Turn taking and power relations in Plautus' Casina

Název: Turn taking and power relations in Plautus' Casina
Zdrojový dokument: Graeco-Latina Brunensia. 2020, roč. 25, č. 1, s. 19-35
  • ISSN
    1803-7402 (print)
    2336-4424 (online)
Type: Článek

Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.

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 high- and 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.
The paper is part of the international research project "Conversation in Antiquity. Analysis of Verbal Interaction in Ancient Greek and Latin" (SI1/PJI/2019-00283), financed by the Community of Madrid.
[1] Anderson, W. S. (1983). Chalinus armiger in Plautus' Casina. Illinois Classical Studies, 8(1), 11–21.

[2] Barbiero, E. A. (2020). What's New? The Possibilities of Novelty in Plautus' Casina. In S. Papaioannou, & Ch. Demetriou (Eds.), Plautus' Erudite Comedy: New Insights into the Work of a doctus poeta (pp. 51–72). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

[3] Barrios-Lech, P. (2016). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Berger, Ł. (2016). Introducing the first topic slot in Plautine dialogues. Roczniki Humanistyczne, 64(3), 89–110. | DOI 10.18290/rh.2016.64.3-5

[5] Berger, Ł. (2017). The Old Man and Linguistic Politeness in the Comedies of Plautus. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae, 27(3), 249–273.

[6] Berger, Ł. (2018). Negotiating the interactional meaning on the Roman stage: tokens of phaticity. In A. Gałkowski, & M. Kopytowska (Eds.), Current Perspectives in Semiotics. Text, Genres, and Representations (pp. 217–237). Berlin: Peter Lang.

[7] Berger, Ł. (2019). Gestión de los turnos conversacionales en Plauto y Terencio: entre el habla y los silencios. In R. López Gregoris (Ed.), Drama y dramaturgia en Roma (pp. 281–309). Zaragoza: Pórtico.

[8] Berger, Ł. (2020). Greeting in Roman Comedy: Register and (Im)politeness. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 19 (in press).

[9] Berger, Ł. (forthcoming). (Im)politeness of Interruptions in Roman Comedy.

[10] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[11] Cabrillana, C. (2019). Expresiones directivas con verbos de uso copulativo en la comedia latina. Glotta, 95, 8–25. | DOI 10.13109/glot.2019.95.1.8

[12] Casinos Mora, F. J. (1999). El dualismo autoridad-potestad como fundamento de la organización y del pensamiento políticos de Roma. Polis, 11, 85–109.

[13] Cody, J. M. (1976). The 'Senex Amator' in Plautus' Casina. Hermes, 104(4), 453–476.

[14] Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Aijmer, & G. Andersen (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (Handbooks of Pragmatics, 5; pp. 391–436). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,

[15] De Melo, W. (2011–2013). (Ed.). Plautus. Comedies (Vol. 1–5). Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.

[16] Dickey, E. (2016). Politeness in ancient Rome: Can it help us evaluate modern politeness theories? Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2). 197–220. | DOI 10.1515/pr-2016-0008

[17] Feltovich, A. (2015). In Defense of Myrrhina: Friendship between Women in Plautus's Casina. Helios, 42(2), 245–266. | DOI 10.1353/hel.2015.0010

[18] Geyer, N. (2008). Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese. New York: Continuum.

[19] Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. | DOI 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008

[20] Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. Macrostudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.

[21] Gotter, U. (2008). Cultural differences and cross-cultural contact: Greek and Roman concepts of power. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 104, 179–230.

[22] Hall, J. (2005). Politeness and Formality in Cicero's Letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27). Museum Helveticum, 62, 193–213.

[23] Hall, J. (2009). Politeness and Politics in Cicero's Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[24] Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 295–317. | DOI 10.1515/PR.2007.013

[25] Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge.

[26] Herman, V. (2002). Turn Management in Drama. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context (pp. 29–43). London – New York: Routledge.

[27] Kaster, R. (2005). Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[28] Konstan, D. (2014). Turns and Returns in Plautus's Casina. In I. N. Perysinakis, & E. Karakasis (Eds.), Plautine trends: Studies in Plautine comedy and its reception (pp. 3–11). Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter.

[29] Laver, J. (1975). Communicative function of phatic communion. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction (pp. 215–238). The Hague: Mouton.

[30] Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[31] Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden – Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

[32] MacCary, W. T., & Willcock, M. M. (1976). (Eds.). Plautus: Casina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[33] McCarthy, K. (2000). Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[34] Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[35] Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to Politeness (pp. 19–56). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

[36] Moore, T. J. (1998). The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience. Austin: University of Texas Press.

[37] Müller, R. (1997). Sprechen und Sprache. Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

[38] O'Bryhim, S. (1989). The Originality of Plautus' Casina. The American Journal of Philology, 110(1), 81–103. | DOI 10.2307/294954

[39] O'Connell, D. C., Kowal, S., & Kaltenbacher, E. (1990). Turn-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(6), 345–373. | DOI 10.1007/BF01068884

[40] Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 193–217. | DOI 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.193

[41] Rei, A. (2005). Villains, wives, and slaves in the comedies of Plautus. In S. R. Joshel, & S. Murnaghan (Eds.), Women and slaves in Greco-Roman culture: differential equations (pp. 104–120). New York: Routledge.

[42] Ridealgh, K., & Unceta Gómez, L. (forthcoming). Potestas and the language of power: Conceptualising an approach to Power and Discernment politeness in ancient languages. Journal of Pragmatics.

[43] Risselada, R. (1994). Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives. In J. Herman (Ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991) (pp. 319–343). Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

[44] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. | DOI 10.1353/lan.1974.0010

[45] Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human studies, 9(2), 111–151. | DOI 10.1007/BF00148124

[46] Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In J. C. Alexander (Ed.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207–234). Berkley – Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

[47] Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[48] Stewart, R. (2012). Plautus and Roman Slavery. Malden – Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

[49] 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.

[50] Unceta Gómez, L. (2019). Conceptualizations of linguistic politeness in Latin: the emic perspective. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 286–312. | DOI 10.1075/jhp.00033.gom

[51] Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[52] Zebrino, M. C. (2013). Taceo in Plauto: quando dire non è fare. Rationes rerum, 1, 115–147.