The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

The Context
Quarterly e journal of language, literary and cultural studies
Publication details and instructions for authors:
http://www.magnuspublishing.com
This is an Open Access Journal distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Politeness in Dattanis On a Muggy Night in

Mumbai: A Discourse Analysis Perspective
Anindya Syam Choudhury1
Sauvik Debroy2
1
2

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Assam University, Silchar, Assam

Research Scholar, Department of English, Assam University, Silchar, Assam

Published online: 05 October 2016

Article Number: TCissn.2349-4948/3.3-4a108
To cite this article: Choudhury Anindya S and, Sauvik Debroy. Politeness in Dattanis On a
Muggy Night in Mumbai: A Discourse Analysis Perspective. The Context, 3.3-4 (2016):
150-159. Web.
2016 Author(s); licensee Magnus Publishing.
The electronic version of this article is available at:
http://www.magnuspublishing.com/thecontext/2349-4948-108.pdf

Abstract
It has not been long since dramatic dialogue as discourse caught the attention of
researchers. A watershed moment regarding this was the publication of Brown and
Levinsons framework of politeness strategies and their notions of face and face-work
in 1987. This paper first discusses how Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics impacted
the study of dramatic dialogues before outlining the theoretical framework of Brown
and Levinsons politeness phenomena. The paper then goes on to analyse three extracts
from Dattanis On a Muggy Night in Mumbai using the theoretical insights from
Brown and Levinsons framework of politeness phenomena.
Keywords: Discourse Analysis, positive politeness, negative politeness, face, face

threatening act

150
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

Politeness in Dattanis On a Muggy Night in

Mumbai: A Discourse Analysis Perspective
Anindya Syam Choudhury
Sauvik Debroy
The study of dramatic dialogue as discourse, i.e., as an organised system of
conversation is rarely evident (Herman 3). If plays are compared with poems and
novels, they have in general received comparatively less attention from the twentiethcentury stylisticians (Culpeper et al. 3). The main cause of this deficiency lies in the
fact that spoken conversation has been generally viewed as an unstable form of
language for several centuries and thus plays, in spite of all their affinities with speech,
were accountable to be undervalued. The early stylistics of the 1960s tended to
concentrate on the analysis of poetry by examining foregrounded features and
achieving its goals through the manipulation of phonology, grammar and lexis areas
of linguistic organisation which are often considered as the core of linguistics.
However, it did not pay enough attention to dramatic texts and the dynamics of
interaction involved in dramatic dialogues (Culpeper et al. 3). This gap started to be
filled by the growth and development of Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis since the
late 1970s and the early 1980s. These approaches equipped stylisticians with tools and
techniques to analyse the meanings of utterances in dramatic texts. One such tool is
Brown and Levinsons notion of politeness phenomena, which they developed in
their book titled Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, where they try to
shed light on the principles which underlie polite usage in conversation. The present
paper aims at exploring how the linguistic strategies of politeness are used by the
characters in Mahesh Dattanis play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai (1998) with the
help of the notion of politeness phenomena.
The fundamental premise of Brown and Levinson in their book, Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage, is that conversation is an integral part of the expression

of social relationships, and what they seek to do is to develop a comprehensive

framework for the analysis of politeness strategies which are basically used in
conversation. The key to Brown and Levinsons notion of politeness phenomena is
the concept of face. According to Brown and Levinson, face is generally considered
as a kind of self-image which speakers in a society claim for themselves (61). In the
everyday sense of the word, face refers to the notions such as reputation, prestige and
self-esteem (Culpeper 84). Brown and Levinson suggest that face is of two kinds
positive face and negative face (Brown and Levinson 61). Negative face refers to
any speakers freedom of action and freedom from imposition. In other words, the
desire of every speaker that his/her actions should not be impeded by others is known
as negative face (Simpson 171). Positive face, on the other hand, refers to the desire
of any speaker that his/her self-image should be appreciated and approved of by
others, i.e., the desire of every speaker that his/her wants should be desirable to others
is termed as positive face (171).
Brown and Levinson then go on to opine that during a conversation, speakers
sometimes perform acts which may be said to threaten the face of the addressee or the
151

Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

listener (65). For example, asking someone to do something or requesting someone

for any kind of favour is clearly an impingement on that person. Such requests
generally threaten the negative face of the addressee in the sense that his or her freedom
of actions is curtailed. Some other acts, such as the use of insults or abusive terms can
be regarded as a threat to the addressees positive face as it clearly demonstrates a
negative evaluation of the addressees self-image by the speaker. Hence, the acts
which pose a threat to either the positive or the negative face of the addressee or the
listener are generally considered as face threatening acts (hereafter FTAs) (Simpson
171).
In the opinion of Simpson, the FTAs could be performed in various ways depending
on the context of conversation, the social relationship of the participants and the
amount of imposition which the face threatening act entails (171). To perform an
FTA, the speaker may select one from a number of strategies available. The first way
is not to perform the FTA at all. Another way would be to perform the FTA by using
an indirect strategy. The indirect way of performing an FTA is to go off-record
(Simpson 172). By selecting to go off-record, speakers adopt a strategy in which the
utterance often takes the form of a declarative sentence containing no direct lexical
link to the goods or the services demanded of the addressee. By choosing this particular
strategy, the speaker can appear not to be intimidating and can, therefore, avoid the
risk of a possible face threatening interpretation of what is said. In general, off-record
strategies include the use of metaphor and irony, rhetorical questions, tautologies and
all kinds of indirect hints to the goods or the services the speaker wants from the
addressee. It is pertinent to point out here that off-record record strategies may lead
to the violation of Grices conversational maxims of cooperative principle as
enunciated in his article Logic and Conversation. For instance, on a dinner table
when one says the soup is a bit bland rather than making a request like pass on the
salt, one is using an off-record strategy, showing a great awareness of face and saving
oneself from performing an FTA. However, this off-record strategy violates Grices
Maxim of Relevance since what the speaker says does not seem to be explicitly relevant
(Bouchara 12).
However, if a speaker chooses not to go off-record, he/she may choose to go on-record
for performing the FTA (Simpson 172). By selecting to go on-record, the speaker
makes clear to the addressee the communicative intention that made him/her to
perform the FTA. But by choosing to go on-record, a speaker is provided with a
further choice. Firstly, he/she may choose to perform the FTA baldly, i.e., without any
redressive action. The use of such a strategy makes the act clear, concise and
unambiguous. In fact, a bald, non-redressive act faithfully obeys Grices four
conversational maxims (Brown and Levinson 69). It is efficient in so far as
(i)

it corresponds to the reality (maxim of quality),

(ii)

it does not say more or less than is required (maxim of quantity),

(iii)

it is relevant (maxim of relation), and

(iv)

it avoids ambiguity and obscurity (maxim of manner).

It is also significant to mention here that in performing such a bald, non-redressive

act, a speaker shows little concern for the addressees face. This shows why many bald,
non-redressive FTAs occur where the speaker holds relatively high social position or
power and fears no threat to his/her own face from the addressee (Simpson 171).
Secondly, the speaker may choose to perform the FTA with some redressive action. A
152
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

redressive action basically means an action that gives face to the addressee, i.e. his/her
freedom of action is not curtailed or his/her self-image is not undervalued (Simpson
172). Thus, by giving face to the addressee and by recognizing his/her wants, the
speaker may, therefore, indicate that no threat to face was intended. Here, it would be
worth mentioning that if a speaker chooses to perform the FTA by going on-record
with some redressive action, he/she has the option to save both the positive face and
the negative face of the addressee or the listener. The FTAs which redress the hearers
positive face can be said to be examples of positive politeness (Brown and Levinson
101). On the other hand, the FTAs which redress the hearers negative face can be said
to be examples of negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 129). It must be pointed
out here that the terms positive politeness and negative politeness have often been
found to be confusing since they seem to have positive and negative connotations.
Perhaps for this reason, researchers like Scollon and Scollon prefer to use the terms
deference politeness for negative politeness and solidarity politeness for positive
politeness, pointing out that while deference is the essence of negative politeness, the
word solidarity emphasizes the common grounds of the relation of the participants
(166-68). However, in this paper the terms negative politeness and positive
politeness are used because of the adoption of the Brown and Levinson model,
following which an attempt is made in the following sections to provide a
comprehensive discussion of the possible strategies of negative and positive politeness
that speakers have at their disposal for performing FTAs. The strategies of negative
politeness may include the following:
I.

Hedge: Hedges are items which soften the impact of an FTA. For instance,
phrases like sort of, by any chance, as it were, etc., serve as hedges. While
these phrases generally supply no extra information, they function as
mitigation markers, making more tentative the assumptions and
commitments the FTA contains. Hedges are also achieved through the use of
modal verbs such as could, would, might and should. Other ways of
achieving hedges include purposeful mumbling and hesitations, and the use
of fillers such as ahh, umm, etc.

II.

Indicate Pessimism: This strategy draws attention to the speakers doubt

about the success of a face threatening act. Such pessimism is often observed
in requests like I dont suppose I could finish the task by Monday, Perhaps
you could do this now etc.

III.

Minimise the Imposition: Through this strategy, the speaker suggests that the
seriousness of the imposition is not great. This could be achieved by
expressions like just, a couple of days, a couple of pence etc., which
attempt to minimise the potential threat to the face of the addressee.

IV.

Indicate Deference: Deference is often communicated by honorifics, i.e.

terms of address which reflect the relative social status of the participants
involved in interaction. The use of Sir, Madam, His/Her Majesty etc. in
conversation is a good example of this. However, deference may also be
expressed by humbling ones self capacities and possessions.

V.

Apologies: By apologizing for performing an FTA, a speaker can

communicate reluctance to impinge on the hearers negative face and thereby
partially minimising that impingement.

153
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

VI.

Impersonalise: By selecting this strategy, speakers can indicate their desire not
to impose personally on the addressee by dissociating themselves from the face
threatening act. Generally this involves the omission of the pronouns like I
and you.

VII.

Acknowledge the Debt: By adopting this strategy, a speaker can mitigate the
face threatening act by claiming indebtedness to the hearer. This could be
seen in expressions like I would be really thankful if you could help me out,
I would never be able to repay you if you do the favour to me etc.

The strategies of positive politeness may include the following:

I.

Positive politeness generally deals with redressing the positive face of the
hearer. It includes amongst other things, offers, compliments, claims to
common ground and approval of each others personality.

II.

Where negative politeness is avoidance-based, positive politeness is

approach-based, extending more widely to generally polite behavior
(Simpson 186). Some of the examples of positive politeness are: (a) The shirt
is very nice; where did you buy it from? (b) How are you, dear? (d) That was
very sweet of you etc.

III.

Positive politeness can also be used in combination with negative politeness

strategies in a face threatening act. This kind of face threatening act is known
as hybrid face threatening act (Simpson 186). For instance: How lovely your
dress is! By the way, could you please give me a glass of water? Here, positive
politeness has been used as a kind of pre-sequence to a negative politeness
strategy.

IV.

Positive politeness may be realised by certain terms of address which redress

the positive face of the hearer. Such terms are known as in-group identity
markers (Brown and Levinson 107). Here, speakers use terms like mate,
honey, dear, pal etc. to approve the personality and the self-image of the
addressee.

V.

Finally, positive politeness may be used by a fictional speaker to direct

comments towards the implied reader of a text. Generally, the speaker uses
terms of address which reveal his/her attitude towards his/her intended
readership. Such terms of address are often an important feature of the overall
style and tone of the text.

Now, before attempting to explore how the linguistic strategies of politeness are used
by the characters in Mahesh Dattanis play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai using the
politeness phenomena, the relationship between the mitigating elements such as
hedges, apologies, signs of deference, etc., and the FTAs should be discussed.
Generally, the number of mitigating elements in an FTA is in direct proportion to the
amount of impingement intended on the face of the addressee. In other words, where
the threat to the face of the addressee is very small, it is likely that the FTA will be
done baldly, i.e., without any redressive action. However, if the FTA is done with
some redressive action even when the threat to the face of the addressee is very small,
then the amount of mitigating elements will be minimal (Simpson 176). On the other
hand, FTAs which impose threat to the face of the addressee are more likely to be
complemented with the mitigating elements. Hence, if the amount of intended
imposition on the addressees face is minimal and yet the number of mitigating

154
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

elements used by the speaker in the FTA suggest that he/she is making a great demand
upon the addressee; such a mismatch will definitely be heard as striking and would
likely be considered as an expression of humour, irony or sarcasm (Simpson 177). The
following section will attempt to apply the theoretical framework outlined above to
some selected dialogues from Mahesh Dattanis play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai.
Mahesh Dattanis On a Muggy Night in Mumbai is not only considered the first play
in Indian theatre that openly deals with the gay themes of love, trust, partnership and
betrayal but is also regarded as, as McRae points out in A Note on the Play, a play
about how society creates patterns of behaviour and how easy it is for individuals to
fall victim to the expectations society creates (Collected Plays 45). The plot of the
play hinges on Kamleshs trying to hide from his sister, Kiran, the fact that he was in
a relationship with the man whom she is about to marry. Kamlesh and Prakash were
deeply in love with each other. The separation between Kamlesh and Prakash causes
immense pain in the heart of Kamlesh. Kamlesh, who plays the role of a humble lover,
tries to cope with the changed situation without any complain. However, his sexual
needs are fulfilled by Sharad, his friend. Prakash, who has now changed to Ed and is
willing to marry Kiran, suddenly emerges on the scene and Kamleshs earlier crush on
Prakash/Ed is revived. Nevertheless, Prakash/Ed is ashamed of being a homosexual
and tries to leave the place with Kiran by his side as quickly as possible to escape the
sceptical eyes of those people who know about his relationship with Kamlesh. Kiran
is shown as a character having great compassion for gay people and wishes they could
marry and live happily. The irony of the entire situation is that the poor girl did not
know the fact that the man to whom she would get married was a homosexual and the
ex-lover of her brother. Ultimately, the revelation comes to her as a surprise. The play
highlights a wide range of homosexual characters in different stages of the negotiation
of their homosexual identity and the society-assigned masculine roles. Kamlesh is a
well-adjusted straight-acting gay man. Sharad is intelligent and campy. Ed is in
defiance and is about to enter into a heterosexual relationship with his ex-boyfriends
sister, Kiran. Bunny is a celebrity and is very much secretive about his sexuality. Ranjit
is visiting from the UK and is working with HIV Counsellors. The entire story mainly
throws light on the growing homosexuality and its non-acceptance in the Indian
society.
It has been mentioned earlier that FTAs could be performed in various ways
depending on the context of conversation, the social relationship of the interlocutors
and the amount of imposition which an FTA entails (Simpson 171). Therefore, it
would be interesting to note that how the FTAs are performed by different characters
in On a Muggy Night in Mumbai, since the play exhibits a wide range of characters
belonging to different social strata and deals with a hitherto unusual theme of
homosexuality.
The first extract contains the opening encounter between Kamlesh and the Guard.
The numerical numbers that are there before the names of the characters in the extracts
refer to the turn number. This has been done so that the dialogues of the characters
could be easily referred to during the analysis.
The Extract
1. KAMLESH. Suno.
2. GUARD (tucking the baton in his belt). Ji.

155
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

3. KAMLESH (takes some more money from his wallet). Mere kuch dost ane
wale hain. Tum unko aane dena. Tum to pehchante ho sub ko.
4. GUARD (knowingly, after a pause). Ji.

Kamlesh looks at him sharply and then gives him the money.
5. KAMLESH. Do bottle RC. Ek peach schnapps who safed bautal wala,
malum hai?
6. GUARD (wearily). Hahn, saab, sab maloom hai. Age kya?
7. KAMLESH (looking at the drinks cabinet). Aurr ek crate soda or Thums
Up. Baaki sab to hai. Ho jaayega na?
8. GUARD (counts the money quickly). Chalega.
9. KAMLESH. Jaldi aana (Dattani 50)
Kamleshs very first remark, in the above excerpt, is clearly an impingement on the
negative face of the Guard as it hinders his freedom of actions. It is noticeable that
Kamlesh performs the FTA baldly, i.e., without any redressive action. The use of such
a strategy makes the act clear, unambiguous and concise. Hence, it can be said that
Kamleshs use of the bald, non-redressive act faithfully obeys Grices four
conversational maxims. While it is true that Kamleshs use of a bald, non-redressive
FTA makes the act clear and concise, the act is impolite since Kamlesh uses none of
the politeness strategies available for mitigating such FTAs. In fact, this bald, nonredressive FTA is the first suggestion that Kamlesh possesses relatively high social
position or power and is less concerned with the issue of being polite to the Guard.
Kamlesh then goes on to make the second FTA of the interaction in the third turn in
the form of a service demanded from the Guard. The way in which he performs this
FTA is interesting. He begins the act with a declarative sentence which will function
as an order for confirmation from the guard. Here, Kamlesh also performs the FTA
without any redressive action. In the fifth and seventh turns, Kamlesh again performs
bald, non-redressive FTAs in the form of indirect orders to the Guard. It should be
mentioned here that although Kamlesh performs bald, non-redressive FTAs in these
turns, he violates Grices maxim of quantity by saying more than what is needed. It
implies that Kamlesh is undervaluing the knowledge of the Guard and hence, it can
be said that all these acts impinge on not only the negative face but also the positive
face of the Guard.
The Guards response to the FTAs of Kamlesh is interesting. His use of the honorifics
Saab and Ji' communicates deference and his additional linguistic strategies to
convey confidence and self-determination. For instance, he is eager to claim merit for
his knowledge (Hahn, saab, sab maloom hai.), not letting this positive feature of his
behaviour escape his interlocutor. Further, his response to Kamleshs initiations is calm
and quiet. However, what is more significant to notice is that throughout the
conversation Kamlesh holds the floor and performs all the FTAs without any
redressive action, i.e., without thinking about the face of the Guard. This shows the
kind of asymmetrical power relation that exists between Kamlesh and the Guard. It
may be stressed here that in their framework Brown and Levinson have pointed out
the following three contextual factors relating to both the speaker and hearer which
constrain the use of a particular politeness strategy:

156
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

The relative power of the hearer over the speaker, the social distance between them
and the ranking of the imposition of the act itself.
The second extract, in which we have a conversation between Kamlesh and
Ed, has been selected from Act II of the play.
THE EXTRACT
1. ED (looking out). They must look impressive in the daylight. Look at all
those people on the road.
2. KAMLESH. They cant see us.
3. ED. No. They cant.
4. KAMLESH. They cant see us at all, although we can see them. They must
be blind.
5. ED. Come closer closer.
6. KAMLESH. If only they could see how beautiful we are together.
7. ED. Are we?
8. KAMLESH. What?
9. ED. Beautiful?
10. KAMLESH. Yes. (Dattani 81)
The above extract begins with a good example of a conversational exchange. Ed
initiates the conversation with a declarative statement which is immediately followed
by a bald non-redressive FTA. Kamleshs response to this FTA is pretty interesting. It
seems that he accepts the demand made by Ed and accordingly makes a statement
which serves to fulfill the demand made on him. Hence, it can be said that Kamleshs
response is a good example of positive politeness as it tries to redress the positive face
of Ed by displaying interest to common ground. What is interesting to note, here, is
that while Ed performs the FTA without any redressive action, Kamlesh tries to save
the positive face of Ed by accepting his demand?
Eds next initiation in the third turn, however, is an acceptance of what Kamlesh has
said in the second turn, thereby attempting to redress the positive face of Kamlesh.
This can be seen as an attempt to recover the loss done by the previous FTA. The next
turn is initiated by Kamlesh in the form a more declarative statement which is again
followed by a bald, non-redressive face threatening act from Ed in the fifth turn. Ed
performs the FTA in the form of a service demanded from Kamlesh but he does not
use any politeness strategy. However, on this occasion, Kamlesh does not respond to
Eds initiation and, therefore, makes an impingement on the positive face of Ed. In
the seventh turn, Ed also impinges on the positive face of Kamlesh in the form of a
question by not agreeing to as well as doubting what has been said by Kamlesh in the
previous turn. The next turn shows Kamleshs reaction to the FTA performed by Ed
in the seventh turn. Kamleshs use of the word What in the form of a question makes
it clear that he is not happy with Eds response and wants him to agree with him which
again performs as another face threatening act. Nevertheless, in the very next turn, Ed
agrees to Kamleshs statement in the sixth turn which functions as a redressive action
to the face threatening act performed in the seventh turn.

157
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

The significant thing that should be noted here is that the two characters do not seem
to be concerned about the issue of face vis--vis each other in their performance of the
FTAs, which suggests the symmetrical power relationship that exists between the two.
On the other hand, their attempts to redress the face of their interlocutor highlight
not only their concern regarding the self-image of one another but also their approval
of one others personality. Hence, it can be said that this conversational exchange
throws light on the kind of symmetrical power relationship that actually exists between
them.
The third and final extract chosen for analysis is taken from near the end of the play.
It comprises a conversational exchange which occurs between Kamlesh and Sharad
revealing the kind of relationship that they share.
The Extract
1. SHARAD (to Kamlesh). Could you just repeat what you said? I think I have
missed out something.
2. KAMLESH. I said you are wonderful and I said I love you.
3. SHARAD. And I said Dont be silly, my dear.
4. KAMLESH. No. Its true. It took me this moment to realise it. (Looks at Ed.)
I know that I have been chasing an illusion. Perhaps the man I loved does not
exist. (To Sharad.) But you do. And I love you.
5. SHARAD. Just because you find me good looking, witty, charming, bold and
truly wonderful doesnt mean you love me.
6. KAMLESH. But I do, really. (Dattani 102)
The above extract begins with Sharads performance of an FTA in the form of
requesting the interlocutor, Kamlesh, to repeat something. In performing the FTA,
Sharad employs negative politeness strategies. The FTA is heavily mitigated with the
use of hedges like could and I think Therefore, it could be said that having
realised that his FTA is too direct an imposition on the negative face of the addressee,
Kamlesh tries to redress it. Kamleshs response to this is also interesting as he tries to
redress the positive face of Sharad by fulfilling the service demanded from him and
thereby, approving and not undervaluing Sharads personality.
The third turn is a good example of positive politeness strategy. Here, Sharad begins
an FTA that impinges on the positive face of Kamlesh. His use of Dont be silly
bears evidence to this. However, he immediately mitigates the act by using an ingroup identity marker, my dear. Kamleshs remarks in the fourth turn use negative
politeness strategies like apology (I have been chasing an illusion) and indicate
pessimism (Perhaps the man I loved does not exist.). In the fifth turn, Sharad begins
with a negative politeness strategy. His use of Just at the beginning of the sentence
minimises the imposition that he makes on the positive face of Kamlesh by accusing
Kamlesh of not loving him.
It should be noted that this elaborate display of politeness strategies by the characters
is directed towards a seemingly trivial imposition. Sharad accuses Kamlesh of not
loving him, while Kamlesh tries to console him that he loves him. Since we know that
the number of mitigating elements in an FTA is in direct proportion to the amount
of imposition intended on the face of the addressee, this elaborate use of politeness

158
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016

The Context

ISSN 2349-4948

strategies for a seemingly trivial situation seems ironical which is also very much
reflected in their relationship.
Finally, it can be said that Brown and Levinsons notion of politeness phenomena
has helped in a great way in demonstrating how the various aspects of homosexual
relationships like asymmetrical power relationship, symmetrical power relationship,
ironical love relationship, etc. in Dattanis play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai are
reflected through the linguistic behaviour of its characters. The underlying motive of
politeness has provided the framework for assessing these aspects of homosexual
relationships which can be considered the very essence of the play.
Works Cited
Brown, P and S. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Print.
Bouchara, A. Politeness in Shakespeare: Applying Brown and Levinsons Politeness
Theory to Shakespeares Comedies. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag GmbH,
2009. Print.
Culpeper, Jonathan. (Im) politeness in Dramatic Dialogue. Exploring the Language
of Drama: From Text to Context. Eds. Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short and
Peter Verdonk. London: Routledge, 1998. 83-95. Print.
Culpeper, Jonathan. Mick Short and Peter Verdonk, eds. Exploring the Language of
Drama: From Text to Context. London: Routledge, 1998. Print.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics, III: Speech Acts. Eds.
P. Cole and J. L. Morgan. New York: Academic, 1975. 41-58. Print.
Dattani, Mahesh. Collected Plays. New Delhi: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd, 2000.
Print.
Herman, Vimala. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London:
Routledge, 1995. Print.
McRae, John. A Note on the Play: On a Muggy Night in Mumbai. Introduction.
Collected Plays. By Mahesh Dattani. New Delhi: Penguin, 2000. 45-46.
Print.
Simpson, Paul. Politeness Phenomena in Ionescos The Lesson. Language,

Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics.

Eds. Ronald Carter and Paul Simpson. London: Routledge, 1989. 169-90.
Print.

159
Volume 3 Issue 3-4

October 2016