Aspects of (Im)politeness Strategies

in G. B. Shaw's How He Lied to Her Husband

In View of Leech's Perspectives

A Study in Literary Discourse

By Alaa Hussein Sharhan

Basra University\College of Education for Human Sciences\Department of English

Abstract

Approaching the relationship between the characters in any

literary work through the prospect of politeness has proven a

successful attempt to investigate the principal reality and the

core ideas inside that work reflecting the writer's declared and

deliberate intentions behind writing such a work especially when

s/he is primarily concerned with a particular society. The present

study deals with the role of politeness principles in George

Bernard Shaw's How He Lied to Her Husband adopting Geoffrey

Leech's maxims of politeness. The model comprises three pairs of

politeness maxims, each pair is applied to the characters of the

play, who are three in number. The application of this model

shows how those figures respect each other and what are their

attitudes towards one another.

1. Introduction

The theory of politeness has been minutely scrutinized in

semantics, where language is the main focus, in pragmatics, in

which the functions are extensively investigated and in social

studies, especially in the dialogical interactions between

interlocutors. Recently, politeness has highly been discussed by

1

discourse analysts for the purpose of seeking out how speech

community members interact putting in regard the different social

classes and caste systems. So then, the theory of politeness is

considered as a principle ruled out within the conversational

analysis. Markedly, Paul Grice is the first who hinted for this

principle approaching the subject as a maxim. Chiefly, Brown and

Levinson (1978) talked about the politeness phenomenon

shedding light on the face and public image commenting that there

are two sides for 'face' which are positive and negative. They

extensively tried to seek universality in their model. Linguistics, in

this respect, accounts for how we attribute meaning to utterances

in context which is the proper concern of pragmatics. Accordingly,

politeness is treated as a matter of various linguistic choices of how

to say something. Also, politeness is approached by Geoffrey Leech

(1987) when he introduces six principles believing that linguistic

politeness is an issue of strategic interaction to achieve certain

goals. In addition, Robin Lakoff had developed a model for

politeness. She labelled her work as 'rules of politeness', but this

model has a lot to share with that of Brown and Levinson.

Comparatively, Fraser (1990) modelled out politeness strategies,

though these are general views, implying that to conduct a

successful conversation, one should be polite. However, this work

focuses on Leech's model of politeness applying it to a dramatic

work by G. B. Shaw showing how a literary work can reflect

realistic social interactions and how Shaw depicts certain

communicative strategies when the characters are put at odds

against each other.

Politeness models have been applied to various texts via

adopting these models directly with little attribution of the

linguistic forms especially when these models are chiefly

pragmatically oriented. Thus, this study adopts Leech's model

2

backed up by those linguistic forms which indicate politeness and

which are not stated within the model itself.

2. Constructing a Politeness Theory: A Rapid Survey

Over the last five decades, politeness theory has been

considered as one of the principal debate in pragmatic and

sociolinguistic projects. Researchers interested in this topic

proposed various theoretical models concerning politeness

approaching it with abstract terms. The following points show

various perspectives on the concept in question from diverse

interests.

2.1 Social Norm Views

Sociolinguists are mainly interested in approaching the

subject as an aspect of a social strategy for maintaining a co-

operative social interaction across cultures. Vilkki (2008: 3) states

"politeness has been conceptualized especially as strategic

conflict-avoidance or as strategic construction of cooperative

social interaction". Further, Yule (2000:60) argues that politeness

can be widely viewed as a 'means' used to create an impression of

being appreciative to 'another's face'. This awareness, in a certain

social situation, is accomplished via a number of discourse

markers, forms of address to indicate distance or closeness,

besides others ( Crystal, 2003:358).

Some models and views of politeness theory have been

presented by a lot of researchers in the recent years extending

from 1990 initiated by Fraser up to 2003 when a view of

politeness phenomenon was discussed by Watts followed by

Bargiela- Chiappini's perspectives. Terkourafi (2003:1-2) notices

that these approaches are under the influence of the social theory

3

focusing on how the principle of politeness can be freely applied

within and across cultures. In essence, Eelen (2001: 37-8) points

out that the theories of politeness pay a great attention to the

polite scale in any verbal interaction rather than to the impolite

facets of the social interchanges between participants. But, what

is attractive and more prominent on the part of the commentators

and participants during any interaction is the occurrence of the

impolite behaviour than noticing the polite strategies, (Watts,

2003:20). Earlier, Fraser (1990) asserts this belief where he marks

out that when the participants follow the rules of 'the

conversational contract', their polite behaviour will get

unobserved, whereas, the impolite forms of their interaction will

be readily noticed ( Watts,2003: 20). All things considered, Vilkki

(2008:2) mentions that Fraser(1990) approaches the politeness

system according to four views which are the 'social norm' view,

'the conversational maxim' view, ' the face saving' view and 'the

conversational contract view'. These views have been taken for

granted by Eelen (2001), but he carefully presents dissimilar

beliefs when comparing these views adding some other facets of

politeness. According to his system, what is important is the idea

that politeness is seen as a strategy of 'conflict-avoidance' and

'social indexing'; as an attempt to seek universality (Vilkki,

2008:3). Politeness has also been the focus of linguists who have

theorised frames for their approaching of the subject.

2.2 Pragmatic Perspectives

Those who are concerned with syntax have been the first

who considerably advanced the idea of linguistic politeness.

Bussmann (1998: 916) defines politeness as "an umbrella term

for a combination of interpersonal considerations and linguistic

choices affecting the form and function of linguistic interaction."

4

In addition, Verschueren (1999:45) highlights the role of language

in attaining the politeness phenomenon in that it allows a lot of

choices to 'preserve people's face'. Above all, Johnstone

(2008:145) argues that syntacticians tried to present models

encapsulating the attributed meaning of sentences in social

contexts. Robin Lakoff's model (1973) was the first of these

believing that to maintain a fruitful interaction and cooperation,

interlocutors should follow rules of politeness as summarized by

Johnstone (2008:145) as follows:

1. Formality (Distance): Do not impose on others; be sufficiently aloof.

2. Hesitancy (Deference): Allow the addressee options about whether or not to respond and about how to respond.

3. Equality (Camaraderie): Act as if you and the addressee are equal; make the addressee feel good.

These three principles should not be activated to the most at

the same time. If one is more formal, s/he will lose the rule of

equality, and if you are more equal, you will be hesitant,

(Johnstone, 2008: 145). Mills (2003: 61) adds that it is very

difficult or impossible to accomplish the level of balance in

interactions because being polite "does not necessarily restore a

mythical balance to conversation".

The most influential theory of politeness, Malmkjar (461)

asserts, is that of Brown and Levinson (1987). Christie (2000:159)

points out that they develop their theory of politeness depending

on Grice's maxims taking into consideration the relationship

between the implicature and conversational norms. Their model

specifically addresses the face notion comprising two types of

faces; namely, the positive and negative faces, (Malmkjar, 2010:

461). The positive face, Mills (2003: 67) argues, is the need to be

linked and connected to the group members in an interaction,

5

whereas, the negative face is the need to be independent and

unconnected to others. In fact, Brown and Levinson comprehend

politeness as practicing different strategies on the part of the

speaker. Further, Xiujum (2001:57-8) mentions that Brown and

Levinson analyzed four strategies. The first one is termed 'bald on

record' referring to utterances or orders directly addressed to

another where the illocutionary force is made explicit. The second

strategy is the 'positive politeness' by which a speaker seeks and

shows solidarity with the other. 'Negative politeness', which is the

third strategy, means that awareness of another's right not to be

imposed on. Finally, there is what is called the 'off-record' strategy

implying that utterances are not directly addressed to another

(Xiujum, 2001: 59).

Leech's system of politeness looks somewhat different from

the above views in that his model is equivalent to Grice's

cooperative principle (Baker and Ellece, 2011:92). Thus, his

principles will be minutely presented in the following section

before applying his theory to Shaw's How He Lied to Her Husband.

2.3 Leech's Maxims of Politeness

Geoffrey Leech (1983) proposes a general belief about the

politeness principle which is to 'minimize the expression of

impolite beliefs', (Cruse,2006:138). According to Leech's system of

politeness, it is sometimes essential to communicate true, but

must be relevant, information even that this rendering may have

negative consequences on the part of the listener in any social

interaction, (Cruse, 2006:138). He divides his theory, Cruse (2006:

139) adds, into a set of maxims; these are tact and generosity

maxims, approbation and modesty Maxims, agreement maxim

and sympathy maxim. In addition, Mey (2009: 707) states that

6

Leech also strengths his model with scales to measure the degrees

of politeness. These scales are cost-benefit, authority and social

distance, optionality, and indirectness (Mey, 2009: 707).

Leech (1983: 132) identified these maxims in his book

Principles of Pragmatics (1983) explaining how these maxims

operate in conversational exchanges. These maxims are:

1. Tact Maxim: (a) Minimize cost to other, (b) Maximize

benefit to other.

2. Generosity Maxim: (a) Minimize benefit to self, (b)

Maximize cost to self.

3. Approbation Maxim: (a) Minimize dispraise of other, (b)

Maximize praise of other.

4. Modesty maxim: (a) Minimize praise of self, (b) Maximize

dispraise of self.

5. Agreement Maxim: (a) Minimize disagreement between

self and other, (b) Maximize agreement between self

and other.

6. Sympathy Maxim: (a) Minimize antipathy between self

and other, (b) Maximize sympathy between self and

other, (Leech, 1983: 132).

In a dialogical interaction, some of these maxims appear to

be more powerful than others. For example, the tact maxim has

more impact and constraint than the generosity maxim, and the

approbation maxim is more effective than the modesty maxim in a

conversational behaviour, (Leech, 1983: 133). Furthermore,

interlocutors may keep to more than one politeness maxim at the

same time; that is, one maxim occurs at the forefront whereas,

7

the other is being implied during a conversation, (Pakzadian, 2012:

2).

Cruse (2006: 178) comments that the tact and generosity

maxims pertain to the speech acts. These are concerned with

directives and commissives which are related to the notion of

'benefit-cost scale'. In cooperation with the scale of indirectness,

the cost-benefit scale is made explicit with commands, requests

and offers. Accordingly, the imperative form, Cruse (2006: 178)

and Spolsky (1989: 20) argue, is considered as a direct command

such as "wash the dishes". The indirect form is "I wonder if you

would mind washing the dishes", besides other forms. According

to this scale, along with the commissives and directives, there is a

general politeness principle which is we should give orders

indirectly; this often softens the cost to the hearer. Further, one

ought to express the benefit to oneself in a more indirect way.

Also, one should express more directly what brings cost to the

speaker and benefit to the hearer, (Cruse, 2006:178). The

approbation and modesty maxims compose a pair. These two

principles of politeness include the idea of dispraise on the part of

the speaker, such as belittlement, blame and criticism, and praise

for the hearer such as exaggerating what makes the hearer in 'a

good light', otherwise, the speaker is looked at as being impolite,

(Cruse, 2006: 22). Cutting (2002: 64) states that the agreement

and sympathy maxims are not a pair and they are less important

than the other maxims. In positive politeness strategies proposed

by Brown and Levinson (1987), the same idea of Leech's principle

about agreement is referred to implying that one should "seek

agreement' and 'avoid disagreement', but they granted this maxim

a great importance in a conversational interaction, (Cutting, 2002:

64). The sympathy maxim, Cruse (2006: 182) points out,

8

comprises expressions of positive and negative feelings. Positive

feelings are strengthened by congratulations, condolences, and

commiserations which are unfailingly polite. This principle implies

that one should play down the expressions of negative feelings,

(Cruse, 2006:182). All in all, Leech (1983: 81) summarizes his

principles of politeness in the following way: "minimize the

expression of impolite beliefs and maximize the expression of

polite beliefs".

3. Linguistic Forms of Politeness

Politeness has been argued from social and pragmatic views

in the previous sections. In this section, politeness theory is

framed via language structures. In his book Practical English

Usage, Swan (2008) conspicuously presents these linguistic

expressions in detail.

Swan (2005:410) explains that a speaker often makes a

Yes/No question to ask a hearer(s) to do things and the hearer can

choose whether to agree or not; this type of question is

considered as a request and it is more polite than the direct

command: (examples are taken from How He Lied To Her Husband

with page reference)

Her Husband: Would you like to look at them a little closer?

(p.58)

The polite requests may also be rendered via indirect Yes/No

questions or tag questions:

She: ... It's settled, isn't it, that you're going to be nice and

good, and that you'll brazen it out to Teddy that you have some

other Aurora.

9

He: Yes, I am capable of anything now. I should have not told

him the truth by halves ... .(p.56)

Some other structures are used to tell people to do things,

but not asking them to do things, using imperatives, should and

had better, as in:

She: Henry, help me. Find a way out of this for me. (p.50)

If one interlocutor uses these structures with strangers, s/he will

be rude and impolite. To make these structures more polite, one

should say ' please'. These are used to make orders, instructions

and advice:

He husband: Don't underrate your own cleverness, Apjohn. I

think you understand pretty well. (p.58)

In polite requests, one should not use negative questions; or

else, this may seem a complaint:

She: But cannot you suggest anything more agreeable?

(p.54)

In informal requests, negative statements are followed by tag

questions:

She: Surely, as a man of honour- as a gentleman, you

wouldn't tell the truth, would you? (p.56)

In addition, when one wants his/her opinions to be politely

rendered, the opinion expressions should be changed into

questions:

Her Husband: Apjohn: play fair. Don't abuse you intellectual

gifts. Do you really mean that I am making a fool of myself?

(p.58)

10

There are other ways of making suggestions, requests,

questions and statements indirect. This can be done, Swan (2005:

411) adds, via using 'distancing' verbs such as the use of past

tense instead of present tense and progressive forms instead of

simple ones:

She: I thought you would be too much afraid to do anything.

(p.53)

She: Oh, Henry, why didn't you try to restrain your feelings a

little in common consideration for me? Why didn't you write with

some little reserve? (p.48)

Using the future is another way of softening orders and

instructions:

He: we shall go to the theatre still. (p.51)

Furthermore, people's plans can be enquired politely using future

progressive and modal auxiliaries such as would, could and might

that can make requests and orders less direct:

Her Husband: By the way, Apjohn, I should like a word with

you this evening, if Aurora can spare you for a moment. (p. 60)

Before verbs of saying, telling and thinking, would is used to make

a statement sound less direct, hence, more polite:

She: You wouldn't tell the truth, would you? (p.56)

Sometimes, softening suggestions, via distancing them from

reality, happen at the level of conditional and negative forms:

He: I beg your pardon. What is it you want me to do? I am at

your service. I am ready to behave like a gentleman if you will be

kind enough to explain exactly how? (p.54)

11

Softening expressions, Swan (2005: 413) explains, are mostly

used to make personal intentions and opinions more polite and

less direct. Expressions such as may be, rather, quite, kind of, a bit

and a little are used for this purpose:

He: Can you be a little more explicit? (p.58)

Thinking of doing things can also be expressed via (I think….)

instead of expressing opinions directly:

He: She will not understand them, I think. (p.49)

4. Shaw's How He Lied To Her Husband: A Critical Overview

George Bernard Shaw is regarded as one of the most brilliant

Playwright. Sanders (1999: 479) asserts that Shaw has still been

conceived as 'unpredictable' writer in that he, sometimes, orients

his writings for didactic purposes and, other times, his works are

realized as being 'instructive' since he made criteria for including

social, philosophical and scientific arguments in his writings.

Further, Paul (2006: 1) explains that Shaw belongs to the Fabien

Society when he settled in London. He became an ambitious

communist and assertive orator and he got increasingly interested

in writing about several social aspects such as war, women,

capitalism and socialism. For Shaw, the theatre, Alexander (2000:

300) confirms, is a means of purging and reconstituting members

of a society in which he sternly creates disputing situations for the

common conditions and moods. In addition, Jacobus (1989: 554)

argues that his main concern was to present ideas rather than to

focus on characters. Consequently, this ability of explication and

evaluation of philosophy implied in his works of drama ensued a

type of theatrical productions named 'Shavian' in which the

didactic motivation is the primary interest.

12

How He Lied To Her Husband is a one –act comedy play. G. B.

Shaw wrote this play, MacCarthy (1989: 44-5) states, in response

to Arnold Daly's request. He wrote it in 1905 during four days

while he was staying in Scotland. It includes only three characters,

the wife, husband, and a lover, set out in the drawing room of the

couple's flat. The three characters are Teddy, the husband, and his

wife, Aurora, and her lover, Henry. Henry is being described as 'a

very beautiful youth, moving as in a dream', Aurora is portrayed as

' a young and beautiful woman', but she is pretentious and

ordinary female at the age of thirty seven and Teddy is pictured

out as 'a robust, thicknecked, and well groomed city man'. The

wife became strongly bothered for she lost the letters written for

her by Henry and her name was mentioned in all of these

courteous poems. She distrusts her sister-in-law suspecting that

she stole these poems and, at any moment, these letters will be

read to her husband. Henry tells Aurora that they ought to reveal

their love to Teddy and depart without camouflage ' in full honour

and self-respect'. While they are talking about the merits of their

love revelation for Teddy, the latter arrives and faces Henry with

the love poems. Henry tells Teddy that he was writing for Aurora,

the goddess of Dawn, and he is not concerned with his wife at all.

But, his denial does not last long for he finally confesses his love

for Aurora which pleases Teddy. Then, the latter suggests that

these poems should be published in a good paper under the title

'How He Lied To Husband', (MacCarthy, 1989: 46).

5. The Maxims of Politeness: General Statistics

Though it is a short one act play, How He Lied to her

Husband is crammed with different politeness strategies during

numerous dialogical interactions between the three characters,

especially, the wife and her lover. It seems that almost all the

13

utterances in this play have one or more stamps of (im)polite

expressions and remarks. In any case, the total frequency of

politeness principles in this play is ninety. The agreement and

sympathy maxims frequently occur in twenty seven dialogical

interactions with a percentage of (24.3%). The majority of these

maxims are articulated by Henry, the lover, where he utters

sixteen such maxims with a percentage of (14.4%). The wife

manifests herself with only nine such maxims and a percentage of

(8.1%). On the contrary, the husband sounds only two maxims of

such type (1.8%).

The tact and generosity maxims feature by the same token

of the agreement and sympathy maxims, twenty seven, as a total

frequency. Henry clearly articulates fifteen out of such maxims

with a percentage of (13.5%), whereas, the wife has pronounced

ten of these maxims with a proportion of (9%), and her husband

uses only two of these maxims (1.8%).

The most prominent frequency is attributed to the

approbation and modesty maxims, thirty six occurrences with a

percentage of (32.4%). Here, the wife's sentences of such maxims

slightly outnumber those produced by her lover. She uses sixteen

remarks of these maxims (14.4%), whereas, Henry manipulates

thirteen (11.7%) and her husband utters only seven such type of

maxims with a ratio of (6.3%). In brief, the following table shows

these frequencies of politeness maxims and their percentages.

Table (1): Frequency and Percentages of Politeness Maxims in the Play

Type ofPolitenessMaxim

TheAgreementand SympathyMaxims

Tact andGenerosityMaxims

Approbationand ModestyMaxims

Number of 27 27 36

14

Occurrence

Percentage 24.3 24.3 32.4

All in all, these vital statistics appear indicate that the three

characters conspicuously show uneven degrees of practicing these

three aspects of politeness maxims. In essence, each character

has proven to experience different responses towards different

stimuli in various social practices, and hence, they highly reveal

dissimilar personal traits and behaviours. Thereupon, the

following point is directly and solely attributed to the

interpretation of these statistic measures of utterances as far as

politeness is concerned.

6. Interpretations

The principles of politeness in G. B. Shaw's How He Lied to

Her Husband are going to be analyzed and interpreted along with

the three pairs of maxims mentioned above. Each character's

verbal behaviour will be delineated via these principles in an

attempt to carefully approach and expose their hidden facets of

politeness towards each other in different dialogical interactions.

Depending on the ratios of the three characters' articulations

of the agreement and sympathy maxims, it is obviously exhibited

that Henry's practices for these two maxims considerably

outnumber those uttered by the husband and the wife, as shown

in the following table:

Table No. (2): The Frequency of Sympathy and Agreement Maxims in the Play

Character He She Husband

Frequency ofAgreement and

16 9 2

15

Sympathy MaximsPercentages 14.4

%8.1% 1.8%

The justifications for Henry's dense usage of forms of

politeness from this type can be, in a large measure, attributed to

two reasons. The first one is that he wants to leave his beloved

with a distinct impression about his personality as a true lover in

an endeavour to win her heart and to increasingly convince her of

divorce from her husband, Teddy. That's why he immediately

starts agreeing to her offers and requests, even though some of

her demands look mentally strenuous to be accepted and done on

the part of Henry. The second reason is that Henry largely tries to

appear more polite with her husband when he realizes that Teddy

has been informed about Henry and his wife's love affair. Henry

emphatically denies such affair when verbally combating with

Teddy with the help of being more reasonable and polite as well

as to veil his shame after being haunted by his twinge guilt.

From the outset, Henry shows his antipathy for his beloved

when she expresses that it was a mistake when carrying on an

affair with him since she is married and now her husband is about

to discover that secret love affair. Thus, it is a moment of remorse

for her sister-in-law has stolen those love letters, written by Henry,

from her cupboard and these will be personally and promptly

handed to her husband. The opening dialogue particularly reveals

the opposite feelings between the lovers:

She: No, thank you. Never any more poems. Oh, how could I have

been so mad! So rush! So imprudent!

He: Thank heaven for your madness, your rashness, your

imprudence! (p.48).

16

Here is another dialogue showing Henry's antipathy for her

current case since he finds out that their broken off relationship is

going to be on his behalf; behaviour seems to be impolite when

he responds to her request with cold blood:

She: Henry, help me. Find a way out of this for me; and I'll bless

you as long as you live. Oh, how wretched I am.

She: And oh! How happy I am! (P.50).

In fact the play starts when she realizes that her husband is

about to unveil that double dealing. Feeling that she is trying to

break off the uneasy friendship, Henry suddenly finds himself

scheduled to start agreeing to follow and consent to her random

orders. Now that she is completely obsessed by the idea of her

husband's violent reaction, she begins showing her mental

confusions about what future has hidden for her. First, she

appears entirely indulged with what is happening between her

husband and her sister-in-law and what she is going to tell him

about, as well as how her husband is feeling towards her after

being exposed to the bad news concerning her betrayal. Then, she

pronounces all these scruples to Henry who is now feeling pity for

her social status. That's why he clearly demonstrates his sympathy

and agreement to all her requests, experiencing the idea that she

is now in need for a helper, and thus, he may win her heart. The

following dialogue exhibits his polite response:

She: Cant you? Well, I can. I can see Georgina rubbing those

poems into Teddy. And I tell you, Henry Apjohn, that you got me

into this mess; and you must get me out of it again.

He: All I can say is that I am entirely at your service. What do you

wish me to do? (p.55)

17

Being sympathetic and agreeable to whatever she orders

him to do, in order to get her out of this trouble; he is now

reluctant to accept the next request which is to disaffirm the affair

with her in front of her husband:

He: Oh, if you wish me to tell a lie.

She: Surely, as a man of honour- as a gentleman, you wouldn't tell

the truth: would you?

He: Very well. You have broken my spirit and desecrated my

dreams. I will lie and protest and stand on my honour... . (p.56)

Teddy, on the other hand, looks most of the time impolite and

his adverse reaction is clearly justified since he is being cheated by

his wife and his friend. His impoliteness is implicit when talking to

Henry, but keeps polite when addressing his wife:

Her husband: ... by the way Apjohn, I should like a word with you

this evening, if Aurora can spare you for a moment.

He: I am at your service.

Her husband: Well, we shall have more room here.

Teddy knows that Henry would not like to be called 'Apjhon', and

here he is addressing him with this name. But, Henry responds

politely. Another aspect of impoliteness on the part of Teddy in

the above dialogue is that the latter wants to have a fight in order

to revenge.

Tact and generosity maxims feature as the same frequency

as that of the agreement and sympathy maxims in this play;

twenty seven in number. The three characters practise almost the

same distribution for the degrees of social practices of politeness

18

principles. The following table clearly shows these allocations

together with the percentages.

Table No. (3): The Frequency of Tact and Generosity Maxims in the Play

Character He She Husband

Frequency ofTact andGenerosityMaxims

15 10 2

Percentages 13.5% 9% 1.8%

Once again, Henry regularly practises a high level of

politeness as far as these two maxims as possible as indicted by

the percentages in the table. That is, the lover is living up to the

cost-benefit scale particularly the scale of indirectness at the level

of command and offer or requests. This can be attributed to his

abrupt feeling of commiseration towards his beloved after

realising her current dilemma which may potentially lead to a

scandal. From the outset, Henry exhibits his generosity and tact

operations with her when she tells him that all his poems have

been lost:

She: I have lost your poems.

He: They were unworthy of you. I will write you some more.

Feeling that she is in an embarrassing situation, Henry tries

to take the advantage of this and behaves at a higher level of

politeness, and thus he offers his substantial help for doing

anything that will create a profound impression upon her:

He: .... I am ready to go out and proclaim it to all London as simply

as I will declare it to your husband, and when you see that this is

the only way honourable enough for your feet to tread (p.51).

19

Further, he goes on calming her down using words

powerfully confirming his insistence on putting an end to

upcoming troubles that disorder her mind; for example, 'dearest',

'believe me', 'I swear' and 'nothing will happen' (p.52). Other

forms of politeness are professionally practised by Henry

exhibiting his successive attempts to win her heart at this

particular crisis. The following table shows these polite

expressions selected by Henry when interacting with her.

Table NO. (4): Henry's Polite Expressions at the Level of Tact and Generosity Maxims

Polite Expressions and Offers Function

All this alarm is needless, dearest.(p.52)

I beg your pardon. What is it you wantme to do? I am at your service. I amready to behave as a gentleman if youwill be kind enough to explain exactlyhow. (p.54)

All I can say is that I am at yourservice. What do you wish me to do?(p.55)

I will lie and protest and stand on myhonour; oh I will play the gentleman,never fear. (p.56)

Assuring her of not to bedespondent.

Reflecting strong andbright personality.

Confirming his offer forher as a gentleman and aconfident person.

Comforting her and tryingto create good impressionabout his personality.

Turning now to the wife, one can see, depending on the

frequency of occurrence shown in the above table, that she has

experienced lesser social practices with Henry and her husband as

far as politeness as possible. Most of her interactions with Henry

20

become strongly oriented towards the use of the imperative form

of her requests. This can be justified as an extreme reaction to her

embarrassing situation as being at the door of scandal. She

horribly feels feeble and powerless to find a solution, that is why

she forcefully asks Henry to settle things down. In this case, she is

regarded as ungenerous and non-tactful. The following table

shows her orders to Henry; all of these imply cost to Henry to

perform the action communicated via her requests.

Table NO. (5): The Wife's Forms of Requests and their Functions

Forms of Requests Function

Henry, help me. Find a way outof this for me. (p. 50)

I want somebody to tell mewhat to do. (p.50)

But can't you suggest anythingmore agreeable? (P. 55)

And I tell you Henry Apjohn,that you get me into this mess;and you must get me out of it.(p.55)

Direct request, cost on thehearer to perform the action.

Indirect request showing morepoliteness.

Direct request, less politeimplying censure on the part ofthe listener.

Direct command showing strongimpoliteness

The husband, after being informed of the story of infidelity of

his wife, all his acts of interactions remain references for

impoliteness, but these are considered justified and acceptable on

the part of the reader or anyone else because his actions are

normal reactions towards such a case. Since his participation

occurs at the end of the play, his utterances are shown to be lesser

than those exhibited by the two other characters. According to

these two maxims, he practised only two tact and generosity

21

principles, but for negative effects, according to the concept of the

model.

The approbation and modesty maxims have the highest

frequency comparable with the other two sets of politeness

principles. These occur in thirty six occasions. This surely indicates

that the core of this play is about these two maxims since they

considerably play a great role in communicating their factual

relationship. However, the following table distributes the

frequency of the approbation and modesty maxims for each

character and their percentages.

Table No. (6): The Frequency of Approbation and Modesty Maxims in the Play

Character He She Husband

Frequency of Modestyand ApprobationMaxims

13 16 7

Percentages 11.7 14.4 6.3

Most of the social practices initiated by Henry are principally

directed towards understating everything that puts his beloved in

a relatively bad light. Likewise, she, though reluctant to do so, tries

to share the same feeling with Henry in an attempt to make the

latter utterly convinced of her loyalty, and thus rescuing her from

the crisis.

He: We shall go to the theatre still; but you shall leave your

diamonds here; for we cannot afford diamonds, and you do not

need them.

She: I have told you already that I hate diamonds; only Teddy

insists on hanging me all over with them. You do not need preach

simplicity to me. (P. 51)

22

Both opinions are exclusively presented via the use of 'do not

need' which is considered a polite way of convincing others as an

indirect order. Henry keeps belittling things as a safe way of

praising others; behaviour, he feels, highly delights the other

interlocutor:

He: ... I know that these trivialities are nothing to you. (p. 51)

On the contrary, she greatly exposes direct dispraise with

Henry such as criticism, blame and belittlement. The following

table reveals the three types of dispraise on the part of the wife;

hence, these are regarded as impolite acts of behaviour.

Table No. (7): Acts of Dispraise performed by the wife towards Henry

Criticism Oh, Henry, why didn't you try to restrain yourfeelings a little in common consideration for me?Why didn't you write with some little reserve?(p.48)

You have no right to wish anything of the sort. Theyare quite unfit for anybody but a married woman.(p.48)

You have no right to do that. Oh how could you beso inconsiderate? (p.53)

... But can't you suggest anything more agreeable?(p.55)

Blame Yes dear, of course it was very nice of you; and Iknow it was my own fault as much as yours. (p. 48)

Yes, put it all on me, of course. Don't be mean,Henry. (p. 56).

23

Belittlement ... but you are no use. I want somebody to tell mewhat to do. (p. 50)I've suddenly begun to think of you as Mr Apjohn;and it's ridiculous to go no calling you Henry. Ithought you were only a boy, a child, a dreamer. Ithought you would be too much afraid to doanything... . (p.53)

Do you think I would ever have encouraged you if Ihad known you were such a little devil? (p.54)

The husband has also considerably achieved a high level of

dispraise against Henry after being told the story of infidelity of his

wife via his sister when the latter handed him the love poems

written by Henry to his wife. A representative example uttered by

Teddy describing Henry encompasses the three types of dispraise

listed in the above table:

The Husband: you would never dream of writing poems to MrsBompas! My wife's not good enough for you, isn't she? Who areyou, pray, that you should be so jolly superior? (p.60)

8. Conclusions

The following remarks point to the conclusion of the above

presentation and discussion of politeness strategies practised by

the three characters in the play:

1- At the level of agreement and sympathy maxims, Henry largely

minimizes disagreement with his beloved as well as with Teddy.

He is seeking self respect and esteem to win her heart. On the

contrary, she clearly shows disagreement with Henry since she

looks mentally confused. Mostly, Henry unveils positive feelings

24

such as commiserations and condolences to her. He maximizes

sympathy with her just to make her feel that she is not helpless,

but he maximizes antipathy with her husband since the latter

wants to fight as a solution for Henry's insolence.

2- At the level of tact and generosity maxims, the wife

considerably maximized costs to Henry, which are psychologically

oriented, for she is in need for his assistance to get her out of

marital troubles, whereas, he minimized benefit to himself.

Mostly, the husband maximized benefit to himself by being more

direct and more commissioned with Henry.

3- At the level of approbation and modesty maxims, Henry

maximized praise of his beloved as well as of her husband, and he

maximized dispraise of himself. The wife and her husband

revealed dispraise of Henry such as criticism, blame and

belittlement in different dialogical interactions.

All in all, out of the three characters in this play, Henry is the

most polite one in almost all the dialogical interactions since he is

trying to prove to her that he is better than her husband and his

love is estimable.

25

Bibliography

-Alexander, M.( 2000) A History of English Literature. London: Macmillan.

-Baker, P. and S. Ellece. (2011) Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London:

Continuum International Publishing Group.

-Bussmann, H. (1998) Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.

London: Routledge.

-Christie, Ch. (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist

Pragmatics.Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

-Cruse, A. (2006)A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh Univ. Press.

-Crystal, D. (2003) Linguistics and Phonetics. 5th ed. London: Blackwell.

-Cutting, J.(2002) Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.

-Eelen, G.(2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome

Publishing.

-Jacobus, L. (1989) The Bedford Introduction to Drama. New York: St.

Martin's Press.

-Johnstone, B. (2008) Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell.

-Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Politeness. London: Longman.

-MacCarthy, D.(1989) The Court Theatre, 1904-1907; a Commentary and

Criticism. London: Macmillan.

-Malmkjar, K. (2010) The Linguistics Encyclopaedia. 3rd ed. London:

Routledge.

-Mey, J. L (ed.) (2009) The Concise Encyclopaedia of Pragmatics. 2nd ed.

Denmark: Univ. Of South Denmark.

-Mills, S. (2033) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press,.

26

-Pakzadian, M.(2012) Politeness Principle in 2008 Presidential Debate

between MCCane and Obama. Published in Mediterranean

Journal of Social Sciences. 3rd Vol. Iran: Univ. Of Isfahan.

-Paul, S. K. (2006) George Bernard Shaw: A Critical Study of His ideas and

Ideology. India: Bihar Univ. Press. Available at:

http//www.shvoong.com/books/353273-george-bernard-shaw-

critical-study.

-Sanders, A.(1999) The Short Oxford History of English Literature. 2nd ed.

London: Oxford Univ. Press.

-Spolsky, B. (1989) Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

-Swan, M.(2005) Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

-Terkourafi, M. (2003) Three Levels in Politeness Theory and Practice.

London: Blackwell.

-Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

-Vilkki, L. (2008) Politeness, Face and Face-work: Current Issues. University of

Helnisky.

-Watts, R. J. (2003) Politeness: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Press.

-Xiujum, L. (2001) A Study on Linguistic Politeness Phenomena in English.

Changwon National Univ.

-Yule, J. (2000) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

27

مظاهر التأدب في مسرحية "كيف كذب على زوجها" لجورج برنارد شو على وفق منظور جيفري ليج:

خطاب الدبيل دراسة في ا

م.م. علءا حسين شرهان

الخلصاة

لقد أظهر مبدأ التأدب محاولت ناجحة في كشششف نششوع العلقاششات بين الشششخوصضمن العمل الدبي مبينا بذلك الجانب الششواقاعي للعمششل الدبي وأفكششاره الساسششية فضششل

عن إيضاح نوايا الكاتب المضمرة والصريحة داخل النص.

تهدف الدراسة إلى كشف جوانب التأدب في مسششرحية جششورج برنششارد شششو"كيششف

كذب على زوجها". وقاد اعتمدت الدراسة على تطبيق أنموذج قادمه جيفري ليج يخاطب

فيششه هششذا المفهششوم مركششزًا على إسششتراتيجيات الحششوار بين الشخصششيات. وتضششمن هششذا

النمششوذج سششتة مبششادئ سششلوكية مصششنفة إلى ثالثاششة أزواج وهي كششالتي: مبششدأ التعششاطف

والتفاق، ومبششدأ الستحسشان والعتششدال ومبششدأ الكششرم والششذوق. وتم تحليششل التفششاعلت

الحواريششة بين الشخصششيات على وفششق هششذه المبششادئ. واشششتملت المسششرحية على ثالثاششة

شخوص فقط تمحور الصراع بين هنري وعشيقته المتزوجة أورورا. حيث بدأ الصراع

لحظة إدراك الزوجة أن زوجها ،تششدي، سيكتشششف الحب السششري هشذا عن طريششق تسشليم

الرسائل الغرامية له المكتوبة من هنري لها بعد أن سرقاتها جورجيا من غرفة الزوجة.

وأظهرت الدراسة أن هنري هشو أكشثر الشخصششيات تأدبششا في العديششد من الحششوارات وان

أورورا أقال تأدبًا منششه لنهششا كششانت متششوترة طششوال الششوقات خشششية من انتشششار الفضششيحة.

28