This article proceeds from the assumption that speakers engaging in verbal interaction are perceived by their interlocutors to have intentions, and it explores the concepts of impoliteness and aggravated impoliteness. Two case studies, both from Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens are considered, and it is argued that a distinction between overt and covert intentions and between first-order and second-order intentions is useful in affording a purchase on the nature of deception in conversational interaction. The article thus seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of an aspect of impoliteness theory and to the application of impoliteness theory to the analysis of a Shakespearean play.
ArundaleR (2006) Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research2(2): 197–216.
BousfieldD (2010) Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4.
BrownRGilmanA (1989) Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society18(2): 159–212.
5.
BrownRLevinsonS (1987 [1978]) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CulpeperJ (2011) Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CulpeperJBousfieldDWichmannA (2003) Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics35(10–11): 1545–1579.
8.
GarberM (2004) Shakespeare After All. New York: Anchor Books.
9.
GibbsR (1999) Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
GriceH P (1975) Logic and conversation. In: ColePMorganJ (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.
11.
GrimshawA (1990) Research on conflict talk: Antecedents, resources, findings, directions. In: GrimshawA (ed.) Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
JacobsSBrashersDDawsonEJ (1996) Truth and deception. Communication Monographs63: 98–103.
13.
KermodeF (1974) Timon of Athens. In: Blakemore EvansG (ed.), The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, pp.1141–1444.
14.
McCornackS (1992) Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs59(1):1–16.
15.
NuttallAD (1989) Timon of Athens (Harvester New Critical introductions to Shakespeare). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
16.
OED Online(OED Online) (2008) Available at: www.oed.com (accessed 22 July 2016).
17.
RudankoJ (2006) Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode in Shakespeare’sTimon of Athens. Journal of Pragmatics38(6): 829–841.
18.
RudankoJ (2011) Discourses of Freedom of Speech. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
ShortM (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
20.
SperberDClémentFHeintzCMascaroOMercierHOriggiGWilsonD (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language25(4): 359–393.
