Advertisement

Neophilologus

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 349–365 | Cite as

Indirect Aggression: A Pragmatic Analysis of the Quarrel of the Queens in Völsungasaga, Þiðreks Saga, and Das Nibelungenlied

  • Eric Shane BryanEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article employs a pragmatic linguistic methodology to examine the verbal conflict in the so-called “Quarrel of the Queens” episode from the Nibelung Legend of Middle High German and Old Norse literature. Völsungasaga, Þiðreks saga af Bern, and Das Nibelungenlied portray the quarrel in sufficient detail to permit a comparative assessment of strategies of verbal conflict. Each source approaches the dialogue somewhat differently, but each relies heavily upon a strategy of verbal conflict that vacillates between indirectness in speech (speech that requires interpretation on the part of the listener) and directness in speech (speech that requires no interpretation). The arguer perceived (or who perceives herself) as holding the stronger position in the argument tends to maintain a veil of indirectness, while the arguer in the losing position may either attempt to gain the upper hand by intensifying indirectness or, conceding the weaker position, attempt to salvage her status by resorting to directness in speech. This strategy of verbal conflict thus appears to reflect a cultural principle that ought to find a comfortable home in a Germanic and Scandinavian heroic worldview: Indirectness reflects a position of strength, whereas directness reflects the weaker rhetorical and social status. Because these three sources were written during roughly the same period but in different cultural settings, any strategies of verbal conflict that remain consistent in all three texts indicate a pragmatic phenomenon that potentially transcends medieval Germanic and Scandinavian cultural boundaries.

Keywords

Pragmatics Implicature Verbal conflict Das Nibelungenlied Völsungasaga Þiðreks saga af Bern 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, T. M. (1980). The legend of Brynhild. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bax, M. M. H. (1999). Ritual levelling: The balance between the eristic and the contractual motive in hostile verbal encounters in medieval romance and early modern drama. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz & F. Lebsanft (Eds.), Historical dialogue analysis (pp. 35–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bax, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding historical (im)politeness [Special Issue]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12(1–2), 1–282.Google Scholar
  4. Bax, M. M. H., & Padmos, T. (1983) Two types of verbal dueling in Old Icelandic. The interactional structure of the Senna and the Mannjafathr in Harbarthsljoth. Scandinavian Studies, 55, 149–174.Google Scholar
  5. Bonner, M., & Grimstad, K. (1996). Munu vit ekki at því sættask: A closer look at dialogues in Hrafnkels saga. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi, 111, 5–26.Google Scholar
  6. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, D. E. (2001). Reanimated voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, D. E. (2009). Indirectness in legal speech acts: An argument against the out of ritual hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367.Google Scholar
  11. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings, L. (2009). The pragmatics encyclopedia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. de Boor, H. (Ed.). (1956). Das Nibelungenlied. Wiesbaden: F.A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
  14. Finch, R. G. (1965). The saga of the Volsungs. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
  15. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic in conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol III: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, L., Gergen, K., & Lannaman, J. (1986). Aggression rituals. Communication Monographs, 53, 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haymes, E. R., & Samples, S. T. (1996). Heroic legends of the North: An introduction to the Nibelung and Dietrich cycles. New York and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, L. R., & Ward, G. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, Y. (2010). Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of conversational implicature. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 607–631). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, A., & Jucker, A. H. (1995) The historical perspective in pragmatics. In A. H. Jucker (Ed.), Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35) (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Jónsson, G. (Ed.). (1951). Þiðreks saga. Reykjavík: íslendingasagnaútgáfan.Google Scholar
  22. Jucker, A. H. (Ed.). (1995). Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Kightley, M. R. (2009). Reinterpreting threats to face: The use of politeness in Beowulf, ll. 407–472. Neophilologus, 93, 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohnen, T. (2011). Understanding Anglo-Saxon ‘politeness’: Directive constructions with ic wille/ic wolde. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12, 230–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Labov, W. (1981). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In D. Tanner (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 219–247). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Magnússon, E., Morris, W., Weston, J. L., Halliday Sparling, H., Anderson, R. B., & Buel, J. W. (1907). The Volsunga saga. London: Norrœna Society.Google Scholar
  28. Müller, J.-D. (2007). Rules for the endgame: The world of the Nibelungenlied (W. T. Whobrey, Trans.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pakis, V. A. (2011). Insults, violence, and the meaning of lytegian in the Old English Battle of Maldon. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12(1–2), 198–229.Google Scholar
  30. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shippey, T. A. (1985). Boar and badger: An Old English heroic antithesis? Leeds Studies in English, 16, 220–239.Google Scholar
  32. Shippey, T. A. (1993). Principles of conversation in Beowulfian speech. In J. M. Sinclair, et al. (Eds.), Techniques of description: A festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard (pp. 109–126). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Shippey, T. A. (1995). Speech and the unspoken in Hamthismál. In T. J. Toswell (Ed.), Prosody and poetics: Essays in honour of Constance Hieatt (pp. 180–196). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.221 Humanities-Social SciencesMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations