INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.

3, 2022

A Pragmatic Study of Impoliteness Functions in Harold Pinter’s “The

Homecoming”

Jinan Salim Mohsen and Asst. Prof. Dr. Sa’ad Salman Abdullah

Dept. of English, College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Basrah, Iraq

Abstract

Language is one of the most important things in human communication and social
interaction. It is the principal vehicle for the transmission of culture knowledge, and the
primary source by which people attain access to the contents of other’s mind. People present
a language for communication into several shapes such as requesting, blaming, asking
questions, and thanking. Each language that is given by someone has its function. Thus, the
function of language is used to express personal attitudes and social relations is called
interactional. The study aims at investigating the uses of impoliteness functions by employing
Culpeper’s impoliteness theory. It identifies impoliteness functions within the literary
discourse of character. Also, the study discusses that pragmatic tool such as the impoliteness
theory can be applied to literary discourse to explain different dynamics in the conversation
of dramatic characters in the literary text. This study involves two parts: a theoretical
background and a practical part. The theoretical background consists of a number of sections
illustrating the definition of impoliteness with reference to the development from politeness
and impoliteness theory simultaneously. It extends to discuss the model of analysis which is
Jonathan Culpeper’s (2011), clarifying his functions. It also illustrates the role of
impoliteness in drama, by mentioning how the dramatic text and context can effect
impoliteness theory. The practical part involves the analysis of impoliteness found in Harold
Pinter’s “The Homecoming” and a discussion of the data analysis.

Keywords: Impoliteness, Jonathan Culpeper, Impoliteness Functions, Impoliteness and

Dramatic Dialogue

Theoretical Background

This part of the study consists of the concept of impoliteness as stated by a number of
scholars. Next, it discusses the background of politeness and impoliteness theory. It discusses
Jonathan Culpeper’s (2011) as model of impoliteness ,and then reviews the functions of
impoliteness in drama . Finally, it explains the significance of impoliteness in dramatic
dialogue.

From Politeness to Impoliteness Theory

Politeness is an essential aspect of human communication .It is not something that human
beings born with , but something which is acquired through a process of socialization . This
means that politeness is not a natural phenomenon which existed before mankind but one

-15109-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

which has been socioculturally and historically constructed . The term ‘polite’ goes back to
the 15th century and etymologically derives from the Latin word ‘politus’ which means
‘smoothed ,accomplished’ (Reiter,2000:2). Politeness is about the strategic manipulation of
language that expediting our conversational goals by saying which is socially appropriate
(Culpeper et al ,2003:1547).

According to Leech (1983:82) politeness has a higher regulative role to maintain the social
equilibrium ,and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are
being cooperative in the first place . Brown and Levinson (1987:1)in their book “Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage” ,discuss that politeness like formal diplomatic
protocol presupposes that potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and makes possible
communication between potentially aggressive parties .Blum Kulka (1992: 257-258) sees
politeness as external, hypocritical, and unnatural in people’s behavior which has a slightly
negative implication in social interaction . On the same track , Yule (2006: 135) holds that
“we can‘t think of politeness in general terms as having to do with ideas like being tactful,
modest and nice to other people”.

Yule also adds that the term ‘face’, is often regarded as an essential factor in linguistic
politeness, however he describes politeness as showing awareness of and consideration for
another person’s face. Hence, politeness has not been created as an instinctive mankind
property, but it is actually a phenomenon which has been constructed through sociocultural
and historical processes.

Eelen (2001:97-98) Pays a special attention to politeness and perceive impoliteness as a

departure. He defines politeness as a tool with which speakers achieve certain communicative
or interpersonal goals. The attainment of these goals still depends on the evaluative or
interpretative practice of the hearer ,but these interpretations are anticipated by the speaker.
So the hearer’s interpretative activity is only present as part of the speaker’s productive
activity, as it plays a role in influencing the speaker’s construction of utterances .

Mills (2003:139) and Culpeper (2011:28) concentrate on the fact that impoliteness ought to
be observed as a means to accomplish specific goals as: (1) to acquire authority , (2) to find
an outlet to opposed feelings. According to Mills (2003:139) impoliteness is comprehended
linguistically only if it is regarded in communication within a given society and how that
society interpreted certain utterances with regard to the overall communication strategies of
the participants. Talib (2021:25) states interlocutors value the seriousness of face threating
act on the basis of three factors : the social distance between the speaker (S) and the hearer
(H), the power that the hearer has over the speaker, and the absolute ranking of impositions in
the particular culture. Due to these three factors ,the weightiness of (im)politeness will be
determined .

That is to say ,impoliteness can be interpreted differently by different persons depending

on the context and other elements. Therefore, impoliteness is considered a pragmatic theory
since in analysing responses of impolite behaviors, the addresser should be taken into account
the societal factors such as social power, language, and the degree of intimacy between the
speech participants .

-15110-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Culpeper’s (1996,2011) Model of Impoliteness

The theory of impoliteness in terms of Jonathan Culpeper’s model (1996) followed

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness. Yet, it is concerned with attacking face
instead of supporting it (Bousfield, 2008:90-91). Culpeper shifts the attention towards
impoliteness because many politeness theorists are interested only in the communicative
strategies that create harmony in the social interactions. Thus, he is interested in the opposite
orientation that involves the disharmonious situations caused by people. Impoliteness is
poorly understood and neglected because it was understood as an activity modeled for the
antisocial purposes only without theoretically thinking about its nature in a deep and
scientific way. Culpeper (1996) forms an impoliteness framework which is parallel but
opposite to Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness for the sake of anatomizing
impoliteness (Nasir,2016:20)

In the journal “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”, Culpeper (1996:350) defines

impoliteness as “the use of strategies that are designed to have the opposite effect that of
social disruption” . Such strategies are intended to damage someone’s face rather than to
support it. The importance of this model is not only an adjunct to Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) model, but it is a counterpart construction. Then, Culpeper (2011) introduces a list of
impoliteness functions. According to Culpeper , they are used to attack face and cause
disruption rather than to promote face and foster relations.

Thus , Culpeper considers the social context as more than just reference. It is the action
that helps to analyse the impoliteness functions used by the speaker or listener
(Jabbar,2021:36).In addition, not many attempts have been done to identify the functions of
impoliteness. The latest attempt which is proposed by Culpeper (2011)resulted in three
functions of impoliteness,they are: the affective ,the coercive, and the entertaining
impoliteness. The aim behind these functions is to consider some impolite utterances as
valuable for our everyday life because they reveal the authority, the emotion, and sarcasm in
the conversation . Culpeper (2011:221) presents them to identify the domination of the
speaker against others.

Fig1. The Functions of Impoliteness by Jonathan Culpeper (2011:222)

Affective Impoliteness

-15111-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Culpeper(2011:223)elaborates on the first function of impoliteness which is the

emotional impoliteness. During a conversation among the participants, an affective
impoliteness reflects the function of an emotional explosion .It also reveals an excessively
heightened feeling, such as indignation, which implies the duty of the goal to produce a
negative emotional state .
This function involves emotional outburst which occurs during a conversation
between the producer of impoliteness and the target of impoliteness. It is the targeted display
of intensely increased emotion, such as anger, which implicates the production of the
negative emotional state . The following example shows the affective impoliteness function
due to phone message attributed to Alec Baldwin actor:
“I’m going to let you know just how disappointed in you I am. and how angry I am with
you that you’ve done this to me again. you’ve made me feel like shit. and you’ve made me
feel like a fool over and over and over. You have insulted me you don’t even have the
brains”(Culpeper,2011:223).
The speaker exposes his anger towards the hearer and this consequently generates a
negative emotional atmosphere between them . In the above example, the speaker uses such
an impolite utterance to express the passive effect of the hearer on him and to inform him that
he is unwanted anymore. The affective impoliteness is the targeted display of heightened
emotion, typically anger, with the implication the target is to blame for producing that
negative emotional state.

Coercive Impoliteness

The coercive function is the second impoliteness function. It is difficult to rearrange

values between the supplier and the aim at which the manufacturer is strengthened or gains
more by their existing advantages (Culpeper 2011:226).This function arises in circumstances
where there is a different social force among interlocutors (Culpeper ,2011:225).

Culpeper (2011:226 -227) claims that the coercive impoliteness tends to appear in
environment where there is an imbalance of social construction of power. More powerful
member owns the liberty to act impolitely in order to minimise the potential of the ineffective
interactant to counterattack with impoliteness. That is to say , it is an action which intends to
enforce harm on another person or to force upon an agreement. This function apparently
occurs in situations where different social structural power or social status exists.
Nevertheless, it can also be used in more equal relationship to bring about an acquisition in
social power.

An example of the coercive impoliteness can be seen in the following dialogue between a
North American police officer (S1) and a taxi driver (S2) whom he stops and interrogates, the
taxi driver has stopped apparently because the wheels of his taxi touched or crossed the white
lines of a pedestrian crossing:

“S1: This your cab?

S2: Yes, sir
S1: It says here it’s expired.
What else you got?

-15112-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

S2:My insurance is expired?

I didn’t get change,
but I think I left it at my house.
S1: You didn’t get it or you left it at home?
S2: I got it ...
S1: Which lie are you telling me?
S2: I’m not lying sir, I’m just ...
S1: Let me tell you something.
You cross that white line out there,
that’s running the red light.
You want to argue with me or,
you want to go to jail?”
(Culpeper,2011:230)

The example explains that police officer’s impoliteness affirms his social distance as a
boss. Just as he has a more important position than the taxi driver. By such utterances “which
lie are you telling me the speaker”,“you want to argue with me or you want to go to jail?”
,and “you didn’t get it or you left it at home?” put an end to the addressee’s behavior by
warning him to speak. Such an utterance is produced when the speaker has a command over
the hearer.

In sum , the coercive action is an action taken with the intention of imposing harm on
another person or forcing compliance. Actors who engage in the coercive actions expect that
their behaviour will harm and lead to compliance therefore they value one of these proximate
outcomes. The value they attach to compliance or harm to the target arises from their belief
about the causal relationship between compliance or harm and the terminal values. There are
many values that might be pursued through coercive means. For example, actors might value
harm to the target because they believe it will result in justice, or they might value the target’s
compliance because they believe it will lead to tangible benefits (Culpeper, 2011:226).

Entertaining Impoliteness

Culpeper(2011:233-234)states that the entertaining impoliteness is the third

impoliteness function . It involves an amusement at the expense of the victim of impoliteness.
The purpose of the entertaining impoliteness is to manipulate this role of impoliteness. The
addressee amuses the hearer and enjoys the feeling of obtaining amusement. This function is
closely connected with sarcasm or mock politeness strategy because they are often used by a
speaker to get power over his/her addressee .

Impolite utterances are used by participants to get power over others in their goal to
entertain and offend during conversation . This example which takes from Charles Dicken’s
novel “Great Expectations” contains this type of impoliteness. When Miss Havisham invites
Estella to play cards with Pip, and she offensively replies :

Estella: Why, he is a common laboring boy! (Johanson, 1994: 25)

-15113-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

It’s worth mentioning , the above example clarifies that the entertaining impoliteness
which often covers the use of sarcasm where the recipient is unaware that other participant is
joking at his expense. According to Culpeper (2011:233-234) individuals may
be amused by symbolic violations of identities and social rights which is the substance of
impoliteness. As a result, despite being a symbolic breach, the speaker’s impoliteness
technique to the hearer can entertain others.

Impoliteness and Dramatic Dialogue

The dramatic text is an essential factor that influences the language of absurd drama.
It is a literary genre which is most like naturally occurring conversation. This is because it
involves character interaction (Short, 1996: 168). Drama is not simply made of words, but of
sights and sound, stillness and motion, noise and silence, relationships and responses (Styan:
1975: vii).

The use of language by the absurd playwrights analyses the limits of language as a
way of communication and as a tool of thought because there might be no fixed meanings in
a universe deprived of standards, values and merits. The absurdists have preferred to write in
a language empty of content to turn out to be the suitable depiction of a motionless life .

Regarding language in absurd drama, Ganz (1972:3) mentions that Pinter tends to use
language that is characterized with ambiguity, silence and other verbal characteristics . Pinter
uses repetition as a mode to create laughter and also to ease the tension of the scene and
divert the audience’s response slightly from the action. For instance: in “The Birthday party”,
in Act I, Meg repeatedly asks a question to ridicule the other:

“Meg: Is that you?

Petey is that you ?
Meg: Petey ?, Petey ?
Petey: what ?
Meg: Is that you ?

A drama is something done on stage. The major situation of drama is the presence of
actor(s) on stage, facing and eliciting their response (Mikics, 2007:93). In the Theatre of
Absurd, the characters try to conceal themselves by using language in a different way in
which the mutual understanding among them are not possible. Each person finds
himself cut a drift from the other , completely disunited and disconnected. Either they do
not communicate , or they communicate through silence , pauses, repetitions , and non-
verbal expressions, their words being devoid of any sense . As such the Theatre of Absurd is
a critique, and an attack on fossilized forms of language, devoid of meaning. People use
language to fill the emptiness, to conceal the fact that they have no desire to tell each other
anything at all (Kohzadi et al., 2011:2059).

Culpeper (2011:93) mentions that any analysis of dialogue needs to be sensitive to the social
dynamics of interaction. Therefore, impoliteness analysis attempts to describe how
participants manipulate their messages in order to support or give the negative face to others
in conversation. The impolite behaviours reveal how participants manipulate their messages

-15114-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

in order to attack the other’s face. But in the case of the dramatic dialogue of plays, writers
particularly have exploited the full range of the “politeness/impoliteness” spectrum for
literary purposes. Conflict in dialogue not only has the general potential to be entertaining,
but it can play a key role in furthering characterization and plot.

That is to say ,the values and beliefs an individual shares with other people in his /her
culture may govern his/her interpretation of what others try to convey whether face
threatening or not. Thus, it is expected that what is polite in one culture may be impolite in
another one (Nasir et al.,2014:59).

The Practical Part

This part presents an introduction to Pinter’s “The Homecoming” . It also shows the analysis
and discussion of the results of the study. Finally, this part lists the final concluding remarks.

Introduction to Pinter’s “The Homecoming”

“The Homecoming” portrays the notion of human loss of life that people experienced
following WWI and WWII which shows the total impermanence of any values ,highlights the
precariousness ,and fundamental meaninglessness of human life. The play shares the view
that man inhabits a universe whose meaning is incomprehensible, and that his time and place
within it are without purpose. He is bewildered, troubled ,and obscurely threatened. In
addition , the characters are ordinary, having no particular purpose. They are insecure,
obsessed with fear and loneliness. They are ambiguous, and their actions lack rationality.

Absurdity of language shows triviality of people. Absurd dramatists adopt absurdity of

language as a way of catharsis because of many reasons including age of depression, war,
miseries of life, destruction of human being . which are the dominant catastrophes of that
time. Absurd drama shows language as an insufficient and unreliable tool of communication.
“The Homecoming” revolves around six characters . It is about four male members in the
house who have to deal with the homecoming of the couple returning from America. The
play focuses on the return of Teddy, a university professor, who brings his wife Ruth to meet
his father family. Ruth’s presence exposes a tangle of rage and confused sexuality in this all-
male household.

Data Analysis

Following Culpeper’s (2011) model of impoliteness , this section displays the

frequency, percentage, and analysis of impolite expressions for each type of impoliteness
functions available in “The Homecoming”.

Excerpt(1)

“Max : Do you hear what I’m saying? I’m talking to you! Where’s the scissors? Lenny: I’m
reading the paper

Max: Not that paper. I haven’t even read that paper. I’m talking about last Sunday’s paper. I
was just having a look at it in the kitchen. Do you hear what I’m saying?

-15115-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Lenny. Why don’t you shut up , you daft prat?

Max. Don’t talk to me like that , I’m warning you.(Act1.P7)”

The excerpt explains how conflicts arise from the first moment when Max wants to find the
scissors while Lenny focuses on reading his paper. Apparently, Lenny does not want to be
disturbed by his father. However, Max keeps speaking with Lenny, and he tries everything to
get rid of his nagging father. Lenny employs positive impoliteness twice: first, in his
utterance “I’m reading the paper” to show that he is disinterested, unconcerned with his
father’s request and demands .Second, he utters “why don’t you shut up, you daft prat?” to
associate his father with negative aspect with purpose of causing face attack and offence.

In addition, the entertaining impoliteness function appears when Lenny tries to utilise max’s
expression to obtain amusement and to give such impression that he does not care about his
father’s need .For the purpose of authority , Max utters his words in the form of offensive
response to reject the impolite attitude and attack by Lenny. It is worth mentioning, the
negative impoliteness of max against his son exhibits that the form of aggression and
violence is deeply rooted in man .Therefore , Lenny tries to establish a dominant position
over his father in many places.

Excerpt (2)

“Sam: You wouldn’t have trusted any of your other brothers. You wouldn’t have trusted
Mac, would you? But you trusted me. I want to remind you.

old Mac died a few years ago, didn’t he? Isn’t he dead?. He was a lousy stinking rotten
loudmouth. A bastard uncouth sodding runt. Mind you, he was a good friend of yours.
Max: Ah…. Sam …Why do I keep you here? You’re just an old grub

Sam: Am I?

Max: You ’re maggot

Sam :Oh yes?(Act 1,p18)”

Explicitly, that Max combines between impoliteness strategies of the positive and the
negative impoliteness of associating the other with negative aspect such as “old grub”.
Moreover , the coercive impoliteness function is employed by Max with an offensive
response “You’re just an old grub” in order to give negative emotions to Sam and impose
his authority over him. It is very clear that max’s anger is stimulated by his brother because
he talks about the past, as well as he mentions the name of Max’s old friend (MacGregor)
who is now deceased. Mac betrays Max with his wife Jessie in Sam’s car. Thus, Max’s
reaction has damaged face of speaker by utilising utterances causing extreme groveling to his
brother.Additionally, Sam demonstrates his jealousy of Mac by criticising him, and using
immoral words such as “ he was lousy stinking rotten loudmouth. A bastard uncouth
sodding runt” .The utterance reflects the cultural side of him. That is to say ,Sam uses blunt
expressions to Mac when he can’t even defend himself in front of his brother. Sam’s words
reveal his hatred for Mac.

-15116-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Excerpt (3) “Sam

:Don’t be silly.
Max: What’s silly?
Sam :You’re talking rubbish
Max :Me?(Act2,p70)”

Sam uses the negative impoliteness with two sub-strategies such as: associating the
other with negative aspect ,and condescend , scorn , ridicule to criticise Max for his negative
attitude towards Ruth . Sam’s utterances show an act of rudeness which isn’t in adherence
with his assertive personality . Moreover ,one can realise that transformation in Sam’s
personality from restless and apprehensive to a domineering one leads Max to employ two
kinds of response:the defensive countering ,and the accepting face attack.

The Total Percentage of Act One and Act Two of “The

Homecoming”

Total No. of N
Functions %
Utterances o.

2
Entertaining Impoliteness 11%
6

237

9
Coercive Impoliteness 38%
0

2
Affective impoliteness 8%
0

-15117-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Discussion of Results in “The Homecoming”

The analysis focuses on the impoliteness utterances among the characters; five male
and one female speakers are on the stage. The main aim of analysing impoliteness function is
to explain the way that the males speak to each other and to female in the play. The analysis
of the dramatic dialogues reveals that the way woman is addressed in “The Homecoming”
reflects the social status of men in the Post World War II period and indicates their position
in the patriarchal society.

The total number of the coercive impoliteness function is(38%) which is out of (237)
utterances compared with the other functions that have the lowest results. Thus, this refers to
the higher level of impoliteness which is used by the characters. At the same time , the
characters seek to dominate others by expressing their sarcastic attitudes towards others. As a
result, these impolite utterances are shown in terms of disrespect, disparagement, humiliation,
curse, reprimand and derision that the characters direct towards each other , as shown in
figure(2)

Fig2. The Total Frequency and Percentage of Act One and Act Two of
“The Homecoming”

Conclusion

1.The analysis focuses on the impoliteness functions among the characters. The results show
that men in the play reflect their power, masculinity and strength throughout the colloquial
use of language observed in the entire play.

2.Pinter shows the reality of the embittered life in Britain after the Second World War
throughout the excessive use of impolite dialogues in his play. Furthermore, the male
speakers use impolite language to provoke and verbally assault others

3. Pinter implies linguistic impoliteness for power and struggle because he tries to show
how the characters want to dominate others through impoliteness functions. Thus ,the
characters in this play such as Max ,and Lenny employ the impolite language for taking

-15118-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

control over other character, seeking out the conflict ,and forcing them to give the offensive
or the defensive response .Those dominant characters want to shoot the authority with its own
weapon , but they fail and lose the power struggle at the end of the both plays.

References
1. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society. In R.J. Watts et al (Ed.).
Politeness Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
2. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge University
Press.
4. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. :Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222497902_Towards_an_Anatomy_of_Impoliteness
5. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D. & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to
Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects : Journal of Pragmatics ,35,1545-1579. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/13068954/Impoliteness_revisited_with_special_reference_to_dynamic_and_pr
osodic_aspects
6. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
7. Eelen, G. (2001) . A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing .
8. Ganz, A. (Ed.). (1972). Pinter: A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey: USA.
9. Pinter, H. (1966).The Homecoming .New York :Grove Press.
10. Johanson, R. (1994). Charles Dickens’ Great Expectation: A Dramatization. Woodstock .The Dramatic
publishing Company .
11. Jabbar,I.A.(2021). The Characterisation of Chicken in Tennessee Williams’s Kingdom of Earth: A
Cognitive Stylistic Study: Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah,1(97),31-46.Retrived from
https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/6c7ebb74fdf66464
12. Kohzadi , H. & Mohammdi,F.A.(2011). The Language of Absurd Theatre in Pinter’s The Birthday Party
:Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research ,1(11),2-59.Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/32045313/The_Language_of_the_Absurd_Theatre_in_Pinters_Birthday_Party
13. Leech, J. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Addison-wesley.
14. Mills ,S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
15. Mikics , D. (2007).A New Handbook of Literary Term . London: Yale University Press
16. Nasir, Z . &Al-Salman,I.M.(2014). Muslim and Non-Muslim Women's Perception of Impoliteness in the
City of Basrah in Iraq: Journal of the College of Art of Basrah , (96),57-88.Retrivef from
https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/1462dc4fcea3bce3
17. Nassir,S.A.2o16.Politeness Super-Strategies in Facebook Comments in “Atheist Republic”Group from
Leech’s Perspective : A Case Study. Un Published MA thesis . Iraq :University of Basra.
18. Reiter, R. M.(2000).Linguistic Politeness In Britain And Uruguay : A Contrastive Study Of Requests And
Apologies. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins
19. Short, M. (1996). Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. UK: Taylor & Francis.
20. Styan,J.L.(1975).Drama ,Stage and Audience .Cambridge : University Press
21. Talib,S.H.(2021). Exploring Im(politeness) Strategies in Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband in Terms of
Leech's Perspective A Pragma-Stylistic Study: Journal of Basra Research for Human siences,46,(2),25-
57.Retrived from https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/caccdb9e6fd0db9d
22. Yule, G. (2006). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

-15119-