Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Politeness Research

Language, Behaviour, Culture

Ed. by Grainger, Karen

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.365

CiteScore 2017: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.585
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.848

Online
ISSN
1613-4877
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Libelling Oscar Wilde: The case of Regina vs. John Sholto Douglas

Dawn Archer
Published Online: 2011-01-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.004

Abstract

This paper explores the 1895 libel trial between Oscar Wilde (literary personality) and the Marquis of Queensbury (father of Wilde's close friend). Focussing on the lead defence counsel's cross-examination of Wilde (plaintiff), I demonstrate that Carson's FTAs are “aggressive” and, in some cases, “deliberately” so (cf. Bousfield, Impoliteness in interaction, John Benjamins, 2008: 72). However, as they do not breach the rules of the courtroom or involve an overt “intent to harm” (Goffman, Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour, Pantheon Books, 1967: 14), I argue that they do not constitute impoliteness. I further argue that Carson's FTAs should not be considered “incidental” in nature, given they were more planned and more anticipated than Goffman's (Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour, Pantheon Books, 1967: 14) definition seems to allow, and thus suggest that Carson's FTAs be recognized as sitting somewhere between Goffman's intentional or incidental levels – thanks, in part, to their manipulation of multiple goals (Penman, Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse, Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1990) – in what I have labelled the ambiguous-as-to-speaker-intent zone (Archer under review). I also demonstrate Carson's use/manipulation of representational frames and reality paradigms so as to emphasize Wilde's moral “deviance”. In brief, a reality paradigm equates to “the systems of beliefs [and] values … by reference to which a person or a society comprehends the world” (Fowler, Linguistic criticism, Oxford University Press, 1986: 130), and representational frames, to the way(s) in which interlocutors opt to “represent the character traits, ideas and opinions of and even statements made by others” (Locher and Watts, Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour, Mouton de Gruyter, 2008: 99, n9). I conclude by responding to two questions highlighted by my investigation: (1) Should we be talking about impoliteness in the courtroom (even when investigating the cross-examination phase)? and (2) To what extent can our understanding of facework be enhanced, in both a courtroom context and more generally, via a consideration of reality paradigms (and their strategic manipulation)?

Keywords:: verbal aggression; multiple goals; strategic indirectness; intentionality; reality paradigms

About the article

Published Online: 2011-01-28

Published in Print: 2011-02-01


Citation Information: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 73–99, ISSN (Online) 1613-4877, ISSN (Print) 1612-5681, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.004.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Dawn Archer
Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2018, Volume 18, Number 2, Page 315
[2]
Dawn Archer
Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, Volume 43, Number 13, Page 3216
[3]
Dawn Archer and Piotr Jagodziński
Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 76, Page 46

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in