de clôture du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute. In Bolkestein, M., Kroon, C., Pinkster, H., Remmelink, W., and Risselada, R., eds., Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 317–32.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. (2004). La politesse dans la correspondance de Cicéron. In Nadjo, L. and Gavoille, E., eds., Epistulae antiquae III: Actes du IIIe colloque international ‘L’Épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens’. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 139–52.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. (2005). L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 9(2),921–32.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. (2008). Les débuts de dialogue dans la comédie et la tragédie latines. In Bureau, B. and Nicolas, C., eds., Commencer et finir. Débuts et fins dans les littératures grecque, latine et néolatine. Lyon: Université de Lyon, pp. 207–22.Google Scholar
Roesch, S. (2019). Impoliteness in Plautus’ comedies. In Gils, L. Van, Kroon, C., and Risselada, R., eds., Lemmata Linguistica Latina, vol. II, Clause and Discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 413–30.Google Scholar
Rösch-Binde, C. (1998). Vom ‘δεινὸς ἀνήρ’ zum ‘diligentissimus investigator antiquitatis’: Zur komplexen Beziehung zwischen M. Tullius Cicero und M. Terentius Varro. Munich: Utz.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–29.Google Scholar
Ruiz Yamuza, E. (2014). El adverbio νῦν como marcador discursivo. Emerita, 82(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. (2001a). Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, vol. I, Books 1–2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Russell, D. A. (2001b). Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, vol. III, Books 6–8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. (2002). Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, vol. IV, Books 9–10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. (1995). The Art of Plato: Ten Essays in Platonic Interpretation. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone has to lie. In Blount, B. and Sanches, M., eds., Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press, pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Scardino, C. and Sorrentino, G. (2014). Menander. In Zimmermann, B. and Rengakos, A., eds., Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, vol. II, Munich: Beck, pp. 1061–87.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In Alexander, J. C., ed., The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 207–34.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 89–135.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In Turner, J. H., ed., Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Springer, pp. 287–321.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1977). Opening encounters. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 679–91.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1980). Review of E. N. Goody, ed. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. RELC Journal, 11(2), 100–14.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1933–35). Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Concilium universale Chalcedonense anno 451, vols. 2.1.1–2.1.3. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwitter, R. (2017). Letters, writing conventions, and reading practices in the Late Roman World. Analysing literary reception in Late Antiquity and beyond. Linguarum Varietas, 6, 61–77.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E. and Debrunner, A. (1966). Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik, vol. II, Griechische Grammatik. Munich: Beck’sche.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Language, Mind, and Knowledge, 7, 344–69.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–24.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1965). Cicero, Letters to Atticus. vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1967). Cicero, Letters to Atticus, vol. VI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1968a). Cicero, Letters to Atticus, vol. III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1968b). Cicero, Letters to Atticus, vol. IV. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2001a). Cicero, Letters to Friends, vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2001b). Cicero, Letters to Friends, vol. II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2001c). Cicero, Letters to Friends, vol. III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2009). Cicero, Philippics 1–6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (2010). Cicero, Philippics 7–14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shalev, D. (2001). Illocutionary clauses accompanying questions in Greek drama and in Platonic dialogue. Mnemosyne, 54(5), 531–61.Google Scholar
Sicking, C. M. J. and van Ophuijsen, J. M. (1993). Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage, Lysias and Plato. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Participation. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O., and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 125–56.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds. (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1992a). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1992b). The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 155–73.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2013). Decoding encoded (im)politeness. In Dynel, M., ed., Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–88.Google Scholar
Slugoski, B. R. and Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101–21.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. and Rosen, R. M., eds. (2008). KAKOS: Badness and Anti-Value in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Covino, R., eds. (2011). Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales.Google Scholar
Smith, D. L. (2012). The Rhetoric of Interruption: Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and Ancient Greek Narrative. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Solodow, J. B. (1978). The Latin Particle quidem. Boulder: American Philological Association.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1980). Aristophanes Comedies, vol. I, Acharnians. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2016). Language and Manipulation in House of Cards: A Pragma-Stylistic Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sorrentino, G. (2013). Comunicazione e relazioni interpersonali nelle commedie di Menandro. Un’indagine sul Dyscolos e sulla Samia. PhD Diss. Freiburg i. Br., https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/9582/.Google Scholar
Spangenberg Yanes, E. (2015). Sulla nozione di color e χρῶμα nella retorica della prima età imperiale. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 75, 79–104.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport in Talk Across Cultures. London/New York: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their basis and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008 [2000]). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd edn. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in Pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3565–78.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 73–106.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (2018). Extragrammatical expression of information source. In Aikhenvald, A. I., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 273–84.Google Scholar
Steidle, W. (1952). Einflüsse römischen Lebens und Denkens auf Ciceros Schrift De oratore. Museum Helveticum, 9, 10–41.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2012). Sequence organization. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Sutton, E. W. and Rackham, H. (1942). Cicero, On the Orator, vol. I, Books 1–2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Svennung, J. (1958). Anredeformen: vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tengström, E. (1962). Die Protokollierung der Collatio Carthaginensis. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der römischen Kurzschrift. Gothenburg: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3, 179–201.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 159–85.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Convention and ritual (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171–95.Google Scholar
Torrego Salcedo, M. (2013). Iubeo saluere: una forma de saludo con directivo léxico. In Beltrán Cebollada, J. A., Encuentra Ortega, A., Fontana Elboj, G., Magallón García, A. I., and Marina Sáez, R. M., eds., Otium cum dignitate. Estudios en homenaje al profesor José Javier Iso Echegoyen. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza, pp. 173–84.Google Scholar
Traglia, A. (1985). Le Res Rusticae di Varrone come opera letteraria. Cultura e Scuola, 94, 89–97.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2009). La petición verbal en latín. Estudio léxico, semántico y pragmático. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2010). La expresión del agradecimiento en la comedia latina. In Anreiter, P. and Kienpointner, M., eds., Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik (Innsbruck, 4–9 April 2009). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 625–37.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2014a). Pedir perdón en latín. El acto de habla de la disculpa en las obras de Plauto y Terencio. Emerita, 82(1),69–97.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2014b). La politesse linguistique en latin. Bilan d’une étude en cours. In M. Fruyt, ed., Dictionnaire Historique et Encyclopédie du Latin, http://www.linglat.paris-sorbonne.fr/encyclopedie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:syntaxe:formules_de_politesse.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2016). Congratulations in Latin comedy: Types and functions. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 267–90.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2017a). Discursive and pragmatic functions of Latin em. Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization… interjectionalization? In Denizot, C. and Spevak, O., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2017b). Estrategias de cortesía lingüística en Querolus. Latomus, 76(1), 140–61.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (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
Unceta Gómez, L. (2019a). Conceptualizations of linguistic politeness in Latin. The emic perspective. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 286–312.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2019b). Expressing happiness as a manifestation of positive politeness in Roman comedy. In van Gils, L., Kroon, C., and Risselada, R., eds., Lemmata Linguistica Latina, vol. II, Clause and Discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 849–68.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2020). Indexicalidad y cortesía: el caso de las cartas de Claudio Terenciano. L’Antiquité Classique, 89, 135–55.Google Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2021). The politics of manipulation. Politeness and insincerity in the language of parasites and courtesans in Plautus’ comedies. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S. and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden/Boston, Brill, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Uría, J. (2007). The semantics and pragmatics of Ciceronian invective. In Booth, J., ed., Cicero on the Attack. Invective and Subversion in the Orations and Beyond. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
van der Bom, I. and Mills, S. (2015). A discursive approach to the analysis of politeness data. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 179–206.Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, E. (2017). Language and Character in Euripides’ Electra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, E. (2021). The linguistic characterization of Oedipus in OT: A pragmatics-based approach to ‘mind style’. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Communicating on Stage: Pragmatic Approaches to Ancient Greek and Latin Drama. Leiden: Brill, pp. 96–121.Google Scholar
van Gils, L. W. (forthcoming). Politeness in Cicero’s invective speech In Vatinium. In Vatri, A. and Li, T., eds., The Language of Persuasion. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vardi, A. D. (1996). Diiudicatio Locorum: Gellius and the history of a mode in ancient comparative criticism. Classical Quarterly, 46(2), 492–514.Google Scholar
Verboven, K. (2011). Friendship among the Romans. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 404–21.Google Scholar
Vries, G. J. de (1969). A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.Google Scholar
Wachter, R. (1998). Griechisch χαῖρε: Vorgeschichte eines Grusswortes. Museum Helveticum, 55(2), 65–75.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. (1926). Vorlesungen über Syntax: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2 vols. Basel: Birkhäuser. [Eng. tr. by D. Langslow as Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009].Google Scholar
Wakker, G. C. (1997). Modal particles and different points of view in Herodotus and Thucydides. In Bakker, E. J., ed., Grammar as Interpretation. Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts. Leiden: Brill, pp. 215–50.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. (2005). An Introduction to Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy/Carducci.Google Scholar
Warren, R. and Scully, S., trans. (1995). Euripides, Suppliant Women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, A. (1985). The Digest of Justinian, 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Watts, N. H. (1953 [1931]). Cicero, Pro Milone, In Pisonem, Pro Scauro, Pro Fonteio, Pro Rabirio Postumo, Pro Marcello, Pro Ligario, Pro rege Deiotaro, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Watts, N. H. (1965 [1923]). Cicero, Pro Archia. Post Reditum in Senatu. Post Reditum ad Quirites. De Domo Sua. De Haruspicum Responsis. Pro Plancio. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1999). Language and politeness in early eighteenth-century Britain. Pragmatics, 9(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2005a [1992]). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43–69.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2005b). Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. xi–xlvii.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds. (2005 [1992]). Introduction. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Weaire, G. (2010–2011). How to talk to a Roman student. The teacher’s authority in Dionysus of Halicarnassus’s De compositione uerborum. Illinois Classical Studies, 35–6, 43–68.Google Scholar
Wessner, P. (1902–1905). Aeli Donati quod fertur commenti Terenti. Accedunt commentum Eugraphi et Scholia Bembina. Recensuit P. Wessner. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
White, K. D. (1973). Roman agricultural writers I: Varro and his predecessors. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, I.4, 439–97.Google Scholar
White, P. (2010). Cicero in Letters. Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003 [1991]). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilcox, A. (2012). The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome. Friendship in Cicero’s Ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, A. S. (1902). M. Tulli Ciceronis Rhetorica, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willi, A. (2003). The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (2001). Performance and dramatic discourse in New Comedy. In Barsby, J., ed., Greek and Roman Drama: Translation and Performance. Stuttgart: Metzler, pp. 125–45.Google Scholar
Wilson, N. G. (1975). Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis.Google Scholar
Winterbottom, M. (1974). Seneca the Elder, Declamations, vol. I, Controversiae, Books 1–6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P., and Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Worman, N. (2008). Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yunis, H., ed. (2011). Plato: Phaedrus. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zago, A. (2017). Pompeii Commentum in artis Donati partem tertiam. Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione; Note di commento, appendice e indici, 2 vols. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Zago, A. (2019). Il grammatico e le scarpe: considerazioni sul tropo del charientismos in Pompeo. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, 11(2), 543‒58.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. (2018). Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zilliacus, H. (1949). Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Zilliacus, H. (1983). Grußformen. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. XII. Stuttgart: Hiersemann Verlag, cols. 1204–32.Google Scholar
Ziwsa, K. (1893). Sancti Optati Milevitani libri VII: accedunt decem monumenta uetera ad Donatistarum historiam pertinentia. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 26, Prague/Vienna: Tempsky (Acta purgationis Felicis, pp. 197–204; Gesta Zenophili, pp. 186–97).Google Scholar