Relational work strategies in conflict-motivated discourses in The Passion of Christ

Abstract

Communication between the Bible characters has recently gained ground in recent linguistic scholarship. Hence, linguistic studies on biblical texts have utilised semantic and stylistic tools in exploring the literariness of biblical texts, but the relational features of communication among biblical characters have not been accommodated enough. Therefore, the paper examines the relational work strategies and linguistic forms deployed in conflict-motivated discourses in the Passion of Christ (POC). The data comprises interactions extracted from St. John’s Gospel and subjected to descriptive pragmatic analysis. The findings reveal two major relational strategies: polite and politic/appropriate strategies and non-politic/inappropriate, over-polite and impolite strategies. The polite and politic strategies are exclusively associated with Christ while responding to prompts; non-politic is largely used by the crowd in its insistence to kill Christ; impolite by the Chief Priests in their interrogations, and over-polite by the soldiers while mocking Christ.

Keywords

The Passion of Christ politeness discourse relational work the Gospel of St. John biblical discourse conflict discourse

The account of the Passion of Christ (hereafter POC) is recorded in the four canonical gospels of Matthew (26-27), Mark (14-15), Luke (22-23) and John (12-19). The four gospels present information on the life of Jesus and His divine role which is made explicit in the passion narratives. The passion narratives, which comprise Jesus’ suffering, betrayal, trial, and crucifixion, are presented from separate and distinct viewpoints by the four gospels (Holzapfel 2006). In showing their distinctiveness, Holzapfel further indicates that “only Matthew informs us of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the feast, thus giving Pilate a possible escape clause,” (Holzapfel 2006: 178). Matthew also provides an insight into the recognition of Jesus’ innocence where Pilate’s wife seeks His release, contrary to the wishes of Jewish leaders who instigated the crowd to have the notorious Barabbas released but Jesus crucified. On the other hand, the events after the second trial are presented in Mark with a few vivid words, without further details. In the account of Luke, details about the events are also not reported. According to Holzapfel, “Luke does not say that Jesus was scourged nor that Judas actually kissed Jesus. Luke does, however, make us aware of the magnitude of the terrible struggle between Jesus and the powers of evil,” (Holzapfel 2006: 181). Agreeing with Holzapfel’s position, Jackson (2019) believes that, unlike the other gospels, the Gospel of John is designed to appeal to all ethnic groups, addressing the Jews, the Romans, and the Greeks respectively. Thus, the richness of its language and style offers language analysts more communication features to explore.

In line with the submission above, one must bear in mind that the language of religion has been variously studied. Crystal (1965: 23), for example, points out that “although religious language is institutionalized, it is by no means homogenous because it displays a number of well-organised categories of linguistic variation: sermons, litanies, prophecies, etc.” In a similar vein, Donovan (1976: 10) observes that biblical “language is affective language because it affects people’s feelings, enters into their imagination, influences their emotions and often gives the impression of conveying profound truth.” The nuances of language use in the different contexts of the Bible become even more interesting and emotionally engaging when politeness issues, such as those surrounding the POC, are analyzed. The present study is an attempt at examining the politeness strategies, pragmatic functions, and linguistic forms used in the interactions surrounding the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Christ. So far in this section, the discourse of the POC and nuances of its biblical documentation have been presented. In the next section, existing studies on the Bible and religious communication are reviewed, from where the objectives of the paper are presented. In the subsequent sections, the theoretical framework and methodology of the study are described, followed by discussion of the analytical findings and conclusion.

Situating the research

The concept of politeness has enjoyed scholarly attention in many domains of language use including the biblical genre, attracting an impressive body of literature. These have explored areas of linguistics such as syntax (Mathewson, 2010; Mot, 2015), semantics (Cirafesi, 2013; Fewster, 2013), discourse analysis (Smith, 2014; Yoon, 2019; Dvorak, 2021), sociolinguistics (Ong, 2015), cognitive linguistics (Winters, 2020), and translation studies (Chung, 2017). These studies largely focused on the linguistic peculiarities of biblical language without much attention to linguistic interaction between biblical characters and meaning made in specific biblical contexts of interaction. This is in part one of the contributions of the present study, which takes a pragmatics perspective in examining the impoliteness strategies employed by characters in the events surrounding the POC.

Beyond linguistic studies on the Bible, other studies on religious texts can aid the understanding of biblical language. Considering this fact, the review is extended to include studies on other religious texts, which cut across pragmatics (Obuasi 2014; Anyanwu, Njemanze, & Ononiwu, 2016; Adedun & Mekiliuwa, 2010; Okpeh, 2017, etc.), semantics (Babatunde, 2007; Cho & Forster, 2017; Friday-Otun, 2016, etc.) and stylistics (Odebunmi, 2007; Adjei, Ewusi-Mensah & Logogye, 2016; Ogunleye & Olagunju, 2007; Babalola, 2007; van der Watt, 2007; Born, 1988; Dada, 2012, etc.). Amongst the pragmatic and semantic works, Obuasi (2014) uses Speech Act theory to show that the use of language can bring about retardation or enhancement of evangelization as language is seen as the “conventional functionality of man” which “demands some linguistic competence” that goes beyond just the level of grammar (2014: 8). Also, Anyanwu, Njemanze, and Ononiwu (2016) use Speech Act theory in exploring the pattern of the English language usage of the different religious groups in Nigeria with specific reference to Orthodox and Pentecostal denominations. Adedun and Mekiliuwa (2010) examine the cooperative principle that underlies the pragmatic use of language and the interpretation of meaning in a Christian Pentecostal sermon. Okpeh (2017) explores the centrality of context in determining the metaphor of an utterance, and in the principles that regulate the use and its interpretation in a given discourse genre. Babatunde (2007) focuses on a semantic analysis of evangelical Christian religious speeches using the Speech Act theory of meaning by Bach and Harnish (1979) and Adegbija (1982). Cho and Forster (2017), through a biblical hermeneutic approach, employ Speech Act theory to reinterpret the notion of God’s kingdom in terms of its religious meaning and linguistic characteristics for Christian moral living as seen in biblical texts (Matthew 13:19, Matthew 25:1-13, etc.).

Within the stylistic category, Odebunmi (2007) investigates the stylistics of religious electronic media advertisements in Nigeria. He reveals linguistic features across the levels of language that characterize electronic media adverting of religious programs. Adjei, Ewusi-Mensah, and Logogye (2016), through a linguistic stylistics approach, also present an analysis of the Beatitudes. They compare the linguistic features found in the Beatitudes with the proclamation style of Proverbs, which is precise and full of meaning.

Ogunleye and Olagunju (2007) carry out a study on the thematic structures in Isaiah 49. They identify different types of themes, which tend to be constrained by the strategic significance of the message encapsulated in the Isaiah chapter. Born (1988) and van der Watt (2007) take a similar stylistic approach in examining the literariness of specific verses or chapters of the New Testament of the Bible. However, while Born (1988) investigates the literary features in John 3: 1-21, van der Watt (2007) explores the literary nature of John 6:32-51 (where Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread of life). While the former explores general foregrounded regular features, the latter focuses on the use of imagery and metaphor. In a similar vein, Dada (2012) carries out a pragma-stylistic analysis of John 3:16. He concentrates on such grapho-logical features as gothic printed letters, rearrangements of verse or paragraphs, punctuation markers and capitalization, and demonstrates how they are stylistically used to coin the name Valentine (written vertically) out of this verse of the scriptures. Similarly, and finally, Friday-Otun (2016) presents a pragmatic stylistic study of the Bible. The study examines the stylistic interpretation of Verses Four and Five of Chapter 26 of Proverbs and uses pragmatic insights to reveal the general assumption that the two verses are overtly contradictory.

From the above survey, pragmatic studies have utilized theoretical tools of speech acts, cooperative principles, and contextual cues in exploring different domains of language use in religious advertising, sermons, speeches, and biblical texts. On the other hand, the semantic studies explored how linguistic tools are employed in analyzing the notion of God’s kingdom, and the contradiction inherent in some biblical verses. However, none of these pragmatic-semantic studies has paid attention to politeness features, much less focusing on the discursive strategies of relation work. The stylistic studies, on the other hand, have focused more on biblical texts, specifically literary, linguistic, and especially graphological features. But these have also not accommodated the POC. The present study, therefore, examines the pragmatic strategies utilized for relational work in St. John’s account of the POC, and the linguistic forms they are characterized by.

Theoretical consideration

Relational work cannot be fully understood without recourse to early politeness research, the theories of which bifurcate into traditional and modern politeness theories. Traditional politeness in the literature includes three major theories: Lakoff’s (1973) rules of politeness, Brown and Levinson’s (1978/1987) theory of facework, and Leech’s (1983) politeness principle. Lakoff (1973), for example, proposed specific “rules of politeness,” which he claims guide language use. The rules say: a. “don’t impose”; b. “give options”; and c. “make A [OTHER] feel good, be friendly,” (298). Similarly, Leech (1983) proposed a set of ‘politeness principles’ with six maxims, viz. tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. He specifically focused on ‘indirectness,’ claiming that “indirect illocutions tend to be more polite…” (p. 108). Brown and Levinson’s theory (hereafter B&L) (1987) is hinged on the notion of ‘face,’ ‘face threatening act (FTA),’ and ‘mitigation.’ They recognize power, social distance, and level of imposition as the factors that determine the ‘weightiness’ of FTAs on interlocutors. The major focus of B&L’s model is on mitigation, since politeness is brought into play when interactants notice each other’s face has been threatened, and hence must be redressed through relevant strategies of mitigation. The theories here have been criticized for relying on manufactured rules and examples that are usually not based on empirical findings or naturally occurring linguistic interactive experience. The empirical bases of the rules/examples have been questioned and regarded as simplistic, and might not apply to every language, cultural or situational norms of interaction (Ononye & Ukuku 2019: 78; Ononye 2020).

Politeness research has therefore moved beyond following rules and principles, and has necessitated the modern politeness theories, which have accommodated such phenomena or concepts as: ‘impoliteness and rudeness’ (e.g. Culpeper 1996; Kienpointer 1997, etc.); ‘face-negotiation’ (e.g. Ting-Toomey 1988, etc); ‘relational work’ (e.g. Watts 2003; Locher & Watts 2005, etc); ‘rapport management’ (e.g. Spencer-Oatey 2003, etc); ‘intercultural communication’ (e.g. Scollon & Scollon 2001, etc.); and ‘face constitution’ (e.g. Arun-dale 2006, etc) to mention but a few. One thing that runs through these modern approaches is the idea of paying less attention to rule-finding but focusing on the norms of appropriateness constraining the pragmatic strategies or linguistic choices employed by interlocutors in their social relations (Lakoff & Ide 2006).

The present paper is anchored on Locher and Watts’ (2005) relational work theory. The argument for relational work is that no linguistic utterance is inherently polite as such judgment is based on the individual participant’s perception of verbal interaction. Therefore, relational work is the work individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others in an interaction (Odebunmi 2009). It investigates the entire continuum of verbal behavior whether direct, impolite, rude, or aggressive interaction through to polite interaction, encompassing both appropriate and inappropriate forms of social behavior (Locher & Watts 2005). This is further explained in terms of marked and unmarked behavior. The marked behavior can be positive (which does not give a negative face) or negative (which unleashes threats in which offence can be taken) (Watts 2003). The negatively-marked behavior can be seen as impolite/non-politic/inappropriate, or as over-polite/non-politic/inappropriate, while the positively-marked behavior is seen as polite/politic/appropriate. The unmarked behavior is seen as non-polite/politic/appropriate (Locher & Watts 2005). The explanation here shows that a linguistic utterance can be non-polite yet politic/appropriate depending on the discursive situation.

In addition, relational work, like most theories of politeness, is centered on the idea of face, particularly that of Goffman (1967), which indicates that face does not reside inherently in an individual but is rather constructed discursively with other members of the group in accordance with the line that each individual has chosen. In line with this, Locher and Watts argue that faces “are rather like masks, on loan to us for the duration of different kinds of performance,” (Locher & Watts 2005: 12). This indicates that a person can be attributed to a number of faces depending on the discursive situation at hand. For instance, a man can be a pastor, a father, a husband, a brother, a lecturer depending on the situation he finds himself. As a result, the entire range of relational work focuses much on “forms of verbal behavior produced by the participants in accordance with what they feel — individually — to be appropriate to the social interaction in which they are involved,” (Locher & Watts 2005: 16). They further explain that most of the time — but by no means always — participants in an interaction are unconscious of an orientation towards social frames, social norms, social expectations, etc., and hence reproduce forms of behavior in accordance with socially appropriate behavior (politic behavior), which may or may not be strategic. The point here is that appropriateness is dependent on contextually expected behaviour through which face is attributed to each participant by others in accordance with the lines taken in the context. In line with this, Locher and Watts “posit that interactants’ judgments about the relational status of a message are based on norms of appropriateness in a given instance of social practice…” (Locher & Watts 2008: 77). This corroborates Odebunmi’s (2009) observation that “the theory of relational work has been hinged on context, not on the notion that politeness is inherent in the expression, the standard stance of the theory of facework,” (2009: 7). One insight from this review to this work is that relational work as one of the discursive approaches to politeness accounts for all aspects of meaning in interaction including those of the POC.

Methodology

The study is essentially a descriptive one, and the data comprises of ten (10) interactions bordering on the POC, which include the events of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion, and in which Christ Himself largely featured. These were purposively extracted from the Gospel of John, Good News version of the Bible, because of its use of plain modern English. The reason for choosing this gospel is that it is not only the most comprehensive but also features more politeness strategies than other accounts. As observed from the review of previous literature, studies have looked at various aspects of biblical texts except St. John’s account of the POC, especially from the point of view of politeness and linguistic-pragmatic approaches. Chapters eighteenth (18) and nineteenth (19) were particularly selected and subjected to pragmatic analysis, with insights drawn from Locher and Watts (2005, 2008) relational work theory, aspects of systemic functional grammar and speech act discourse. In presenting the data in the analysis below, the aspects upon which the discussion focuses are marked in bold for easy identification of features.

Findings and discussion

The two aspects of relational work strategies have been found in the data, which are positively marked and negatively marked strategies. These strategies are discussed with respect to the linguistic forms that characterize them. The positively marked strategies, as earlier hinted, are those strategies which do not pose threats to participants’ face and personality in an interaction. Locher and Watts (2005) identify two strategies here, which are all found in the data; they are polite and politic/appropriate strategies.

Polite strategies

As noted earlier, these are strategies, which do not give interlocutors a negative face, but protect the interest of the interlocutors in an interaction. In this type of strategy, one could go out of one’s way or move contrary to social norms in order to save a participant’s face. There are only two instances of this strategy in the data. The first one relates to Jesus during His arrest, while the second one occurs in Jesus’ last words on the cross. In the former, for example, this strategy is used to show Jesus’ willingness to be arrested and His displeasure at Peter’s attempt to hinder this “decisive struggle” (Holzapfel 2006: 181). In the second instance, it is used to show Jesus’ completion of His divine role. Therefore, it is observed from the data that Jesus utilizes this strategy during His arrest to save the faces of the people that came to apprehend Him. He goes out of His way to save the interlocutors’ face. Hence, this presents Him as one who cares about people’s feelings and face. Some examples can be considered to demonstrate these strategies in the data:

1. Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the High Priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. The name of the slave was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword in its place! Do you think that I will not drink the cup of suffering which my Father has given me?” (John 18: 10-11).

2. Jesus knew that by now everything had been completed; and in order to make the scripture come true, he said, “I am thirsty.” A bowl was there, full of cheap wine; so a sponge was soaked in the wine, put on a stalk of hyssop, and lifted up to his lips.

Jesus drank the wine and said “it is finished!” Then he bowed his head and died (John 19: 28-30).

In (1), the reader expects Jesus to join Peter in the defense against His assault, or at least support Peter’s effort at defending Him, but He does not subscribe to that. He rather chooses to suffer than to engage in a physical battle with anyone. Therefore, He quickly stops Peter who had already cut off Malchus’ right ear. It can be observed from His words that He actually bears no grudges against His accusers and those who came to arrest him. Thus, by using the rhetorical question, “Do you think that I will not drink the cup of suffering which my Father has given me?”, He takes the blame away His from detractors. This agrees with Holzapfel’s (2006, p. 181) recognition that “He helps His opponent, even in the midst of His own danger”. In the same vein, Jesus in (2) is mockingly offered a cheap wine which He drank without hurling insults on the people. He rather says “it is finished” when He is done drinking it. Obviously, Jesus’s utterance here does not give the people a negative face. His words only show that He has completed that which is expected of Him.

The polite strategies discussed above have observably been realized through a number of clausal forms and functions. They include imperative, interrogative, and declarative. As regards the imperative clause, Jesus uses it during His arrest to make Peter withdraw his sword. This as seen in Text 1 which is reproduced below for clarity:

Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the High Priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. The name of the slave was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword in its place! Do you think that I will not drink the cup of suffering which my Father has given me?” (John 18: 10-11).

Structurally, the highlighted clause used by Jesus, “Put your sword in its place,” is in the form of a command. The imperative function obtained from the clause is anchored on two contextual elements. First, Jesus is the leader of the disciples one of whom is Peter. Hence, in the context of providing an avenue for the fulfillment of God’s plan in the scriptures, He is able to issue a command to Peter, who readily defers to Jesus’ direction. The second point projects the polite strategy used by Jesus to defend His supposed enemies.

Aside from imperatives, interrogative clauses are also manifest in the discourse in the form of rhetorical questions especially during the arrest of Jesus as seen in Text 1. This is significant in the words of Jesus to Peter when He reveals to Peter the fact that He has been destined to suffer. Thus, He says “Do you think that I will not drink the cup of suffering which my Father has given me?” On the one hand, the rhetorical function of the question is realized as polite redress on the command earlier given to Peter in the preceding clause (“Put your sword in its place”), and an explanation to why Peter should not resist the soldiers’ arrest of Jesus, on the other.

With respect to the declarative clause type, Jesus exploits it in two ways to pass information to the people during His crucifixion as shown in Text 2. In the first place, He uses it to inform the people that He is thirsty, while in the second place, it is used to establish that He has completed a task. Hence, He says “I am thirsty,” and after drinking the cheap wine offered to Him says again, “It is finished!” The clauses in question have been utilized by Jesus in proclaiming that all the work the Father had sent to accomplish (cf. John 4:34; 9:4) have been completed, particularly His work of bearing the penalty for sins. Specifically, relying on the empty category “it”, as the subject of the clause (see Ouhalla 1994), is also a polite strategy of shifting any kind of blame from the crucifiers to the important work that has been completed.

Politic/appropriate strategies

These are strategies that do not affect an interactant’s face badly. As a result, they do not give rise to offences. They are most often seen as norms, paybacks, or what is expected in an interaction. In the data, these three categories of politic/appropriate strategies are also applicable. Norms relate to Jesus and those that came to arrest Him, paybacks are observed in the interaction between Jesus and one of the guards, while what is expected relates to Jesus and Pilate. Let us take some instances demonstrating these below:

3. Jesus knew everything that was going to happen to him, so he stepped forward and asked them, “Who is it you are looking for?”

“Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered, “I am he,” he said.

Judas the traitor was standing there with them.

When Jesus said to them, I am he, they moved back and fell to the ground.

Again Jesus asked them, “Who is it you are looking for?”

“Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

“I have already told you that I am he,” Jesus said. “If, then, you are looking for me let these others go” (John 18: 4-8).

4. When Jesus said this, one of the guards there slapped him and said, “How dare you talk like that to the High Priest!”

Jesus answered him, “If I have said anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was. But if I am right in what I have said, why do you hit me?” (John 18: 22-23).

5. Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Remember, I have the authority to set you free and also to have you crucified.”

Jesus answered, “You have authority over me only because it was given to you by God. So the man who handed me over to you is guilty of worse sin (John 19: 10-11).

The interaction in Text 3 takes place during the arrest of Jesus. This conversation between Jesus and those that came to arrest Him can be said to be appropriate as no one takes offence or is given a negative face. The questions of Jesus are appropriately responded to by the people. Also, Jesus’ follow-up statements after the people’s response are appropriate to the scenario. Therefore, he asks them “Who is it you are looking for?”; “Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered, “I am he,” he said. In addition, during the trial of Jesus as observed in Text 4, Jesus does not defend Himself with weapons against the guard, but His words do. His response is just a payback to the words of the guard. Therefore, it can be observed from His words that He is innocent of the accusations levelled against Him. Thus, He says “If I have said anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was. But if I am right in what I have said, why do you hit me?” His response here can best be explained as appropriate to the situation.

Furthermore, in the event of Jesus’ trial in Text 5 above, the words of Jesus are just in line with that of Pilate. Pilate, who wants Jesus to recognise his superiority over Him, calls His attention to the fact that he has the authority to both grant Him freedom and to crucify Him. In view of this, Pilate says “Remember, I have the authority to set you free and also to have you crucified.” Jesus’ response (“You have authority over me only because it was given to you by God”), on the other hand, shows that Pilate has no authority over Him but the one given him by God. The interaction is about who has the authority over the other. Nevertheless, no offence is taken at the end.

The politic/appropriate strategies observed above are most appreciated through the clausal forms and functions by which they are characterized. The declarative clause, which is manifest in Texts 3 and 5, is used in the exchange of certain context-based information. In Text 3, for example, it is informatively used during the arrest of Jesus, where Jesus’ reply to the soldiers’ inquiry (“I am he” … “I have already told you that I am he”) is a fact that, based on politic behavior expected of a leader, needs to be proactively established, lest the soldiers victimize other people on false identification. This also features in (Text 5) the conversation involving Pilate and Jesus during the trial of Jesus. The power relations here requires both Pilate and Jesus to make bold statements regarding their control of the situation. However, the declarative function of Pilate’s statement (“I have the authority to set you free and also to have you crucified”) is realized in the context of his political powers. This is against Jesus’ reply (“You have authority over me only because it was given to you by God), which is an appropriate payback that is based on the superiority of God over humans. Bible scholars have interpreted Jesus’ politic response to Pilate in the context of supremacy of God to mean that it is only God Almighty that has authority over any individual, not necessarily people in political, professional, or familial authority (Davis 2014).

The interrogative clause function is also observed in the politic/appropriate strategies used in the texts, but this does not carry much of pragmatic meaning. In most instances, the interrogative clauses used align with the conversational norms. In Text 3, for example, this clausal function is used by Jesus as a disciple leader to seek information from the soldiers who came for His arrest. Aside from it being the norm that a leader should approach strangers to enquire what they are up to, it is also used when Jesus asks the soldiers for a second time, “Who is it you are looking for?” This demonstrates what is expected, which is different from Jesus’ use of interrogatives during His trial in Text 4 as paybacks, namely, to probe why one of the guards hit Him. The examples in Texts 3 and 4 also accommodate instances of the imperative clausal function with which Jesus demonstrates politic behavior despite the tensed situation. In Text 3, Jesus utilizes this to let those that came to arrest Him know the condition for His arrest. Consequently, He says “If, then, you are looking for me let these others go.” Again, in Text 4, Jesus uses it while demanding that the guard who hit him tells everybody what He did wrong. Thus, He says “If I have said anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was.” One relational work strategy that runs across Jesus’ contributions in Texts 3 and 4 is the focus on managing the face of His addressees while giving an implicit command to the soldiers to let others not involved in the arrest go (in Text 3) and to explain why they have hit him unprovoked (in Text 4).

The negatively marked strategies are those that do not only breach social norms but also badly affect the participants’ face or self-image. These include non-politic/inappropriate strategy, over-polite strategy, and impolite strategy.

Non-politic/inappropriate strategies

These strategies pose a threat to interlocutors’ self-image and in which offence can be taken. There are three examples of this in the data, which occur during the trial of Jesus. The first example manifests in the interaction between Jesus and the High Priest; the second instance applies to Pilate and the crowd, while the third is observed in the interaction between Jesus and Pilate. Let us take some instances illustrating this below:

6. The High Priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.

Jesus answered, “I have always spoken publicly to everyone; all my teaching was done in the synagogues and in the temple, where all people come. I have never said anything in secret.

Why, then, do you question me? Question the people who heard me. Ask them what I said” (John 18: 19-21).

7. So Pilate went outside to them and asked, “What do you accuse this man of?”

Their answer was, “we would not have brought him to you if he had not committed a crime” (John 18: 29-30).

8. Pilate went back into the palace and called Jesus. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked him.

Jesus answered, “Does this question come from you or have others told you about me?”

Pilate replied, “Do you think I am a Jew? It was your own people and the chief priests who handed you over to me. What have you done?”

Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight the Jewish authorities. No, my kingdom does not belong here.”

So Pilate asked him, “Are you a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth. Whoever belongs to the truth listens to me,” (John 18: 33-37).

Jesus’ response to High Priest’s inquiry about His teachings (in Text 8) generates a negative face for the priest whose question requires a direct response, but which Jesus evades by providing an indirect answer to it. Thus, by saying “I have never said anything in secret. Why, then, do you question me? Question the people who heard me. Ask them what I said,” Jesus rather refers High Priest to His followers/believers whom He had given His teachings, instead of appropriately responding to the question. This reply from Jesus can therefore be said to be non-politic considering the fact that High Priest and other hearers may have felt slighted going by the subsequent striking of Jesus by one of the stand-by officers (in Verse 22).

Furthermore, it is not common for one to be accused without reason. Therefore, any other person in the shoes of Pilate in Text 7 would have acted likewise as Pilate asks the people what they have accused Jesus of. With their imposing attitude and not being specific in their answer (“we would not have brought him to you if he had not committed a crime”), their response seems inappropriate in the situation, which does not go well with Pilate’s self-image. The negative face felt is consequently observed in Pilate’s next response, namely, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law,” (Verse 31).

Similarly, the conversation during the trial of Jesus in Text 8 above is full of indirectness as Jesus never gives a straightforward answer to any of the questions He is asked in the exchange. The questions of Pilate are direct questions that require direct answers. Thus, he asks him,

“Are you the king of the Jews?”…

Jesus answered, “Does this question come from you or have others told you about me?”

What have you done?”

Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world; if my kingdom belong to this world, my followers would fight the Jewish authorities.

So Pilate asked him, “Are you a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king.”

In this instance, no direct answers are given by Jesus to Pilate’s prompts; rather, He makes references to His divine supremacy, which Pilate does not comprehend. Indirectness, in Tsuda’s (1993) estimation, is seen as a mark of inappropriateness in conversation ethics, especially when someone in authority is involved. This therefore makes Jesus’ responses non-politic thereby posing a threat to Pilate’s self-image. This is manifest in Pilate’s subsequent helpless acts of asking the Jews to choose (between Jesus and Barabbas) whom he should release to them by law.

The non-politic/inappropriate strategies analysed above are also indexed by the usual declarative, interrogative and imperative clausal functions. Essentially, Jesus uses both imperatives (and more of) declaratives in conveying very salient information during His trial. In Text 6, for example, the imperative (“Question the people who heard me. Ask them what I said”) and declarative (“I have always spoken publicly to everyone…”) functions are deployed by Jesus during His trial to state the fact that His teachings have been open to everyone in the designated places. This is very important in describing what activities He had been involved in, and this constructs Him as someone who has not kept any secrets or contravened any Jewish laws. While the declarative function here is targeted at stating a fact, the one in Text 8 (“My kingdom does not belong to this world”) helps Him to introduce Himself and His kingdom to Pilate. Although the declaratives are used by Jesus for these functions, they, however, contribute to heightening the non-politic behavior demonstrated by Jesus in that situation.

The interrogative clausal form, on the other hand, runs through the texts. This is principally because the texts border on the issue of Jesus’ trial in which interrogatives are a major linguistic tool used by Pilate and High Priest to seek clarifications on what Jesus is being accused of. However, its use by Jesus in Texts 6 and 8, for instance, adds to Jesus’ deployment of indirectness/non-politic strategies already analysed above. Notice, however, that the interrogatives here are distinguished from the ones also used by Jesus during His arrest (in Text 3), the function of which is realized within the conversational norms of politic/appropriate behavior.

Over polite strategies

These are strategies that are meant to negatively affect one’s feelings or cause discomfort to someone. It can be in the form of mockery or sounding more formal than is required. Only one aspect of this strategy is found in the data, namely, mockery. This occurs in the situation whereby the soldiers mock the kingship of Jesus. An example buttressing this is shown below:

9. The soldiers made a crown out of thorny branches and put it on his head; then they put a purple robe on him and came to him and said, “Long live the king of the Jews!” And they went up and slapped him (John 19: 2-3).

The soldiers’ exclamation (“Long live the king of the Jews!”) is an instance of over-politeness or what Culpeper (1996) calls “mock politeness” (356-7). This is demonstrated in the attitude and activities surrounding their utterances (namely, making a crown out of thorny branches and putting it on Jesus’ head, putting a purple robe on Him, and slapping Him) which do not fall in line with the treatment of a king of the Jews. Although nothing was recorded regarding whether this treatment gave Jesus a negative face, from Pilate’s vindicating acts, it is observable that (in normal circumstances) such over-polite utterances and cruel conduct by the soldiers can respectively hurt the recipient’s feelings and causing discomfort. However, this over polite strategy is characterized by the declarative function which is achieved through exclamation. This linguistic function underscores the strong emotional conviction the Jews/soldiers have in crucifying Jesus.

Impolite behavior

This kind of behavior also poses a threat to interlocutors’ identity. Like the over-polite category, there is only one instance of this in the data, and it applies to the interaction between Pilate and the Chief Priests. The words of the Chief Priests pose a serious threat to Jesus as a king, and this has been analysed as impolite. Let us examine the environment of language use in the data:

10. It was then almost noon of the day before the Passover. Pilate said to the people, Here is your king!”

They shouted back, “Kill him! Kill him! Crucify him!”

Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to crucify your king?”

The Chief Priests answered, “The only king we have is the Emperor!”

Then Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified. (John 19: 14 – 16)

The response of the Chief Priests shows that they do not recognise the kingship of Jesus Christ. It is important to observe that the Chief Priests do not directly say Jesus is not the King of the Jews. However, being the last point of determining Jesus’ kingship, their choice of indirect assertive speech act (“The only king we have is the Emperor!”) is an impolite way of seeing no worth in mentioning Jesus’ name much less putting Him into contention. Notice what Pilate helplessly does next as this utterance by the Chief Priests becomes the final threat to Jesus’ identity. Among the clausal functions, the imperative is the one with the most pragmatic significance in the speech event above. Notice the similar pattern and function of the exclamation used by the people here (“Kill him! Kill him! Crucify him!”) to the one analysed in Text 9 above by the soldiers (“Long live the king of the Jews!”). While the latter is used as declarative, the former is a case of imperative (“Kill him! Kill him! Crucify him!”) used by the people to insist on the fate they want to befall Jesus.

Conclusion

The paper set out to explore the relational work strategies deployed in the POC, and the linguistic forms they are characterized by. This was motivated by the little attention paid to religious discourse with respect to politeness pragmatics. Therefore, having applied relational work theory (Locher & Watts 2005) in the analysis of 10 interactions bordering on the POC as recorded in the Gospel of John, several findings have been made. First, two major relational work strategies are found, namely, positively-marked and negatively-marked strategies. The former includes polite and politic/appropriate behaviors, while the latter deals with non-politic/inappropriate, over-polite and impolite behaviors. The polite and politic behaviors are found to be exclusively associated with Jesus; non-politic behavior is largely used by the crowd/onlookers; impolite behavior is associated with the Chief Priests, while over-polite behavior relates to the soldiers. These strategies are also found to be marked by three clausal functions, namely, declaratives, interrogatives, and imperatives. Both declaratives and interrogatives are largely used by Jesus to establish some facts and question the rationale behind accusing Him, feeding accurately into His polite and politic relational work strategies. State officials such as Pilate and the High Priest rely more on interrogatives, which allow them to elicit information from both Jesus and the people/soldiers. These linguistic forms constitute a great deal of the non-politic and impolite behavior observed with them. The soldiers and the people are found to use mostly declaratives in their accusation of Jesus and a bit of imperatives in their insistence on His execution. These clausal functions index the impoliteness and over-politeness found in their behavior. With these findings, the study takes existing research on discursive politeness a step forward by demonstrating how pragmatics can contribute to an exegetical method of biblical interpretation. Aside from providing a linguistic insight into the discursive manifestations of meaning in biblical texts, it offers a hermeneutical aid to the understanding of relational work strategies within the context of the POC.

References

Adedun, Emmanuel A. &

Olajumoke O.

Mekiliuwa , 2010. Cooperative Principles in a Nigerian Christian Sermon. In

Oni and

Adedun , eds., Lagos Notes and Records 16: 110-125.

Adegbija, Efurosibina E.

, 1982. A Speech Act Analysis of Consumer Advertisements. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bloomington: Indiana University.

Adjei, Amma A., Lawrence

Ewusi-Mensah

and Cynthia

Logogye

, 2016. Style in Religious Discourse: An Analysis of the Beatitudes. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4/5: 35-46. UK: European Centre for Research Training and Development.

Anyanwu, Esther C.,

Queen U.

Njemanze &

Mark C.

Ononiwu , 2016. English Usage Pattern in Nigerian Religious Settings: Perspectives from Selected Worship Centres in Imo State. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 21/6: 1-6.

Babalola, E. T.

, 2007. Structural and Syntactic Diferences in Selected Verses of Three Versions of the Holy Bible. In

Akin

Odebunmi and

Adeyemi

Babajide , eds., Style in Religious Communication in Nigeria. Muenchen: LINCOM GmbH. Pp. 144-170.

Babatunde, T. Sola

, 2007. A speech Act Analysis of Christian Religious Speeches. In Odebunmi and Babajide , eds., Style in Religious Communication in Nigeria. Muenchen: LINCOM GmbH. Pp. 48-89.

Bach, Kent &

Robert M.

Harnish , 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Massachussets: MIT Press.

Born, B.

, 1988. Literary Features in the Gospel of John: An Analysis of John 3: 1-21. Direction Journal, 17/2: 3-17.

Brown, Penelope &

Stephen C.

Levinson , 1978/1987. Politeness: some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Cho, A. &

D. A.

Forster , 2017. The Religious Linguistic Characteristics of the presence of the kingdom in the Light of Speech Act Theory: Christian Ethical Implications. Scriptura, 116/1: 1-12.

11.

Chung, Woojin

, 2017. Translation Theory and the Old Testament in Matthew: The Possibilities of Skopos Theory. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 15 (Brill).

12.

Cirafesi, Wally V.

, 2013. Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent Tense-Form Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 15 (Brill).

13.

Culpeper, Jonathan

, 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25/3: 349–367.

14.

Crystal, David

, 1965. Linguistics, Language and Religion. New York: Hawthorne Books.

15.

Dada, Samuel A.

, 2012. A Pragma-stylistic Analysis of John 3: 16. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2/5: 85-93.

16.

Davis, Ryan W.

, 2014. The Authority of God and the Meaning of the Atonment. Religious Studies, 50/4: 405-423.

17.

Donovan, P.

, 1976. Religious Language. London: Sheldon Press.

18.

Dvorak, James D.

, 2021. The Interpersonal Metafunction in 1 Corinthians 1–4: The Tenor of Toughness. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 19 (Brill).

19.

Fewster, Gregory P.

, 2013. Creation Language in Romans 8: A Study in Monosemy. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 8 (Brill).

20.

Friday-Otun, Joseph O.

, 2016. A Pragma-stylo-semantic Analysis of Proverb 26 Verses 4 and 5. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 5/1: 55-75.

21.

Gofman, Erving

, 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

22.

Good News Bible with Deuterocanonical Books (1976). New York: American Bible Society.

23.

Halliday, Michael A. K., &

Christian

Matthiessen , 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.

24.

Holzapfel, R. N.

, 2006. The Passion of Jesus Christ. In J. Judd, F. Frank and

Strathearn , eds., Sperry Symposium Classics: The New Testament. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University. Pp. 176-189.

25.

Jackson, Wayne

, 2019. Examining the Four Gospels. ChristianCourier.com. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/273-examining-the-four-gospels

26.

Kienpointner, Manfred

, 1997. Varieties on Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances. Functions of Language, 4/2: 251-187. Amsterdam: Benjamin’s publishing Company.

27.

Lakof, Robin

, 1973. The Logic of Politeness; or Minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pp. 292-305.

28.

Lakof, Robin T. & Sachiko

Ide

, eds., 2006. Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

29.

Leech, Geofrey

, 1983. The Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

30.

Locher, Miriam A.

, 2008. Relational Work, Politeness and Identity Construction. In

Antos ,

Ventola and

Weber , eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics 2. Berlin/NewYork: Mouton De Gruyter. Pp. 509-540.

31.

Locher, Miriam A. &

Richard J.

Watts , 2005. Politeness Theory and Relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1/1: 9-33.

32.

Locher, Miriam A. &

Richard J.

Watts , 2008. Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour. In Derek

Bousfeld

and

Miriam A.

Locher , eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Pp. 77-99.

33.

Mathewson, David L.

, 2015. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 11 (Brill).

34.

Mot, Laurentiu

, 2015. Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation: A Greek Hypothesis. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 11 (Brill).

35.

Obuasi, Ifeoma

, 2014. Linguistic Factors as Infuence on Evangelization: A Case Study of Selected Christian Churches in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4/10: 6-9.

36.

Odebunmi, Akin

, 2007. The Stylistics of Religious Electronic Media Advertisements in Nigeria. In Odebunmi and Babajide , eds, Style in Religious Communication in Nigeria. Muenchen: LINCOM GmbH. Pp. 1-26.

37.

Odebunmi, Akin

, 2009. Politeness in Print Media Political Interviews in Nigeria. California Linguistic Notes, 34/1: 1-26.

38.

Ogunleye

Kayode

& Sade

Olagunju

, 2007. Thematic Structures in Isaiah 49. In Odebunmi and Babajide , eds, Style in Religious Communication in Nigeria. Muenchen: LINCOM GmbH. Pp. 107-123.

39.

Okpeh, Peter O.

, 2017. Contextual Considerations in the Use of Metaphors in Nigerian Pentecostal Christian Discourse. ELR Journal, 37-60.

40.

Ong, Hughson T.

, 2016. The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 17 (Brill).

41.

Ononye, Chuka F.

, 2020. The Concept of Politeness: First-second Order Distinction. A Lecture delivered at the Virtual Lecture Series of the Pragmatics Association of Nigeria (PrAN) held on April 17, 2020. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.13140/RG.2.2.19256.90888

42.

Ononye, Chuka F. &

Jane

Ukuku , 2019. Relational Work as Conversational Strategies in Computer-mediated Interactions. In

Thomas-Michael E.

Chukwumezie , Laz Ogenyi, XXX and

Anele O.

Ejesu , eds., Perspectives on Language, Literature and Gender: Essays in Honour of Professor Florence Onyebuchi Orabueze. Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press. Pp. 70-85.

43.

Ouhalla, Jamal

, 1994. Introducing Transformational Grammar – From Rules to Principles and Parameters. London: Edward Arnold.

44.

Scollon, R. &

S. W.

Scollon , 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

45.

Smith, Adrian T.

, 2014. The Representation of Speech Events in Chariton’s Callirhoe and the Acts of the Apostles. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 10 (Brill).

46.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen

, 2003. Managing Rapport in International Business Interactions: A Comparison of Two Chinese-British Welcome Meetings. Journal of Intercultural Studies 24, 33-46.

47.

Thomas, Jenny

, 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited.

48.

Ting-Toomey, Stella

, 1988. Intercultural Conficts: A Face-negotiation Theory. In

Y. Y.

Kim and

W. B.

Gudykunst , eds., Theories in Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 213–235.

49.

Tsuda, Sanae

, 1993. Indirectness in Discourse: What Does It Do in Conversation. Intercultural Communication Studies, III/1: 63-74.

50.

van Der Watt, J. G.

, 2007. I Am the Bread of Life. Imagery in John 6: 32-51. Acta Theologica 2, 186-204.

51.

Watts, Richard

, 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Winters, Cliford

, 2020. Argument is War: Relevance-theoretic Comprehension of the Conceptual Metaphor of War in the Apocalypse. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 18 (Brill).

53.

Yoon, David I.

, 2019. A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul. Leiden: Linguistic Biblical Studies, 17 (Brill).