In his discussion of decorum Cicero supposes that most people would agree to the general principle that in our speech, bodily deportment, and actions we should avoid giving offence to others. This is because we possess a sense of shame or verecundia. The particular details are very culture-specific: customs and conventions largely set the parameters of verecundia, and we do well to follow them. Cicero also admits that philosophical figures often flaunt established customs and conventions: he points to Socrates, who is justified in doing so owing to his great and godlike virtue, and the Cynics, who are not justified in doing so at all (1.148). He then sets out a bold thesis: ‘Indeed the reasoning of the Cynics must be rejected absolutely; for it is inimical to a sense of shame (verecundia), without which nothing can be upright (rectum), nothing honourable (honestum)’. For the Cynics, verecundia is not natural; hence we are justified in flaunting customs and conventions. Cicero develops a counter-argument against the Cynics: the source of shame or verecundia is indeed natural. I explore his argument for this thesis (which appears at 1.126ff.) and assess his critique of the Cynics.

This chapter examines Varro’s depictions of teasing and banter in his dialogue De Re Rustica, with particular reference to issues of im/politeness. In many cases, this banter involves some kind of provocation of the addressee, and so risks being construed as impolite. In most instances, however, the witty phrasing conveys a playful intent, which ensures that the remark does not cause offence. The end result is usually heightened rapport among the participants. In several cases Varro’s teasing involves ‘collaborative’ banter, in which both participants contribute to the construction of a playful conceit. In other instances, however, the teasing quips are one-sided, with no response reported. In such cases the emphasis seems to be on the display of quick-witted inventiveness for its own sake. This energetic interaction differs from the highly conventionalized language of social negotiation typically used by the Roman elite. Indeed, it is significant that Cicero’s real-life epistolary relationship with Varro was marked by a degree of formality that eschewed the use of banter. In this respect, the right to tease was one extended only to a privileged sub-set of personal acquaintances

Politeness and sociopragmatics have long been aligned since they were first proposed as areas for serious scholarly research but have since also grown into large, diffuse areas of research in their own right. The aim of this chapter is to consider synergies between these two areas of research. The chapter begins by reviewing the roots of connections between sociopragmatics and (im)politeness before briefly overviewing (im)politeness theories and the role that the first/second-order distinction can play in distinguishing between different approaches in the field. We then discuss some key sociopragmatic concepts that have come to play an important role in (im)politeness research, including context, strategies, indirectness and norms. This leads into a case study of offence-taking that illustrates how sociopragmatics and (im)politeness research now have a much broader scope, both methodological and theoretically, than earlier analyses that tended to focus on the politeness values of single utterances. We conclude by considering some of the key issues that will likely shape ongoing development of (im)politeness research, including the role of interdisciplinarity, the use of a greater range of data types and methods and the increasing need for systematic meta-theorization in the field.

Historical sociopragmatics studies the social dimension of language use from a historical perspective. Like historical pragmatics in general, it must rely on written data (except for the very recent past), which poses some specific analytical challenges. In this contribution, we show how approaches to these challenges have developed in recent years. The research focus in historical sociopragmatics has followed the trend in sociopragmatics, where the earlier focus on a mapping between specific linguistic forms and specific pragmatic functions is increasingly extended to a wider consideration of the discursive nature of pragmatic entities whose function only emerges in the interaction between conversational partners. We illustrate such a discursive approach with an analysis of a sequence of letters from the Breadalbane Collection, 1548--83, in which leading members of a Scottish Highland clan negotiate their relationships, their respective roles and the wider impact of events that led to growing tensions between them.

Chapter 12 is the first of two that deal with reactive politeness in intercultural contexts: the issues associated with handling relations when an offence has been perceived or when a disagreement/conflict has occurred or is emerging. The chapter focuses on situations in which one or both parties want to restore relations and considers how cultural factors may influence the process. Normally (although not exclusively), apologies are used to (try to) restore smooth relations. Unfortunately, there has been very little research into apologies from an evaluation perspective, neither prior to an apology (i.e. assessments relating to the behaviour that triggers the potential need for an apology) nor subsequent to an apology (i.e. whether the apology is accepted and smooth relations are restored). The chapter explores the potential impact of culture on the restoration process from three angles: culture and reactive assessments of an offence; culture and the performance of an apology; culture and the effectiveness of the apology.