References

Adams, J. N. (1984). Female speech in Latin comedy. Antichton, 18, 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. (1997). I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, T. and Jansen Westvik, O., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

Alcón Soler, E., Martínez Flor, A. and Safont Jordà, María P. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting. A socio-pragmatic approach. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 4, 1–35.Google Scholar

Arnott, W. G. (1964). The confrontation of Sostratos and Gorgias. Phoenix, 18, 110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnott, W. G. (1996). Menander, vol. II, Heros, Theophoroumene, Karchedonios, Kitharistes, Kolax, Koneiazomenai, Leukadia, Misoumenos, Perikeiromene, Perinthia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Arnott, W. G. (1997 [1979]). Menander, vol. I, Aspis, Georgos, Dis Exapaton, Encheiridion, Epitrepontes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Arnott, W. G. (2000). Menander, vol. III, Samia, Sikyonioi, Synaristosai, Phasma, Fabulae Incertae 1–9: New Book Fragments. Plot Summaries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baffy, M. (2020). Doing ‘being interrupted’ in political talk. Language in Society, 49(5), 689–715.Google Scholar

Bakker, E. (1997). Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Baratin, M. and Desbordes, F. (1987). La ‘troisième partie’ de l’Ars grammatica. In Taylor, D. J., ed., The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–66 [reprinted in Desbordes 2007, pp. 65–90].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrios-Lech, P. (2016). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrios-Lech, P. (2021). Developments in politeness from Aristophanes to Menander and Beyond. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama: Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Amsterdam: Brill, pp. 234–63.Google Scholar

Barrios-Lech, P. (forthcoming). Putting on a Fronto: Persona and patterns of language in Fronto’s correspondence. Schola Vivida: A Festschrift on the Occasion of Jacqui Carlon’s Retirement.Google Scholar

Barsby, J. (1986). Plautus, Bacchides. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Google Scholar

Barsby, J. (2001a). Terence, The Woman of Andros, The Self-Tormentor, The Eunuchus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Barsby, J. (2001b). Terence, Phormio, The Mother-in-Law, The Brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Barwick, K. and Kühnert, F. (1925–1964). Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis grammaticae libri V, Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Bary, C. (2012). The ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited. Glotta, 88, 31–53.Google Scholar

Basore, J. W. (1928). Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. I, De Providentia. De Constantia. De Ira. De Clementia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Basset, L. (1997). Ἀλλ’ ἐξόλοισθ’ αὐτῷ κοαξ. Réexamen des emplois de ἀλλά dans les Grenouilles d’Aristophane. In Rijksbaron, A., ed., New Approaches to Greek Particles. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bäumlein, W. F. L. (1861). Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. B. Metzlerschen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Bax, M. (2010). Epistolary presentation rituals. Face-work, politeness and ritual display in Early Modern Dutch letter-writing. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 37–86.Google Scholar

Bax, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2011). The Historical Understanding of Historical (Im)Politeness. Double Special Issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12 (1–2). Reprinted as Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness. Relational Linguistic Practice over Time and Across Cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2012.Google Scholar

Bayraktaroǧlu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish. In Bayraktaroǧlu, A. and Sifianou, M., eds., Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beard, M. (2014). Laughter in Ancient Rome: On Joking, Tickling, and Cracking Up. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Bellucci, P. (2005). A onor del vero. Fondamenti di linguistica giudiziaria. Turin: UTET Libreria.Google Scholar

Bennett, A. (1978). Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation. In Perlmutter, D., Jaeger, J. J., Woodbury, A. C., Ackerman, F., Chiarello, C., Gensler, O. D., and Kingston, J., eds., Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California, pp.557–75.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2016a). Escenas de bienvenida en las comedias de Plauto. Scripta Classica, 13, 65–84.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2016b). Introducing the first topic slot in Plautine dialogues. Roczniki Humanistyczne. Filologia Klasyczna, 64, 89–110.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2016c). El humor de la salutatio en las comedias de Plauto: desautomatización de las fórmulas conversacionales. In Borrell i Vidal, E., Gómez i Cardó, P., and de la Cruz Palma, Ó, eds., Omnia mutantur. canvi, transformació i pervivència en la cultura clàssica, en les seves llengües i en el seu llegat. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 39–47.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2017a). Estrategias de la cortesía positiva en la apertura dialógica en Plauto y Terencio. Revista de Estudios Latinos, 17, 11–35.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2017b). The old man and linguistic politeness in the comedies of Plautus. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae, 27(3), 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2017c). Bendecir para saludar en Plauto. Redistribución de la función pragmática. Emerita, 85, 261–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Berger, Ł. (2020a). Turn taking and power relations in Plautus’ Casina. Graeco-Latina Brunensia, 25(1),19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2020b). Forms of talk in Roman comedy. Reading Plautus and Terence with Goffman and conversation analysts. Dionysus ex Machina, 11, 137–67.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2021a). Advice-giving in Roman comedy: Speech-act formulation and im/politeness. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 264–90.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2021b). Interruptions in Roman comedy: Gender, status, and power in interaction. Philologia Classica, 16(1), 57–76.Google Scholar

Berger, Ł. (2021c). Time, timing, and (im)politeness in Roman comedy, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 50(3), 543–60.Google Scholar

Bernal, M. (2008). Do insults always insult? Genuine impoliteness versus non-genuine impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. Pragmatics, 18, 775–802.Google Scholar

Bernard, J.-E. (2013). La Sociabilité épistolaire chez Cicéron. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar

Bertocchi, A., Maraldi, M., and Orlandini, A. (2009). Quantification. In Baldi, P. and Cuzzolin, P., eds., Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, vol. II, New Perspectives on Historical Syntax. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 19–173.Google Scholar

Bettini, M. (1978). Su alcuni modelli antropologici della Roma più arcaica: designazioni linguistiche e pratiche cultuali (I). Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 1, 123–75.Google Scholar

Bicket, A. M. (1983). Psogos: The Use of Invective in Greek Literature from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century b.c. Diss. University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Bilmes, J. (1997). Being interrupted. Language in Society, 26(4), 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biraud, M. (2010). Les Interjections du théâtre grec ancien. Étude sémantique et pragmatique, Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37–71.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. (2005 [1992]). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds., Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255–80.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S., Kasper, G., and House, J. (1989). Investigating cross cultural pragmatics. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

Bolkestein, M. (1998). Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language in Cicero’s letters. In Risselada, R., ed., Latin in Use. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Bond, G. W. (1981). Euripides, Heracles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bonifazi, A., Drummen, A., and de Kreij, M. (2016). Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use across Genres. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6391.Google Scholar

Bonner, S. F. (1977). Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bowie, E. (2013). The sympotic tease. In Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D., and Szymanski, M., eds., The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar

Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bradley, G. (2015). Investigating aristocracy in archaic Rome and central Italy: Social mobility, ideology and cultural influences. In Fisher, N. and van Wees, H., eds., ‘Aristocracy’ in Antiquity. Redefining Greek and Roman Elites. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, pp. 85–124.Google Scholar

Brookins, T. (2010). A politeness analysis of Catullus’ polymetric poems: Can Leech’s GSP cross the Ancient-Modern divide? Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1283–95.Google Scholar

Brown, L. and Prieto, P. (2017). (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 357–79.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–76.Google Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brunius-Nilsson, E. (1955). ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Brunt, P. A. (1965). Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 191, 1–20.Google Scholar

Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds. (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bureau, B. et al. (2009). Hyperdonat, édition électronique de commentaires anciens, Donat, Commentaire des comédies de Térence. http://hyperdonat.huma-num.fr/.Google Scholar

Burian, P. (1985). Logos and pathos: The politics of the Suppliant Women. In Burian, P., ed., Directions in Euripidean Criticism: A Collection of Essays. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 129–55Google Scholar

Burnet, J., ed. (1900–1907), Platonis Opera, 5 Vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Burnyeat, M. F. (1997). First words: A valedictory lecture. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 43, 1–20.Google Scholar

Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Caffi, C. (2006). Metapragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 83–8.Google Scholar

Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Cardauns, B. (2001). Marcus Terentius Varro: Einführung in sein Werk. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Caspers, C. (2010). The pragmatic function and textual status of Euripidean οὔ που and ἦ που. Classical Quarterly, 60(2), 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Catrambone, M. (2016). Off-record politeness in Sophocles: The patterned dialogues of female characters. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 173–95.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 261–72.Google Scholar

Chahoud, A. (2010). Idiom(s) and literariness in classical literary criticism. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–64.Google Scholar

Chantry, M. (1994). Scholia uetera in Aristophanis Plutum, Groningen: Forsten.Google Scholar

Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 87–106.Google Scholar

Clackson, J. (2010). Colloquial language in linguistic studies. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clackson, J. (2016). The language of a Pompeian tavern: Submerged Latin? In Adams, J. and Vincent, N., eds., Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., and Tearsley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially-Shared Cognition. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar

Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 151–66.Google Scholar

Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches, definition. In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 235–48.Google Scholar

Coker, A. (2019). How filthy was Cleopatra? Looking for dysphemistic words in Ancient Greek. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 186–203.Google Scholar

Coleman, K. M. (2012). Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 142, 189–238.Google Scholar

Coles, R. A. (1966). Reports of Proceedings in Papyri. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.Google Scholar

Collard, C. (1975). Euripides, Supplices, 2 vols, Groningen: Bouma.Google Scholar

Collard, C. (2018). Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (revised and enlarged edition of Stevens’, P. T. Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. Hermes Einzelschriften, 113).Google Scholar

Collins, D. (2004). Master of the Game: Competition and Performance in Greek Poetry. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.Google Scholar

Collins, J. H. (1952). Tullia’s engagement and marriage to Dolabella. Classical Journal, 47(5), 164–8.Google Scholar

Corbeill, A. (1996). Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Corbeill, A. (2002). Ciceronian invective. In May, J. M., ed., Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric. Leiden, Brill, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar

Corcoran, S. (1996). The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government a.d. 284–324. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cornford, F. M. (1935). Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Cotton, H. M. (1981). Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire. Königstein: Hain.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239–66.Google Scholar

Coventry, L. (1990). The role of the interlocutor in Plato’s dialogues: Theory and practice. In Pelling, C., ed., Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 174–96.Google Scholar

Cropp, M. J., ed. (2013). Euripides, Electra, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television show: ‘The Weakest Link’. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011a). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics, vol. 5, Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391–436.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In Capone, A. and Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 421–45.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. (2008). Requests and directness in Early Modern English trial proceedings and play texts, 1640–1760. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Speech Acts in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2010). Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., and Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cunningham, I. C. (2004). Herodas, Mimiambi, cum appendice fragmentorum mimorum Papyraceorum. Munich/Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, P. (2010). Evidentialitätsstrategien im Lateinischen. Vorläufige Bemerkungen. In Anreiter, P. and Kienpointner, M., eds., Latin Linguistics Today: Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, Innsbruck, 4–9 April 2009. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 247–56.Google Scholar

Dahlmann, H. (1935). M. Terentius Varro. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 6, 1172–277.Google Scholar

David, M. K., Kuang, C. H., and DeAlwis, C. (2012). Politeness strategies in openings and closings of service encounters in two Malaysian agencies. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Centre for Communication and Humanities, 4(2), 61–76.Google Scholar

Davies, B. L. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understanding of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2007). The Early Latin Verb System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2010). Possessive pronouns in Plautus. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–99.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2011a). Plautus, Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The two Bacchises, The Captives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2011b). Plautus, Casina, The Casket Comedy, Curculio, Epidicus, The Two Menaechmuses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2011c). Plautus, The Merchant, The Braggart Soldier, The Ghost, The Persian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2012). Plautus, The Little Carthaginian, Pseudolus, The Rope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

de Melo, W. C. (2013). Plautus, Stichus, Three Dollar Day, Truculentus, The Tale of a Traveling Bag, Fragments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Debut, J. (1984). Les Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana. Une Méthode d’apprentissage des langues pour grands débutants. Koinonia, 8(1), 61–85.Google Scholar

Demetriou, C. (2014). Aelius Donatus and his commentary on Terence’s comedies. In Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 782–99.Google Scholar

Deniaux, E. (1993). Clientèles et pouvoir à l’époque de Cicéron. Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar

Denizot, C. (2011). Donner des ordres en grec ancien: étude linguistique des formes de l’injonction, Mont-Saint-Aignan: Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre.Google Scholar

Denizot, C. (2012). Impolite orders in Ancient Greek? The οὐκ ἐρεῖς; type. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 110–28.Google Scholar

Denniston, J. D. (1950). The Greek Particles, 2nd edn revised by Dover, K. J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Desbordes, F. (2007). Idées grecques et romaines sur le langage. Travaux d’histoire et d’épistémologie. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (1995). Forms of address and conversational language in Aristophanes and Menander. Mnemosyne, 48(4), 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (1996). Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2001). Κύριε, δέσποτα, domine. Greek politeness in the Roman Empire. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 121, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2002). Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2010a). Latin influence and Greek request formulae. In Evans, T. V. and Obbink, D. D., eds., The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–20.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2010b). Forms of address and markers of status. In Bakker, E., ed., A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 328–37.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2010c). Introduction. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2010d). Preliminary conclusions. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2012a). The rules of politeness and Latin request formulae. In Probert, P. and Willi, A., eds., Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.313–28.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2012b). How to say ‘please’ in Classical Latin. Classical Quarterly, 62(2), 731–48.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2012c). The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, vol. I, Colloquia Monacensia-Einsidlensia, Leidense-Stephani, and Stephani. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2014). A catalogue of works attributed to the grammarian Herodian. Classical Philology, 109, 325‒45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dickey, E. (2015a). How to say ‘please’ in post-Classical Latin: Fronto and the importance of archaism. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 14, 17–31.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2015b). The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, vol. II, Colloquium Harleianum, Colloquium Montepessulanum, Colloquium Celtis, and Fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2016a). Politeness in ancient Rome: Can it help us evaluate modern politeness theories? Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 197–220.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2016b). Emotional language and formulae of persuasion in Greek papyrus letters. In Sanders, E. and Johncock, M., eds., Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 237–62.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds. (2010). Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diederich, S. (2007). Römische Agrarhandbücher zwischen Fachwissenschaft, Literatur und Ideologie, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Diggle, J. (2004). Theophrastus. Characters. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dinter, M. T. (ed.). (2019). The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dionisotti, C. (1982). From Ausonius’ schooldays? A schoolbook and its relatives. The Journal of Roman Studies, 72, 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dodds, E. R. (1959). Plato: Gorgias. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–53.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (1995). Conversation analysis. In Smith, J., Harré, R., and van Langenhove, L., eds., Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 64–79.Google Scholar

Duckworth, G. E. (1994 [1952]). The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Dunbabin, J. M. D. and Slater, W. J. (2011). Roman dining. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–66.Google Scholar

Dunkel, G. E. (2000). Remarks on code-switching in Cicero’s letters to Atticus. Museum Helveticum, 57, 122–9.Google Scholar

Dutsch, D. (2008). Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dynel, M. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4, 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and act locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–90.Google Scholar

Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10(3), 383–421.Google Scholar

Edwards, M. (1997). Optatus, Against the Donatists. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar

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

Ekonomidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 111–38.Google Scholar

Elder, O. and Mullen, A. (2019). The Language of Roman Letters: Bilingual Epistolography from Cicero to Fronto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elice, M. (2007). Romani Aquilae de figuris. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.Google Scholar

Englebretson, R., ed. (2007). Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1976). Is Sybil there: Some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–66.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, V. (1996). Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language Sciences, 18, 629–50.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fantham, E. (2004). The Roman World of Cicero’s De oratore. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fedriani, Ch. (2017). Quapropter, quaeso? ‘Why, for pity’s sake?’ Questions and the pragmatic functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in Plautus. In Denizot, C. and Spevak, O., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–109.Google Scholar

Feeney, D. (2016). Beyond Greek. The Beginnings of Latin Literature. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2008a). Politeness in Latin comedy. Some preliminary thoughts. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 61, 15–28.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2008b). Il latino dei Colloquia Scholica. In Bellandi, F. and Ferri, R., eds., Aspetti della scuola nel mondo romano. Atti del convegno (Pisa, 5–6 dicembre 2006). Amsterdam: Hakkert, pp. 111–77.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2012). How to say ‘no’ in Latin: Negative turns, politeness and pragmatic variation. In Leiwo, M., Halla-aho, H., and Vierros, M., eds., Variation and Change in Greek and Latin. Helsinki: Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, pp. 105–27.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2015). Linguistic variation in patristic commentaries of Biblical texts. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 53(2),331–354.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2016). An ancient grammarian’s view of how the spoken language works. Pragmalinguistic observations in Donatus’ Commentum Terentii. In Ferri, R. and Zago, A., eds., The Latin of the Grammarians. Reflections about Language in the Roman World. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 237–75.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. (2020). Teaching Roman law in an ancient western school. The genre and language of the Fragmenta Augustodunensia. In Mantovani, D. and Babusiaux, U., eds., Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo. Pavia: Pavia University Press, pp. 565–77.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. and Probert, P. (2010). Roman authors on colloquial language. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12–41.Google Scholar

Finoli, A. M. (1958). Χαριεντισμός festiva dictio, Αστεϊσμός urbana dictio. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo. Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche, 92(2), 569–80.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, S. and Taavitsainen, I., eds. (2007). Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Flower, H. I. (2011). Elite self-representation in Rome. In Peachin, M., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–85.Google Scholar

Fortson, B. (2008). Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds., New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar

Fraser, B. and Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93–110.Google Scholar

Freese, J. H. (2000 [1930]). Cicero, Pro Publio Quinctio; Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino; Pro Quinto Roscio Comoedo; De lege agrarian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fuhrmann, M. (1992). Cicero and the Roman Republic (transl. Yuill), W. E.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fukushima, S. (2013). Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese students, Japanese parents and American students of evaluations of attentiveness. Pragmatics, 23(2), 275–99.Google Scholar

Fukushima, S. and Haugh, M. (2014). The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165–79.Google Scholar

Furley, W. D. (2009). Menander. Epitrepontes. London: Institute of Classical Studies.Google Scholar

Galinsky, K. (1996). Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Galinsky, L. (2012). Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garcea, A. (2016). Gli schemata dianoeas di Carisio: un unicum tra grammatica, retorica e letteratura. In Ferri, R. and Zago, A., eds., The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a). Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 535–59.Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

García Hernández, B. (2007). De iure uerrino. El derecho, el aderezo culinario y el augurio de los nombres. Madrid: Dykinson.Google Scholar

Geyer, N. (2008). Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (2014a). Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. quaeso and It. prego): The cyclic nature of functional developments. In Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P., eds., Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar

Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (2014b). Politeness markers from Latin to Italian: Periphery, discourse structure and cyclicity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 17(2), 307–37.Google Scholar

Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar

Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction. Insights from conversation analysis. In Evans, M. B., Jeffries, L., and O’Driscoll, J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict. London: Routledge, pp. 215–45.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk, London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power-and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(6), 883–903.Google Scholar

Gomme, A. W. and Sandbach, F. H. (1973). Menander: A Commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 283–307.Google Scholar

Goody, E. (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Grainger, K. (2018). ‘We’re not in a club now’: A neo-Brown and Levinson approach to analyzing courtroom data. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 19–38.Google Scholar

Green, C. M. C. (1997). Free as a bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3. American Journal of Philology, 118, 427–48.Google Scholar

Greenwood, L. H. G. (1928). Cicero, The Verrine Orations, vol. I, Against Caecilius. Against Verres, Part 1; Part 2, Books 1–2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grethlein, J. (2003). Asyl und Athen: Die Konstruktion kollektiver Identität in der griechischen Tragödie. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar

Grice, P (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Speech Acts, vol. III, Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Griffith, M. (1999). Sophocles, Antigone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grose Hodge, H. (2000 [1927]). Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia. Pro Caecina. Pro Cluentio. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Guérin, C. (2009). Persona: l’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J.-C., vol. I, Antécédents grecs et première rhétorique latine, Paris: Éditions Vrin.Google Scholar

Guérin, C. (2015). Persona: l’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J.-C., vol. II, Théorisation cicéronienne de la persona oratoire. Paris: Éditions Vrin.Google Scholar

Gustafson, K. (1983). Final monosyllables – why elision? Symbolae Osloenses, 58(1), 39–62.Google Scholar

Hajdú, K. (1998). Ps.-Herodian, De figuris. Überlieferungsgeschichte und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hall, J. (1996). Social evasion and aristocratic manners in Cicero’s De Oratore. American Journal of Philology, 117(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, J. (2005). Politeness and formality in Cicero’s letter to Matius (Fam. 11.27). Museum Helveticum, 62, 193–213.Google Scholar

Hall, J. (2009). Politeness and Politics in Cicero’s Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, J. (2019). Seneca’s De Beneficiis and nonverbal politeness in Ancient Rome. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 20(2), 225–43.Google Scholar

Halla-aho, H. and Kruschwitz, P. (2010). Colloquial and literary language in early Roman tragedy. In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–53.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. (1991). The uses of laughter in Greek culture. Classical Quarterly, 41, 279–96.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. (1995). Forms of address: Socratic vocatives in Plato. In de Martino, F. and Sommerstein, A. H., eds., Lo spettacolo delle voci. Bari: Levante, pp. 87–121.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. (1999). Review of Dickey 1996. Échos du monde classique/Classical Views, 18, 110–18.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. (2008). Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Halm, K. (1863). Rhetores Latini Minores. Leipzig: TeubnerGoogle Scholar

Handley, E. W. (1965). The Dyskolos of Menander. London: Methuen and Co.Google Scholar

Hanson, J. A. (1989). Apuleius, Metamorphoses, vol. II, Books VII–IX. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 295–317.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2106–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haugh, M. (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–34.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2013). Impoliteness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2015a). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2015b). Impoliteness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2018a). Linguistic politeness. In Hasegawa, Y., ed., Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 608–27.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2018b). Afterword: Theorizing (im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 153–65.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–114.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N. P., eds., Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Intercultural (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 601–32.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2017). (Im)politeness theory. In Vine, B., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar

Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709–42.Google Scholar

Hayashi, R. (1991). Floor structure of English and Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(1), 1–30.Google Scholar

Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 227–55.Google Scholar

Hejtmanová, M. (2003). Hedging in vulgar Latin texts. In Solin, H., Leiwo, M., and Halla-aho, H., eds., Latin vulgaire, latin tardif. VI. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms/Weidmann, pp. 541–53.Google Scholar

Henderson, J. (1998a). Aristophanes, Acharnians. Knights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Henderson, J. (1998b). Aristophanes, Clouds. Wasps. Peace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Henderson, J. (2000). Aristophanes, Birds, Lysistrata, Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Henderson, J. (2002). Aristophanes, Frogs. Assemblywomen. Wealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (2008). Conversation analysis as social theory. In Turner, B. S., ed., The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 300–20.Google Scholar

Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Herman, V. (2002). Turn management in drama. In Culpeper, J., Short, M., and Verdonk, P., eds., Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar

Hesk, J. (2007). Combative capping in Aristophanic comedy. Cambridge Classical Journal, 53, 124–60.Google Scholar

Hilgard, A. (1901). Scholia in Dionysium Thracem, vol. I.3, Grammatici Graeci. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., and Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347–71.Google Scholar

Hirzel, R. (1895). Der Dialog: ein literarhistorischer Versuch. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, M. E. (1983). Conversation openings in the comedies of Plautus. In Pinkster, H., ed., Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Amsterdam, April 1981). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.217–26.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. (2003). La lingua d’uso latina, 3rd edn (transl. Ricottilli, L.). Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1997 [1972]). Syntax und Stilistik, vol. II of Lateinische Grammatik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345–65.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2, 159–85.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 26–50.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–49.Google Scholar

Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Vine, B. (2011). Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holtz, L. (1979). Grammairiens et rhéteurs romains en concurrence pour l’enseignement des figures de rhétorique. In Chevallier, R., ed., Colloque sur la rhétorique. Calliope I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 207–20.Google Scholar

Holtz, L. (1981). Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe–IXe siècle) et édition critique. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar

Holwerda, D. (1977). Scholia uetera in Nubes. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis.Google Scholar

Holwerda, D. (1982). Scholia uetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis.Google Scholar

Hooper, W. D. and Ash, H. B. (1934). Cato, Varro, On Agriculture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hübler, A. (2011). Metapragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–36.Google Scholar

Hunter, R. L. (1985). The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hurschmann, R. (2006). Gruß. In Cancik, H, Schneider, H., and Landfester, M., eds., Der Neue Pauly, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e500080.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. (1992). Confrontation talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text & Talk, 12(3), 343–72.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices, and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, G. O. (1998). Cicero’s Correspondence. A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 223–48.Google Scholar

Ide, S. (1992). On the notion of wakimae: Toward an integrated framework of linguistic politeness. In Takeuchi, M., ed., Kotoba no mozaiku. Collection of Papers in Honor of Professor Natsuko Okuda. Tokyo: Mejiro Linguistic Society, 298–305.Google Scholar

Ireland, S. (2010). New comedy. In Dobrov, G., ed., Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy. Leiden: Brill, pp. 333–96.Google Scholar

Iurescia, F. (2019a). Credo iam ut solet iurgabit: Pragmatica della lite a Roma. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Iurescia, F. (2019b). How to assess politeness in response to impoliteness: Some examples from Latin comedy. In van Gils, L., Kroon, C., and Risselada, R., eds., Lemmata Linguistica Latina, vol. II, Clause and Discourse. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 887–903.Google Scholar

Iurescia, F. (2019c). Litigare in tragedia: per una pragmatica del conflitto. Emerita 87(2), 255–83.Google Scholar

Iurescia, F. (2020). Deadlocks in Roman tragedy. Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici, 84, 113–44.Google Scholar

Iurescia, F. and Martin, G. (2019). Closing conflicts. Discourse strategies across Greek and Roman tragedies. Lingue e Linguaggi, 31, 233–54.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in Pragmatics. In Jucker, A., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobi, R. (1996). Die Kunst der Exegese im Terenzkommentar des Donat. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jekat, S. J. and Hohenstein, C., eds. (2012). Respect and the 3rd person in a multilingual perspective. Linguistik Online, 51(1), https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.51.301.Google Scholar

Jones, C. W. (1975). Beda, De Orthographia. In Jones, C. W., Kendall, C. B., King, M. H., Jones, C. W., and Lipp, F., eds., Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars I Didascalica, Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 7–57.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Kopaczyk, J. (2017). Historical (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 433–59.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Stanley, L. (2017). (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Im/Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403–29.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2014). Complimenting in the history of American English. A metacommunicative expression analysis. In Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H. and Tuominen, J., eds., Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257–76.Google Scholar

Jucker, A. H., Taavitsainen, I. and Schneider, G. (2012). Semantic corpus trawling: expressions of ‘courtesy’ and ‘politeness’ in the Helsinki Corpus. In Suhr, C. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Helsinki, Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/11/jucker_taavitsainen_schneider.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z. (2013). Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z. and Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical im/politeness. An introduction. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)Politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S. (2013). Rethinking discernment. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2), 133–58.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, G. (2010). Pragmatics functions of parenthetical I think. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds., New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 237–66.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W., and Schneider, S., eds. (2010). New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Kamen, D. (2020). Insults in Classical Athens. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description in Its Interactional Functions with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218.Google Scholar

Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (1998). Poetae Comici Graeci, Menander. Testimonia et fragmenta apud scriptores servata, vol. VI.2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (1988). Guardians of Language. The Grammarians and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (2005). Emotion, Restraint and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kauer, R. and Lindsay, W. M. (1958). P. Terenti Afri Comoediae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, J. G., Manning, J. G., and Yiftach-Firanko, U. (2014). Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest: A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Keil, H. (1855). Diomedis Artis Grammaticae libri tres, vol. I, Grammatici Latini. Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 299–529.Google Scholar

Keil, H. (1874). Marii Plotii Sacerdotis Artium Grammaticarum libri tres, vol. VI, Grammatici Latini. Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 427–546.Google Scholar

Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., and Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–48.Google Scholar

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., and Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–47.Google Scholar

Kendall, C. B. (1975). Beda, De arte metrica. De schematibus et tropis. In Jones, C. W., Kendall, C. B., King, M. H., Jones, C. W., and Lipp, F., eds., Bedae Venerabilis Opera. Pars I, Didascalica. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 142–71.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. W. and Camden, C. T. (1983). A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Communication, 47(1), 45–58.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992). Les Interactions verbales, vol. II. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2010). L’impolitesse en interaction. Aperçus théoriques et étude de cas. Lexis. Journal in English Lexicology, HS 2, 35–60.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness. Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4(2), 251–87.Google Scholar

Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M. (2010). Banter – a case of phatic communication? In Walaszewska, E., Kisielewska-Krysiuk, M., and Piskorska, A., eds., In the Mind and across Minds. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 188–207.Google Scholar

Kitamura, N. (2000). Adapting Brown and Levinson’s ‘politeness’ theory to the analysis of casual conversation. In Proceedings of ALS2k, the 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/kitamura.pdf.Google Scholar

Klebs, E. (1896). Axius no. 4. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2(2), cols. 2633–4.Google Scholar

Kleinke, S. and Bös, B. (2015). Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics, 25(1), 47–71.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. (1997). Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. (2018). Praise and flattery in the Latin epic: A case of intratextuality. In Harrison, S., Frangoulidis, S., and Papanghelis, T. D., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 341–52.Google Scholar

Korhonen, K. (1996). On the composition of the Hermeneumata language manuals. Arctos, 30, 101–19.Google Scholar

Koster, S. (1980). Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur. Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain.Google Scholar

Kotthoff, H. (1996). Impoliteness and conversational joking: On relational politics. Folia Linguistica, 30, 299–324.Google Scholar

Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 4–25.Google Scholar

Kovacs, D. (1996). Euripidea altera. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar

Kovacs, D. (2018). Euripides, Troades. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kowalski, R. M. (2000). ‘I was only kidding!’: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231–41.Google Scholar

Kronenberg, L. (2009). Allegories of Farming from Greece and Rome: Philosophical Satire in Xenophon, Varro, and Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kroon, C. (2005). The relationship between grammar and discourse: Evidence from the Latin particle quidem. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 9(2), 557–90.Google Scholar

Kroon, C. (2009). Latin linguistics between grammar and discourse. Units of analysis, levels of analysis. In Rieken, E. and Widmer, P., eds., Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 143–56.Google Scholar

Krostenko, B. A. (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Krostenko, B. A. (2013). Etymologizing the conuiuium: Varro’s nescis quid uesper serus uehat. Palamedes, 8, 113–39.Google Scholar

Krüger, P. and Mommsen, T. (1872). Corpus iuris civilis, vol. I. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Krüger, P., Mommsen, T., and Studemund, W. (1878). Collectio librorum iuris anteiustiniani in usum scholarum, vol. I. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Kruschwitz, P. (2012). Language, sex and (lack of) power. Reassessing the linguistic discourse about female speech in Latin sources. Athenaeum, 100, 197–229.Google Scholar

Kruschwitz, P. and Clary-Venables, A. (2013). How to apologise in Latin: a case study. In Moore, T. J. and Polleichtner, W., eds., Form und Bedeutung im lateinischen Drama/Form and Meaning in Latin Drama. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar

Krylová, B. (2015). Latin directives and (im)politeness: How do modifications of illocutionary force (not) modify the (im)politeness status of directives. Paper delivered at the 18th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Université de Toulouse, 10 June 2015.Google Scholar

Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. (1904). Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar

Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1912–14). Ausfürliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II. Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Laffi, U. (2013). In greco per i Greci. Ricerche sul lessico greco del processo civile e criminale romano nelle attestazioni di fonti documentarie romane. Pavia: Pavia University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–395.Google Scholar

Lamb, W. R. M. (1925). Plato, Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lammermann, K. (1935). Von der attischen Urbanität und ihrer Auswirkung in der Sprache, Diss. Göttingen.Google Scholar

Lancel, S. (1972–1991). Actes de la Conférence de Carthage en 411. 4 vols. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.Google Scholar

Lane, M. (2011). Reconsidering Socratic irony. In Morrison, D. R., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–59.Google Scholar

Lape, S. (2004). Reproducing Athens: Menander’s Comedy, Democratic Culture, and the Hellenistic City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. (2010). Colloquial Latin in the insular Latin scholastic colloquia? In Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 406–18.Google Scholar

Lattimore, R. (1979). Optatives of consent and refusal. In Bowersock, G. W., Burkert, W., and Putnam, M. C. J., eds., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 209–16.Google Scholar

Laughton, E. (1960). Observations on the style of Varro. Classical Quarterly, 10, 1–28.Google Scholar

Laughton, E. (1978). Humour in Varro. In Collart, J., ed., Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, pp. 105–11.Google Scholar

Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Studies. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar

Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In. Coulmas, F., ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, pp.289–304.Google Scholar

Lee, D. (1987). The semantics of just. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 377–98.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 167–206.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leeman, A. D. and Pinkster, H. (1981). Marcus Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri tres. Kommentar: Erster Band, Buch I, 1–165. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Leezenberg, M. (2002). Power in communication: Implications for the semantics-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 893–908.Google Scholar

Leezenberg, M. (2005). Greek tragedy as impolite conversation: Towards a practice approach in linguistic theory. In Marmaridou, S., Kiki, N., and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 191–208.Google Scholar

Lentini, G. (2013). The pragmatics of verbal abuse in Homer. In Tell, H., ed., The Rhetoric of Abuse in Greek Literature, Classics@, 11 (online journal at chs.harvard.edu).Google Scholar

Lentini, G. (2018). (Im)politeness in the Iliad: The pragmatics of the Homeric expression ἀγαθός περ ἐών. Trends in Classics, 10(2), 255–74.Google Scholar

Leo, F. (ed.) (1895–1896). Plauti Comoediae, 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–77.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303–21.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H., ed. (2004). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Letessier, P. (2000). La salutatio chez Plaute. Adaptation ludique d’un rituel social. Lalies, 20, 151–63.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5–6), 365–99.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levisen, C. and Waters, S. (2015). Lige, a Danish ‘magic word’? An ethnopragmatic analysis. International Journal of Language and Culture, 2, 244–67.Google Scholar

Li, H. Z. (2001). Cooperative and intrusive interruptions in inter- and intracultural dyadic discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(3), 259–84.Google Scholar

Lilja, S. (1965). Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar

Linderski, J. (1985). The dramatic date of Varro, De re rustica, book III and the elections in 54. Historia, 34, 248–54.Google Scholar

Linderski, J. (1989). Garden parlors: Nobles and birds. In Curtis, R. I., ed., Studia Pompeiana et Classica in Honor of Wilhemina F. Jashemski, vol. II, Classica. New Rochelle, NY: Orpheus, pp. 105–27.Google Scholar

Lindsay, W. M. (1916). The Latin grammarians of the empire. The American Journal of Philology, 37, 31–41.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (1992). The Agon in Euripides. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (1999). The tragic aorist. Classical Quarterly, 49, 25–45.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (2004). The politeness of Achilles: Off-record conversation strategies in Homer and the meaning of kertomia. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 124, 75–89.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (2006). Sophocles in the light of face-threat politeness theory. In de Jong, I. J. F. and Rijksbaron, A., eds., Sophocles and the Greek Language: Aspects of Diction, Syntax and Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill, pp. 225–40.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (2009). The language of the gods: Politeness in the prologue of the Troades. In Cousland, J. R. C. and Hume, J. R., eds., The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp. Leiden: Brill, pp. 183–92.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (2013). Politeness/impoliteness. In Roisman, H. M., ed., Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy. Chichester: Wiley, p. 987.Google Scholar

Lloyd, M. (2020). Politeness and impoliteness in Aristophanes. In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., and Sorrentino, G., eds., Pragmatic Approaches to Drama: Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage. Leiden: Brill, pp. 213–33.Google Scholar

Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994a). Sophocles, Antigone. The Women of Trachis. Philoctetes. Oedipus at Colonus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994b). Sophocles, Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2006a). Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249–67.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2006b). The discursive approach to polite behavior: A response to Glick. Language in Society, 35, 733–5.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2012). Politeness research form past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Amaya, L. Fernández, Hernández López, M. de la O., Morón, R. Gómez, Padilla Cruz, M., Mejías Borrero, M., and Relinque Barranca, M., eds., New Perspectives on (Im)Politeness and Interpersonal Communication. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 36–60.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Watts, J. R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Watts, J. R. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, B. (1977). Ars Laureshamensis. Expositio in Donatum Maiorem. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Longo, G. (1993). Contributi allo studio della reticentia. Euphrosyne, 21, 269–73.Google Scholar

López Gregoris, R. (2002). El amor en la comedia latina. Análisis léxico y semántico. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar

Luraghi, S. (1997). Omission of the direct object in Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen, 102, 239–57.Google Scholar

Lycan, W. G. (1977). Conversation, politeness, and interruption. Paper in Linguistics, 10 (1–2), 25–53.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2007). The origins of ethnomethodology. In Turner, S. P. and Risjord, M. W., eds., Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 485–515.Google Scholar

Macdonald, C. (1977). Cicero, In Catilinam 1–4. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Macleod, M. D. (1970). A rare use of νή in Menander and Lucian. Classical Review, 20, 289.Google Scholar

Maier, J.-L. (1987). Le dossier du donatisme. Des origines à la mort de Constance II (303–361). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. (2007). Cicero, Philippics 3–9. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mari, F. (2016). The stranger on the threshold. Telemachus welcomes Athena in Odyssey 1.102–143: A case study of polite interaction in ancient Greek culture. Journal of Politeness Research, 12(2), 221–44.Google Scholar

Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds. (1997). Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Márquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Marshall, C. W. (2009). The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (repr. with corrections).Google Scholar

Martin, G. (2014). Failing communication in Menander. In Sommerstein, A., ed., Menander in Contexts. New York: Routledge, pp. 116–36.Google Scholar

Martin, R. H. (1976). Terence: Adelphoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mastronarde, D. J. (1979). Contact and Discontinuity: Some Conventions of Speech and Action on the Greek Tragic Stage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–26.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207–21.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1993). Linguistic politeness and cultural style: Observations. In Clancy, P. M., ed., Japanese and Korean Linguistics, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 55–67.Google Scholar

Matthews, J. (2010). The making of the code. In Harries, J. and Wood, I., eds., The Theodosian Code. London: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar

Maynard, D. W. (2013). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley/Blackwell, pp. 11–31.Google Scholar

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

Mencacci, F. (2010). Modestia vs. licentia: Seneca on childhood and status in the Roman family. In Dasen, V. and Späth, T., eds., Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–44.Google Scholar

Mencacci, F. (2012). La voce del banditore. Performance vocale et stili di communicazione a Roma. In Pittia, S. and Schettino, M. T., eds., Le Son du pouvoir dans les mondes anciens. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, pp. 329–48.Google Scholar

Mencacci, F. (2016). Praeter consuetudinem. (Im)politeness e stili comunicativi a Roma. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(2), 91–115.Google Scholar

Meyer, P. G. (1997). Hedging strategies in written academic discourse. Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H., eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 21–41.Google Scholar

Meyerhoffer, M. (2002). Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.526–48.Google Scholar

Michelini, A. N. (1998). ΠΟΛΛΗ ΑΓΡΟΙΚΙΑ: Rudeness and irony in Plato’s Gorgias. Classical Philology, 93, 50–9.Google Scholar

Miller, W. (1914). Xenophon, Cyropaedia, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 19–56.Google Scholar

Mills, S. (2017). English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Minchin, E. (2007). Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Molinelli, P. (2010). From verbs to interactional discourse markers: The pragmaticalization of Latin rogo, quaeso. Journal of Latin Linguistics, 11, 181–92.Google Scholar

Monno, O. (2012). ‘Gente di scuola’ nei ‘libri di scuola’. Maia, 64, 346–54.Google Scholar

Moore, T. J. (2012). Music in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moreau, P. (2006). Quem honoris causa appello. L’usage public des noms de personnes et ses règles à Rome. In Champeaux, J. and Chassignet, J., eds., Aere perennius: en homage à Hubert Zehnacker. Paris: PUPS, pp. 293–307.Google Scholar

Morwood, J. (2007). Euripides, Suppliant Women. Oxford: Aris and Phillips/Oxbow.Google Scholar

Moussy, C. (2005). Champ lexical et polysémie. L’expression du pardon en latin. In Calboli, G., ed., Latina lingua! Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Rome: Herder, pp. 359–70.Google Scholar

Müller, R. (1997). Sprechen und Sprache: Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Müller, R. (1999). Der Varietätenraum der rusticitas. In Petersmann, H. and Kettemann, R., eds., Latin vulgaire/Latin tardif V. Actes du V^e colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 553–60.Google Scholar

Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 385–400.Google Scholar

Musurillo, H. (1972). The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.Google Scholar

Narducci, E. (1989). Modelli etici e società. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar

Narducci, E. (1997). Cicerone e l’eloquenza romana. Rome/Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

Nelsestuen, G. A. (2011). Polishing Scrofa’s agronomical Eloquentia: Representation and revision in Varro’s De Re Rustica. Phoenix, 65, 315–51.Google Scholar

Nelsestuen, G. A. (2015). Varro the Agronomist: Political Philosophy, Satire, and Agriculture in the Late Republic. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Nicholson, J. (1994). The delivery and confidentiality of Cicero’s letters. The Classical Journal, 90, 33–63.Google Scholar

Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333–59.Google Scholar

O’Connell, D. C., Kowal, S., and Kaltenbacher, E. (1990). Turn-taking: A critical analysis of the research tradition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(6), 345–73.Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can – and can’t – help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 463–92.Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (2009). Erving Goffman. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O., and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (2017). Face and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Macmillan, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar

O’Meara, J. J. (1951). St. Augustine, Against the Academics. Westminster, MD: Newman Press.Google Scholar