scholarly journals D'Eden à Armageddon, ou la pomme et le serpent : Sir Thomas Malory, laudator temporis acti

Author(s):  
Roy Rosenstein
2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-176
Author(s):  
Malwina Wiśniewska-Przymusińska

Abstract Middle English second person pronouns thou and you (T/V) are considered to be among the means employed by medieval speakers to express their attitudes towards each other. Along with face-threatening acts, the use of these pronouns could indicate power relations or solidarity/distance between the interactants (Taavitsainen & Jucker 2003; Jucker 2010; Mazzon 2010; Bax & Kádár 2011, 2012; Jucker 2012). Using the tools available in pragmatic research, this paper attempts to provide an analysis of selected fragments from The Works of Sir Thomas Malory (Vinaver 1948 [1947]), analysed through the lens of Searle’s speech act theory (1969, 1976). The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the usage of T/V pronouns in polite or impolite contexts depends on the speech act in which they appear or not. Secondly, it looks at the presence of face-threatening acts (FTAs) and their potential influence on polite or impolite pronoun usage. Lastly, the analysis looks at the usage of FTAs within specific speech acts. The fragments used in this article were chosen from five chapters of Malory’s text: The Tale of King Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere, The Morte Arthur, The Noble Tale, and Tristram de Lyones.


Arthuriana ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-276
Author(s):  
Helen Castor

1968 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-398
Author(s):  
John Lawlor

1851 ◽  
Vol s1-IV (101) ◽  
pp. 257-257
Author(s):  
M. P. S.

1969 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 168
Author(s):  
Pasquale DiPasquale ◽  
William Matthews

PMLA ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 877-895
Author(s):  
Mary E. Dichmann

One of the most important recent publications in the field of late mediaeval literature is Eugène Vinaver's edition of The Works of Sir Thomas Malory,1 which has made available a more accurate text for the study of Malory's writings than any scholar has previously had at his disposal. As Vinaver points out in the Preface to this work (i, vi), his edition, which is based on the recently discovered Winchester MS.,2 is much closer to what Malory actually wrote than is Caxton's emended version, and consequently invalidates many conjectures made by those who have known Malory only as he is presented by Caxton. A careful examination of this MS. and a painstaking comparison of it with the sources on which Malory drew have caused Vinaver to reverse several opinions that he previously supported by cogent argument3 and have led him to two general conclusions: (1) that Malory's writings should not be regarded as a unified account of the rise and fall of King Arthur and the Round Table, but rather as eight separate romances whose subjects were drawn independently from the Arthurian cycle (I, XXIX-XXXV) and (2) that the order of composition of the tales was not in the sequence presented by both Caxton and the Winchester MS., since evidence shows (I, XXV-XL) that the story of the war with Rome, which Vinaver calls the Tale of the Noble King Arthur and the Emperor Lucius (Caxton Book v), was written before the Tale of King Arthur (Caxton Books I, II, III, and IV).4


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document