Turn taking and power relations in Plautus’ Casina

The paper interprets the verbal behaviour of pater familias and his subordinates in Plautus’ Casina through the lenses of conversation analysis and im/politeness research. According to the approach here presented, turn-allocating techniques can function as a means of depicting power relationships – whether presupposed or emergent and negotiated on-stage – among highand low-status characters in Roman comedies. The analysed data draw a connection between the active initiating of the dialogue, the management of the turn space, and speakership rights (e.g. silencing through the directive tace) with the dominant social position, prototypically of high-born men. The authority of Roman slave-owners, reproduced in the characterisation of the senex, has been viewed in relation to potestas, the Roman conceptualisation of default social dominance. On the other hand, the subordinate role of slaves arguably is governed by quasi-mandatory patterns of linguistic use interpreted as politic behaviour which – in interaction with free-born citizens – consisted of obedience, withdrawal, lack of initiative, and deprivation of face.


Introduction
In the present paper, I aim to offer an analysis of the language of domination and (male) authority in the Plautine comedy Casina. Due to limitations of space, the main focus will be on turn management as an instrument of exerting power during the verbal interactions of the pater familias with the members of his household.
The central premise here is that the dialogic exchange inside the comedy functions as a simulationwhether naturalistic or artificial and poeticof spoken communication. In recent years, the scholars interested in interpersonal relations represented inside Roman comedy have recurred to various frameworks provided by the Im/politeness Research. Less frequently, however, these investigations include aspects of the organization of talk-in-interaction, as described by Conversation Analysis (CA). 1 The approach adopted in the following pages, therefore, seeks to combine insights from both methodologies in order to shed some light on how the authoritarian characters exert power and gain control through talk. To this end, I will use excerpts from one selected play, suppliedwhenever necessarywith evidence from other works by Plautus (or Terence).
Casina is considered one of the latest and the most accomplished plays of the Sarsinate author. The comedy tells a story of an old citizen Lysidamus, whocompeting with his sonfalls in love with a handmaid called Casina. In Plautus' reworking of the Greek original, a typical father-son conflict (cf. Mercator) is substituted by the struggles between Lysidamus and his domineering wife Cleostrata, who acts on behalf of the boy. 2 The freeborn matrona plots against her husband through the agency of her slaves, including the son's former armour-bearer (armiger) Chalinus. On the other hand, as stressed by Mc-Carthy (2000: p. 83), Cleostrata's tricks take as a starting point her apparent obedience to her husband's wishes. Lysidamus is also forced to use the help of his servant Olympio, the uilicus whoafter winning the slave bride in a lot-drawing sceneis gradually taking control over his master. Thus, all members of the household interact with the pater familias in a manner that either asserts or subverts the social hierarchy and his position of power.
As a result, according to Rei (2005), Casina raises important questions about the male authority and the distinction between the free and unfree members of a household. Some time ago, McCarthy (2000: ch. 3) offered a very complex and insightful analysis of the art of authority in Casina, viewed from a dramaturgical perspective. The purpose of this paper is to supply the existing accounts of both Lysidamus' power and the opposition to it with some pragmatically informed understanding of the on-stage communication. 1 CA was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a methodology of studying social interaction with a particular focus on everyday conversation. See Levinson (1983: pp. 284-370) and Schegloff (2007) for a comprehensive introduction.

Łukasz Berger
Turn taking and power relations in Plautus' Casina ČLÁNKY / ARTICLES knowing their place and keeping to it". Thus, within a household, this feeling is proper to wives and children-thought to have less self-control than adult males-and never to slaves (Kaster 2005: p. 24). As explained by the scholar, uerecundia is based on a choice and implies voluntarily restraining one's action for the benefit of the addressee(s). The slaves, in turn, "have no autonomous volition, hence no actual self, hence no face to maintain or lose" (Kaster 2005: p. 23;cf. Stewart 2012: p. 8).
From this it follows that in default master-slave relations, there is no space for politeness transactions. Unceta (2019: p. 304) argues that the subordinates, during interactions with their superiors, are expected to show maximal deference by emphasizing distance and separateness. Instead of acting strategically, they follow the rules of decorum, the Roman conceptualisation of Watts' (2003: p. 19) politic behaviour, namely the language use that "is perceived to be appropriate to the social constraints of the ongoing interaction." 6 Any violation of decorum would be a salient verbal behaviour, likely to be reported by the superior, and negatively evaluated as impoliteness, as well as an act of challenging the authority.
As for the Roman concepts of power, there is a prominent distinction between the less binding auctoritas, that derives from the (elite members') personal qualities anchored in dignitas, and the institutionalised idea of potestas, which is attached to offices and social roles. 7 Thus the latter type of coercive power (potestas) rested on absolute obedience and appears in Plautus in the context of the dominant role of the pater familias. 8 Since the Roman slaveholders did not need any concern for the face of their slaves, Ridealgh & Unceta (forthcoming) describe potestas in terms of non-politeness: most of the masters' expressive forms could be interpreted as face-threatening acts and yet, given the hierarchical imbalance, their verbal behaviour does not impact on the relationship with the low-power addressee(s). 9 Accordingly, when describing the powerful linguistic styles of superiors in Roman comedy, the scholars concentrate on directive speech acts or tokens of verbal abuse (insults, threats).
In Casina, quite significantly, the pattern for the language of potestas can be best illustrated by the verbal behaviour of the mistress of the house, Cleostrata. In her first appearance on stage (1), she gives series of unmitigated instructions to her servants before heading for the neighbour's house. The slave girl Pardalisca informs her at the threshold that her husband expects his lunch to be prepared and, thus, indirectly suggesting that Cleostrata should change her dispositions. In reaction, the matrona orders the maid to be quiet and sends her away. 6 In Roman comedy, the slave's servile attitude and respect for the master's dominance is expressed by the slaves themselves (e.g. Plaut., Aul. 587-590).
7 See further Casinos Mora (1999) and Gotter (2008: pp. 200-203 In his thorough examination of the speech patterns in Roman comedy, Barrios-Lech (2016: pp. 222-223) demonstrates that the speech of the masters is full of unmediated expressions and peremptory directives, while the slaves in general employ more indirectness and various strategies of withdrawal. Thus Pardalisca's use of an indirect speech act, which leaves the interpretation of the utterance to her mistress, is also fitting her subordinate social role. The comedy authors can stage the role reversal in a master-slave relation via modifications of these speech patterns using politeness strategies. In the following excerpt (2), Lysidamus, the master of the house, seems to be addressing the negative-face wants of his most trusted slave by mitigating the directive act with parumper ('for a little while'), which minimizes the (implied) imposition of the action.

Łukasz Berger
Turn taking and power relations in Plautus' Casina ČLÁNKY / ARTICLES the aforementioned resources with some conversational devices that operate on the level of interaction and turn management.

Turn management
The description of the machinery behind turn taking, outlined in the seminal paper by Sacks & Schegloff & Jefferson (1974), is central for the methodology of CA. 12 According to the authors, the constant flow of conversation is governed by the rule that (overwhelmingly) only one party speaks at a time. This orderliness needs some coordination and collaboration from the participants, who must predict when the current speaker is about to release the floor, allowing the other party to intervene with no risk of interrupting. Moreover, any blatant violation of the turn-taking system can be analysed as face-threatening acts (Brown & Levinson 1987: pp. 232-233). 13 Thus in the amicable conversation between two free-born senes (3), the utterances project boundaries that are easy to perceive. They form syntactically complete sentences, whichin additioncorrespond prototypically to prosodic and pragmatic units: the directive act launched by Lysidamus is followed by Alcesimus' expression of compliance. Note that Alcesimus' negative-face of an autonomous agent is partially mitigated by his impersonal formulation of compliance with certum est ('it is resolved' in place of 'I have decided'). Unlike slaves, free-born characters should not be too eager to fulfill directive acts launched by their peers. 14 Furthermorein terms of CAtwo turns by different speakers (in (3): request and granting) constitute an adjacency pair, where the first turn by one interlocutor (first pair part) sets up an expectancy for a particular reaction (the second pair part) of another. Accordingly, the absence of the second element becomes noticeable and marked (Schegloff 2007: pp. 13-27). It is crucial, nonetheless, to remember that for conversation analysts every spate of talk should be seen as delivering an action rather than expressing 12 See a critical overview in O' Connell & Kowal & Kaltenbacher (1990). Herman (1995: pp. 76-163) and Herman (2002) are a good introduction to the turn-taking systematics for readers of drama. For the CA-informed methodology in describing the structure of dialogues in Roman comedy, see Müller (1997) and Berger (2019).
13 It must be noted that a connection between talk organization and face-threat or face-work has proven to be problematic for the 'purist' methodological school of CA (see Geyer 2008: pp. 35-37, with further references).
meaning (Levinson 2013). In an adjacency pair retrieved from (1), for instance, Pardalisca reacts to Cleostrata's order with silence and non-linguistic action rather than with verbal tokens of compliance (see (4)  When explaining techniques for allocating turns among the interlocutors, Sacks & Schegloff & Jefferson (1974: pp. 704-705) provide a set of rules which can be applied recursively and seem universal yet context-sensitive. According to the orderly design of talk, the current speaker, while reaching a possible completion point, can pass the turn to another or continue talking. Since the adjacency pair is the minimal unit of interaction, it also serves as the most common mechanism responsible for progression in the turn taking (Schegloff 2007: p. 4). Accordingly, the question-answer format in the following excerpt (5)  Then he decides to hold on to the floor by adding another turn component (introduced with the adversative sed) and, as a result, he ends up launching a multi-unit turn. Finally, it seems worth stressing that CA is engaged with drawing a connection between the orderliness of the verbal interaction (the so-called micro-level) and the social organization (macro-level). 15 Accordingly, the way the rules of speakership assignment operate, in a broader perspective, will systematically inform us whoin the reality of Roman comedy or a given playis preferably selected as the next speaker or, on the contrary, who tends to be exempt from the speakership rights or even deprived thereof with impunity. In the next sections, the functioning of the turn-taking system will be analysed in the context of displaying hierarchical inequality within the relations of the pater familias and the members of his household.

Male authority and turn taking in Casina
According to the conversational order represented in the Plautine comedies, the management of conversation belongs to the master of the house. Be the best illustration a scene from Amphitruo (6), where the pater familias intervenes in a quarrel between his wife and a slave. Amphitruo manages the interaction either through the act of silencing its participants (tace tu) or by yielding them the floor (dic tu). His powerful position is unchallenged as he dominates over both the high-status female and the unfree male members of the household. As far as the conversational order is concerned, to quieten someone equals depriving them of speakership rights by excluding them from the on-going interaction and cancelling the sequential implications of their last turn. Towards free-born citizens, such a turn-taking violation threatens the positive-face wants of the addressee as a rightful participant of the conversation (cf. Brown & Levinson 1987: p. 67). 16 The act of silencing the slaves, however, is commonly depicted throughout Roman comedy as a means of censoring their speech, controlling their behaviour on-stage andmore importantly excluding the servants from the on-going interaction. 17 One of the previous excerpts (see 1) from Casina has already provided an example of an authoritarian style enacted by the matrona, who was forcing the subordinates to be silent. In the following multi-party conversation, the master of the house silences Olympio and Chalinus in order to stop their verbal sparring, which takes the form of confrontational side dialogues, like the one given in (7). Lysidamus' attempts to discipline both servants are not very efficient. Unlike Sosia in (6), Chalinus (7) reacts defensively to his master's command by launching an alternative second pair partdefined by Schegloff (2007: pp. 16-17) as 'counter' -that reverses the direction of constraint. By contrast, the old master's ally Olympio (8)  A few turns further, Lysidamus disciplines both servants once again (9), but only the uilicus takes the turn in order to close the adjacency pair with linguistic tokens of compliance (taceo). Accordingly, he presents himself as responsive and obedient, while he still signals his participation in the on-going interaction. 19 This type of sequencing seems to be salient also in the scenes of closing up the whole interaction with servants in order to send them off the stage. The last line of Staphyla (10) from Aulularia, before she returns inside the house, mockingly echoes her master's dispositions (compare with (4) above). Arguably, these expansive uses of turn space which could be realized simply as silent action exceed the politic behaviour and hence contribute to gain additional pragmatic values. In a way, these cases can be considered as nuanced examples of a face-saving orin the case of Roman slavesa face-restoring action, given that they imply the speaker's individual self and volition (see Section 2). The slave's cheeky use of verbalized silence as an act of rebellion against decorum is confirmed by the scene from Pseudolus (11). Here, the young master states expressly that he prefers an actual quiet and obedient servant than one who breaks the silence with the interactionally charged taceo. 20  Accordingly, Zebrino (2013: p. 141) duly concludes that this progression marks an evolution of the relation between Lysidamus and Olympio: from complacent to openly hostile. I would argue, however, that the cheeky use of taceo in the reaction to Lysidamus' orders already contains elements of challenging the master's potestas.
The general rules of politic behaviour, as implied by the testimonies within the comedy corpus, dictate that the servants in an interaction with upper-class citizens should be non-active and submissive. Accordingly, a slave is disciplined and rebuked, when impolitely interrupting their old master 21 or self-selecting as the next speaker in his presence. 22 Neither are the servants addressed by free-born characters as legitimate interlocutors in a multi-party conversation. 23 The subordinate role in the turn-taking system is especially relevant during conversational tasks which require the speaker's initiative and entail a high level of imposition, such as opening a dialogue. Therefore, when initiat-20 Cf. Plaut., Poen. 261-262 (with a similar metapragmatic comment by a young master) and Bacch. 990-990a. 21 Plaut., Rud. 1389-1392Cist. 750-755;Epid. 251;Men. 626-627;Rud. 118-119. 23 Plaut., Men. 182; Poen. 330-332. On master-slave greeting scenes, see Barrios-Lech (2016: pp. 224-227) and Cabrillana (2019: pp. 22-23).
ing the interaction, submissive slaves are supposed to start a conversation by presenting themselves in front of their superiors and by signalling their availability for engaging into contact. 24 The slave Chalinus, however, is described by Lysidamus as worthless and unreliable, especially compared to his own protégé, Olympio. 25 Hence, after the armiger emerges for the first time from the house, on the old master's explicit demand, the latter reacts with a hateful curse. In his first line, Chalinus (12) seems to be playing out the part of an obedient slave by confirming his readiness to respond to Lysidamus' summons. 26 Thus, the opening turn acquires a strictly phatic interpretation while fulfilling Laver's (1975: p. 220) initiatory function of helping the participants to get the conversation under way. 27 Lysidamus, however, does not use the opportunity to insert the first topic slot (see Berger 2016) and, instead, prefers to recall his authority through emphasizing that he is the one who had him summoned (ego enim te uocari iussi). The slave is taking the initiative by launching another first pair part and issuing an unmitigated directive (eloquere quid velis), by which he demands the reason for the talk. For the old man, however, this bold manoeuvre, added apparently to the servant's grim attitude, 28 must be deemed disrespectful and unacceptable. In a prescriptive and alliterative style, the master recalls his potestas over the slave (stultitia est ei te esse tristem quoius potestas plus potest). From a CA-informed perspective, conversational openings, like the one presented in (12), cover the function of 'gatekeeping', that is of managing the rights and conditions of access to a given interaction (Schegloff 1986: p. 113 26 However, Chalinus' strong interactional position is evident for the audience, given that he uses the end of the old man's monologue to givevia co-construction of turnsa double entendre to his opening line (Moore 1998: p. 172). See Plaut., Bacch. 999.
27 Phatic interpretation of utterances in Plautus' comedies are treated in Berger (2018).
28 MacCary & Willcock (1976: p. 132, ad loc.) explain that "porrecta frons would be the opposite of contracta frons 'a frown'". Accordingly, Lysidamus' comment seems to mostly concern his interlocutor's facial expression or bodily position. I argue, nonetheless, that it is also triggered by an im/polite evaluation of his turn-taking mechanism.
(1971: p. 40) talks about a 'conversational preserve', namely "the right of an individual to exert some control over who can summon him into talk and when he can be summoned." Accordingly, Lysidamus' verbal dominance might be viewed in relation to his active role as the initiator of all the on-stage dialogues with the members of his household (see Table 1). He launches the first salutation pair part towards his wife (Plaut.,577), greets his proxy Olympio (317,724,801) or summons the rest of the servants (358: 631, 789). As for the expression of im/politeness in the conversational openings, Lysidamus mitigates the access to someone else's conversational preserve, only talking to his wife and his protégé. In both cases, he recurs to tokens of marked positive politeness of either feigned (towards Cleostrata) or comically inverted intimacy (towards Olympio). Before Lysidamus' final humiliation, the only character that approaches him and (angrily) initiates the conversation is another senex, the neighbour Alcesimus (593, see Table  2). Thus the Roman master of the house is portrayed as the one who penetratesby his own rulesthe conversational preserve of his subordinates, including the wife's.
In this light, one should understand the interpersonal tensions in the first dialogue with the armiger analysed above (12), as well as the pragmatic and social significance of the last scene in the play. After his misdeeds are in the open, Lysidamus is violently summoned by Chalinus and, then, greeted by two matronae, Cleostrata and her neighbour Myrrhina (Table 2). Apart from the violation of the rules of access, the humiliation of pater familias, as noted by Berger (2020: forthcoming), derives also from the contextual misapplication of the greeting formulae. In the comedy corpus, the expression quid agis, here launched by a female neighbour, belongs to the familiar idiom and is used by intimates or members of the same household (see its literal and idiomatic variants in Table  1). The formal third-person salutation iubeo te saluere, in turn, is aimed at creating distance and signals Cloestrata's estrangement from her husband (Barrios-Lech 2016: p. 186 Once again the conversational and the social order will get reversed in the final scene, where the master of the house will lose full control not only over the interaction but also over his own turn space.

Conclusions
In the present paper, I have aimed at combining the study of im/politeness and the orderliness of talk-in-interaction in Plautus' Casina in order to trace the speech patterns of exerting power. Within the conversational styles of the comedy characters, I have identified the active interaction-and turn-managing style of domination, contrasted with the passive and responsive role of the subordinates, who often are denied the speakership or full participation in the conversation. Accordingly, the power-related phenomena concern controlling the access to the interactionthrough dialogue openingas well as interrupting and silencing the current speaker. Furthermore, this short analysis included the cases of transgressions of political behaviour, which created interpersonal tensions (e.g. impolite evaluations) in contacts among the pater familias and other members of his household. These challenges to the male authority are key for understating Plautus' comical representation of the rebellious slave, the dowered wife, and the powerless senex amator. I have highlighted the instances in Casina where the subordinates are attempting at controlling the turn-taking system and, by extension, the interaction. Accordingly, the rebellion of Lysidamus' household has been conducted with the power-related conversational devices identified throughout the comedy corpus as part of the male language of domination. During the climax scene of the play, the master of the house was summoned and pursued by his own servant, the women have surrounded him, (improperly) greeted, and kept interrupting, while his formerly most trusted slave would not obey him and be silenced. Thus, in a single interaction, the degradation of the male conversational potestas reaches its extreme. Anderson, W. S. (1983)