Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese

Discourse and Politeness

Also available from Continuum Japanese Language in Use Toshiko Yamaguchi Japanese Linguistics Toshiko Yamaguchi

Discourse and Politeness: Ambivalent Face in Japanese

Naomi Geyer

continuum

Continuum The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX

80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704 New York NY 10038

© Naomi Geyer 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Naomi Geyer has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-08264-9781-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddies, Norfolk

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Politeness, Face, and Identity

11

Chapter 3

Analyzing Facework

57

Chapter 4

Collaborative Disagreement

73

Chapter 5

Teasing and Humor

97

Chapter 6

Talking about Troubles

123

Chapter 7

The Meeting: Facework in Description and Discourse Organization

149

Conclusion

175

Notes

191

Bibliography

196

Appendix A

213

Appendix B

214

Index

215

Chapter 8

1

List of Figures and tables

Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4) Figure 2.2 The origin of the terms positive and negative face Figure 2.3 Illustration of Brown and Levinson's (1987) negative and positive strategies on social distance/ politeness scales Figure 2.4 Unidimensional model (from Tannen [1994]) Figure 2.5 Multidimensional model (from Tannen [1994]) Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 7.1

First parts and their preferred and dispreferred second parts Meeting summary Development of Aoki's turns in lines 2 to 20

17 19 24 39 40 36 70 158

Acknowledgments

I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the teachers in Japan who allowed me to tape-record their meetings, and especially to the two colleagues who acted as a liaison between the teachers and me (I have promised them anonymity and cannot mention their names). Without their co-operation, this study could not have been realized. My understanding of face, politeness, and discourse has been shaped by a number of people. I am greatly indebted to Leslie Beebe, my mentor and teacher at Teachers College, Columbia University. For this student, her courses opened a window to the field of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, and they cultivated my interest in politeness and face. Without her encouragement and guidance, I would never have started on this journey. The open and stimulating academic environment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has heightened my interest in discourse issues. I would like to recognize all my colleagues and students, but I am especially grateful to Naomi McGloin and Junko Mori, my colleagues and role models, who guided and supported me throughout the busiest years of my life. I thank them for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript and for inspiring me with their thoughtful comments. Next, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Hansun Waring, who provided frequent and valuable feedback and encouraged me at various stages of the project. I also extend my gratitude to Shigeko Okamoto for her insightful comments. My sincere appreciation goes to David Ward for his editorial work. Finally, I am indebted to my husband, Bernhard, for his patience, humor, and support of every kind. His insightful observations and unending support were vital in shaping this project. This book is dedicated to him.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Politeness and Facework In common language use, the term "politeness" is associated with civil or well-mannered behavior and with social attributes such as good upbringing, status and formal etiquette. Since the appearance of Brown and Levinson's (1987) groundbreaking theory, the scholarly notion of politeness has emerged as a central theme of inquiry across diverse disciplines pragmatics, sociolinguistics, social psychology, anthropology, and language acquisition, to mention just a few. The growing interest in linguistic politeness in such diverse fields has brought the publication of several special issues devoted to this subject in leading journals. It has also resulted in the emergence of a number of different definitions and interpretations regarding its central notion, politeness. With develop ments in the above-mentioned disciplines, current politeness research is moving away from earlier categorical models based on sentence-level analysis, advancing a new view of politeness as a discursive phenomenon (e.g. Eelen 2001, Mills 2003, Watts 2003). But despite the significance of this paradigm shift, little consensus has been achieved regarding the crucial question of how politeness research ought to develop an empirically grounded analytical framework. Recognizing this challenge, my project explores the link between politeness studies and existing approaches to discourse. It proposes an alternative, more flexible conceptualization of face and facework, which appears to play a central role in politeness evaluations, by reconsidering Erving Goffman's (1967) notion of face, and applies this conceptualization to the analysis of several social actions that have rarely been dealt with in politeness studies. As a first step, it clarifies the relationship between the concepts of politeness, face and identity, and it proposes that at the core of discursive acts of politeness are evaluations concerning not only appropriateness but also participants' "face" - their interactional self-image determined in relation with others in discourse, closely related to their discursive identity. The Goffmanian notion of face forms the basis for the treatment of facework as a discursively constructed phenomenon which, in turn, provides direction for an empirically grounded analysis of facework. The project then applies this framework to the analysis of multiple ambivalent face displays in Japanese multiparty discourse. Until now, the dominant strain of politeness and facework research has

2

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

presented largely intuitive assignments of linguistic behavior to categories such as face-threatening acts and negative and positive politeness strategies, focusing primarily on explicit face-threatening acts such as requests, apologies, and disagreements, while leaving other more interactionaily delicate actions unexplored.1 My study tries to overcome this limitation by assessing facework situated in several discursive actions such as collaborative disagreement (in which several participants form a dissenting "team"), teasing, and troubles talk. These linguistic behaviors necessitate subtle interactional negotiations, for they appear to be both face-threatening and face-enhancing. The study explores how these seemingly conflicting evaluations are attached to specific actions, by paying attention to the details of talk that construct various discursive faces simultaneously. It also observes how facework is displayed in a seemingly face-neutral activity, event description, and in the course of an entire meeting. The research data document multiparty interactions in small faculty meetings in Japanese secondary schools, in which issues ranging from school outings to student misconduct and sexual harassment are discussed. While planning events and seeking solutions to current problems, the teachers attend to their interpersonal relationships and professional personae through a range of facework. By examining numerous segments of discourse as well as an entire meeting, the study illustrates how face is constructed and negotiated in interaction, and how it is related to interactants' emergent discursive identities. Past politeness studies, including some discursive approaches, paid much attention to the psychological mechanisms active in individuals (e.g. intentions and motivations), even though they are difficult to capture in discourse. The present study follows a different path, adopting both elements of conversation and discourse analysis (as used in discursive psychology) and ethnographic information to its analytical practice. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis serve as the analytical framework of discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards 1997, Edwards and Potter 1992). Discursive psychology is concerned with actions and practices in talk, attending to features of interaction and rhetorical organization without simply assuming an underlying cognitive organization. It attempts to see psychological issues from the point of view of human behavior. In other words, discursive psychology regards thinking as a form of acting, and this focus on social practice suggests the possibility of defining "face," otherwise considered as psychological "wants," in terms of discursive reality. Discursive psychology's change in perspective, considering psychological notions from the viewpoint of their role in talk, provides both a strong rationale and an analytical model for the treatment of face and facework in this study. Informed by a discursive psychological approach, this study reconceptualizes the notion of face, previously considered a basic human need or an underlying motivation of

INTRODUCTION

3

politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987), as a discursive reality, negotiated and displayed in interaction. Following the analytical framework of conversation and discourse analysis, discursive psychological attention to details of talk forms the center of analysis. The analysis also reflects the recognition that familiarity with the community of practice (cf. Wenger 1998) in which the data are situated is essential to the study of face and politeness. Furthermore, the discourse analytic component scrutinizes the role of the researcher and the contingent nature of the act of analysis itself. In sum, the project seeks analytical validity through the combination of (1) primary attention to details of talk, (2) ethnographic knowledge of the community of practice, and (3) the researcher's understanding of the previous academic treatment of the subject matter. In addition to these methodological considerations, the study explores how a number of Japanese lexical, grammatical, and discursive resources accomplish facework. The final particle ne, the contrastive particle kedo, and the plain and masu forms of clause final predicates are examined in greater detail. While past research enlisted these linguistic resources as politeness markers or strategies, this study treats them as resources of action accomplishment, and it attempts to identify the connections between their lexical and grammatical characteristics, sequential functions, and pragmatic functions. Although this project introduces an approach to facework that differs significantly from earlier politeness studies, it is my hope that it makes a number of contributions to the ongoing discussion in the field of politeness research. First, the illustration of various faces displayed and managed in a moment-by-moment fashion adds to our understanding of the enactment of facework in talk. Second, by seeking to establish an empirically grounded interpretation sharable with readers, and by clarifying the range of ethnographic information needed for analysis, this study touches upon the notions of universality and cultural specificity, both of which have been considered in association with the concept of face by various scholars. Third, a closer examination of the action-oriented use of linguistic markers sheds new light on our understanding of their function in talk. Lastly, through the analysis of segments in which participants make explicit evaluative judgements concerning others' behavior (e.g. teasing or troubles talk), this study establishes a foundation for the future analysis of evaluative moments in facework and politeness research. The following sections outline developments in politeness research, remaining issues, and this study's approach to the concepts of politeness and facework.

4

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

1.2 Traditional and Discursive Politeness Studies Research on linguistic politeness came into its own with the publication of Brown and Levinson's study in 1987. Since then, this phenomenon has received extensive scholarly attention. Researchers have approached politeness from different perspectives, viewing it as a means to reduce friction in personal interaction (Lakoff 1973), as a device for strategic conflict avoidance (Leech 1983), as a distancing and solidarity-building practice (Holmes 1995, Scollon and Scollon 1995), or as a behavior that expresses positive concern for others (Holmes 1995). These conceptualizations agree with Brown and Levinson's (1979, 1987) notion of politeness as a rational behavior aiming to reduce an imposition or a threat to an interlocutor's face. Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that "all competent adult members of a society" have "face," a public self-image (61). Face comprises two related aspects: negative face (the claim to freedom from imposition) and positive face (an interactant's positive self-image, including the desire to be appreciated). According to the authors, a speaker's face is subject to threats at every point of an interaction. Facework, the conscious and unconscious practices interlocutors engage in to reduce face threats and to maintain each other's face, constitutes the enactment of politeness. Brown and Levinson's theory, as well as many later works on linguistic politeness, revolves around the notion of face. "Classical" politeness theories (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1979, 1987, Fraser 1990, Leech 1983, Lakoff 1973, 1977) have engendered many empirical studies. Yet they are, as critics have pointed out, not without intrinsic limitations: they conceive politeness strategies as categorical and static; they are primarily concerned with sentence- or utterance-level politeness, overlooking situational and contextual details that are only discernible in situated discourse; and they do not account for politeness as a linguistic ideology, thereby essentializing politeness as a universal and fixed norm (e.g. Arundale 1999, Eelen 2001, Locher 2004, Mills 2003, Okamoto 1999, Watts 2003). Eelen (2001) undertook a significant metatheoretical critique of earlier politeness research. He uncovered the Parsonian bias underlying existing theories and maintained that the researchers' act of conceptualisation through their own evaluations of politeness compromises their theories' validity. Drawing on the Bourdieuan notion of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1991), he proposed a revision of the notion of politeness as a discursive, evaluative, and argumentative phenomenon, stressing the importance of "concentrating on the processes of social production" (240). In current research, there is a trend away from the earlier act-by-act treatment of linguistic politeness that was criticized by Eelen (2001) and others. Instead, new discursive directions have been pursued, both from a qualitative (e.g. Locher 2004, Mills 2003, Okamoto 1999, Watts 2003) and

INTRODUCTION

3

a quantitative (Terkourafi 2001, 2005, Usami 2001) perspective. Some of these approaches utilize the concepts of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1991) and community of practice (Wenger 1998). All of them subscribe to a certain extent to the view of politeness as a social practice created through human interaction. There seems to be a growing consensus among scholars that politeness is in essence a discursive phenomenon. Yet there are as many different discursive approaches to politeness as there are definitions of the term "politeness" itself. Watts (2003) and Locher (2004), for instance, show how polite, impolite, and politic (i.e. socially expected) behavior in various discursive events can be traced as inference mechanisms based on Sperber and Wilson's (1995) relevance theory. Holmes and colleagues (e.g. Holmes and Marra 2002, Holmes and Schnurr 2005) employ the concept of community of practice in their studies of politeness enactments in Australian workplace discourse. Mills (2003) supplements her analysis of audiotaped data with questionnaires, participants' comments on recorded conversations, and anecdotes. From a more quantitative perspective, Usami (2001) assesses the unmarked level of honorific usage (unmarked politeness) and defines marked politeness as a deviation from the normative usage. Terkourafi (2001, 2005) considers politeness as the regular unchallenged co-occurrence of linguistic expressions and context (i.e. frames). As this multiplicity of views makes patently clear, there is no quick and easy way to an empirically grounded analysis of politeness that takes into account both the social and the psychological aspects of human interaction. The difficulty surfaces especially when researchers claim that participants in a particular interaction "consider" or "feel" some utterance to be polite or impolite, or that they "intend" to be polite or impolite. Eelen (2001) and Mills (2003) note that researchers often make personal judgments regarding polite behavior in talk, while maintaining their claim to analytical objectivity. Since this type of analysis inevitably reproduces the researcher's own preconceptions, politeness research (e.g. that of Brown and Levinson, Lakoff or Leech), in Eelen's (2001) estimation, "fails to provide any original insights beyond those already available on the intuitive level" (246). Terkourafi (2005) articulates a similar critique in her review of recent discursive politeness studies: she doubts that they have anything new to offer at the descriptive level. In accordance with Eelen's (2001) prediction that a discursive approach to politeness offers a larger explanatory scope, this study brings new types of empirical data into analysis. Unlike past politeness research, which concentrated on obvious face-threatening actions like requests or apologies, it examines facework in interactionally delicate practices such as collaborative disagreement, teasing, and troubles talk situated in multiparty institutional discourse in a non-English setting. Through its expanded scope, this study lays the foundation for an alternative, more flexible conception of facework and politeness.

6

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

The next section discusses in more detail how my project is positioned within the larger fields of politeness and discourse studies. 1.3 A Discursive Approach to Facework This study shares the following premises with recent discursive politeness scholarship: (1) it considers politeness and facework as phenomena situated in a particular group and context; (2) instead of an act-by-act, speaker-centered approach to politeness, it establishes interaction and rhetorical practice (e.g. objectification) as the object of study; and (3) it rejects a static and deterministic evaluation of politeness. What distinguishes this study from other discursive works on politeness? What is its position in the wider fields of politeness and discourse studies? I will address these questions in the following sections. 1.3.1 What this book is not about Since its main topic is the discursive co-construction of facework, this book does not contain an analysis of politeness evaluations per se. It does not seek to capture evaluative moments in which participants display their assessment that something they said or heard was polite or impolite. It is my contention that by limiting the scope of analysis to these rare moments, we would lose sight of the intricate interpersonal mechanisms elucidated through facework analysis. However, the study does consider evaluative moments in the examination of two social actions: teasing, and troubles talk. Participants performing these actions engage in evaluative practices; teasing may be triggered by a transgression (more precisely, by participants' evaluation of encountered actions as a transgression), and troubles talk frames the trouble source's behavior as an infringement. (The relation between these evaluations and the participants' sense of politeness and impoliteness will be explored in Chapters 5 and 6.) This study does not aim at analytical innovation by devising a parsimonious model of facework. In this respect, it stands in contrast to traditional politeness studies, which attempt to account for polite behavior through the formulation of succinct notions (e.g. positive and negative face, politeness maxims). A formulaic and categorical understanding of interpersonal communication is not the aim of this study. 1.3.2 What this book is about This project's analysis centers on a Goffmanian respecification of face which, with its social rather than cognitive characterization, supports a data-driven treatment of facework in interaction. Face, within the scope of the study, is conceptualized as speakers' interactional social image. As such, this image is closely linked to their discursive identity: an interlocu-

INTRODUCTION

/

tor ascribes and is ascribed multiple discursive and social identities which, in turn, can invoke multiple faces. Instead of devising a parsimonious model of facework or politeness, this study attempts to capture the complexity and richness of interpersonal communication through the lens of facework. Despite the central role assigned to face and facework, the book does not assume that facework and politeness are identical. On the contrary, it makes an effort to clarify the relationship between these two distinct notions. The study endorses the idea that the study of politeness should focus on interactants' evaluations about their own and others' behavior as being polite or impolite. As such, moment-by-moment politeness evaluations include volatile elements (e.g. interactants' expectations and emotions). Facework (behavior that displays and acknowledges others and the speakers' interactional self-image), on the other hand, encompasses a wider range of practices than polite behavior. For instance, a speaker's display of his or her own positive self-image may be regarded as facework but not necessarily as politeness. On the other hand, from a politeness perspective, evaluations of facework and appropriateness constitute the basis for evaluations of politeness. The relationship between facework, appropriateness, and politeness will be explored later in the book. As its titie "Discourse and Politeness" indicates, the study situates face and facework at the crossroads between politeness and discourse studies. To my knowledge, few existing studies have attempted to link politeness scholarship to other discourse analytic disciplines, such as discursive psychology, conversation analysis, or ethnographic analysis, whose methodological insights can lead us to significant advances in our understanding of discourse politeness. By connecting politeness research to discourse studies, and by formulating a social notion of face tied to interactants' discursive identity, this project develops a framework for facework research that integrates results from the fields of conversation analysis and discursive psychology. The main aim of this study is to provide a discourse-based analysis of facework realized in several interactionally delicate social actions. It suggests a revision of the notion of face based on Goffman's definition, which allows for an empirical description of the ways in which facework is displayed and managed in discourse. The study also explores the relationship between face and politeness, and between face and discursive identity, to make findings from diverse fields available for the analysis of facework. The combination of a conversation/discourse analytic approach and ethnographic information in the framework of the study provides the methodological base for depicting facework as an intersection of observable linguistic behavior, my knowledge of the particular community of practice, and my understanding of face-related notions in politeness and discourse studies.

8

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

1.4 Structure of the Study Chapter 1 has presented a brief summary of past politeness research and identified the purpose and methodology of the study, highlighting recent developments in the field, remaining issues, and the project's possible contributions. Chapters 2 and 3 develop the themes introduced in Chapter 1 and give a more detailed description of the study's theoretical background and analytical framework. Chapter 2, "Politeness, Face, and Identity," introduces earlier politeness theories and prominent issues concerning the notion of face, discernment and volitional politeness, sociolinguistic variables of politeness, and the distinction between politenessl (the lay conceptualization of politeness) and politeness2 (politeness as a theoretical construct). Since the review of these issues consistently points to the need to incorporate discursive data, the chapter next details how politeness- and face-related subjects are discussed in various fields of discourse analysis (i.e. speech-act related studies, research on conflict talk, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics). Recent discursive approaches to politeness are introduced. The rest of the chapter presents the conceptual underpinnings for this study. It reconsiders Brown and Levinson's (1987) and Goffman's (1967) notions of face and explores the relationship between face and identity, and face and politeness. Through a synthesis of these conceptions, the chapter situates the current investigation of facework at the nexus of past and present politeness studies, discourse analysis, and linguistic studies on participant identity and subjectivity. Chapter 3, "Analyzing Facework," introduces the general research objectives and describes the conversation/discourse analytic and ethnographic approaches to facework adopted in the study, as well as the community of practice in which the data are situated. It presents the rationale for adopting a conversation/discourse analytic approach, compares conversation and discourse analysis, discusses their treatment of context and culture, and argues for the need to incorporate ethnographic information. The chapter then relates how the analysis of facework draws from attention to details of linguistic actions, my knowledge of the relevant community of practice, and my understanding and assessment of the subject matter. Chapter 3 ends with an overview of the data, the institutional setting, and the participants of the study. It includes a statement concerning my initial understanding of face categorizations relevant to the data set, which prepares the ground for the empirical work executed in later chapters. Chapters 4 to 7 contain an empirical analysis of facework. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 each illustrate how facework is constructed and negotiated in one specific type of discursive practice - collaborative disagreement, teasing, and talking about troubles, respectively. These actions are interactionally

INTRODUCTION

9

delicate in that they appear to be both face-threatening and faceenhancing at the same time. The chapters dissect the complex mechanisms of facework involved in these practices, which lead to such seemingly contradictory results. Several linguistic resources of the Japanese language are listed as crucial agents in accomplishing facework: the final particle ne, the connective particle kedo, and the plain and masu forms of clause final predicates. Instead of being enlisted as politeness markers or strategies, these resources are observed in the course of action accomplishment to uncover the connection between their role in facework and their grammatical and sequential characteristics. Chapter 7 analyzes the coconstruction of facework in a seemingly face-neutral action, event description, and in an extended data segment that spans an entire meeting. Chapter 4, "Collaborative Disagreement," focuses on the practice of collaborative disagreement, in which two or more participants form a dissenting "team". Beyond the stereotypical understanding of collaborative disagreement as the combination of a first disagreement and a second disagreement offered as agreement with the first, the chapter foregrounds the crucial role the second dissenter plays in the construction of the dissenting stance, a process in which complex multiple faces are displayed and manipulated. The chapter also supplies a deviant case in which the second dissenter assumes a neutral stance, and in which no alignment is achieved between first and second dissenter, even though the second issues agreement and grants information supporting the opposition. The analyzed examples also suggest that it is possible to consider the overall participation framework as a type of facework. Chapter 5, "Teasing and Humor," turns to another discursive practice: teasing. Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism, the nuanced subtlety of this act raises certain questions: "Are teases bonding experiences?" "Are teases face threatening?" To which both layman and scholar will answer: "It depends." Teasing is a context-bound social activity whose interpretation depends on a number of factors. Instead of relying on contextual variables as explanatory measures, the chapter documents how the two antagonistic forces of affiliation and disaffiliation are intertwined in the act of teasing. It illustrates how teasing is initiated when a claimed face is not confirmed by other group members, and how the onset of teasing can be read as an interactional marking of a deviation from normative acts. Chapter 6, "Talking about Troubles," examines excerpts in which teachers relate troubles encountered at work. Troubles talk in ordinary conversation is generally considered a solidarity-building activity; in faculty meetings, however, the same practice may result in a threat to the speaker's institutional face. A recurrent theme in teachers' troubles talk is student misbehavior. To project their face as responsible, concerned and caring teachers, the troubles tellers relate their attempts to solve the

10

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

problem in question, yet the fact that they were not able to do so calls their authority into question. By projecting a positive self-image, a speaker can easily endanger another aspect of face. The chapter focuses on the rhetorical practices employed by troubles tellers, paying special attention to the ways in which they portray the troublemakers' misconduct and their own involvement in the situation. In the course of analysis, we witness how participants highlight and undermine certain aspects of troublesome events, and how they display and manage various conflicting faces through these rhetorical practices. The chapter also observes how troubles tellers formulate others' behavior as deviant, illicit, and/or impolite. Since deviation formulation indexes the underlying norms of appropriateness, the inquiry lays the groundwork for a future empirical assessment of politeness and impoliteness. Chapter 7, "The Meeting: Facework in Description and Discourse Organization" expands the scope of analysis from a particular action to an entire meeting and examines the progression of facework in event description. The analyzed meeting was called after a troublesome incident (a physical confrontation) involving an unruly student and his homeroom teacher. It represents, therefore, in itself a grave potential threat to the face of the homeroom teacher. The chapter explores how the participants co-construct versions of the incident to accomplish various face-related actions. While reporting the course of events - traditionally considered a face-neutral activity - the teachers build group affiliations in relation to the incident and display alignment among group members (including the homeroom teacher). By observing a prolonged speech event, the analysis is able to show how facework can be constructed from a sum of distinct building blocks dispersed over long stretches of talk and through the organization of the entire discourse. Chapter 8, "Conclusion," summarizes the study's main arguments and findings and considers how they contribute to the issues concerning facework and politeness reviewed in Chapter 2 (the distinction between lay and theoretical conceptualizations of politeness, discernment versus volitional politeness, sociolinguistic variables, and the notion of face). The final section discusses the significance of this study for our understanding of facework in interaction.

Chapter 2: Politeness, Face, and Identity

The core question of this study is this: how do interlocutors construct, display, and manage their discursive face in Japanese institutional talk? To gain a better understanding of the mechanics of facework in this type of discourse, my study singles out a number of interactional practices (collaborative disagreement, teasing, talking about troubles, and event description) for closer inspection. In addition, it follows the sequential unfolding of facework through the course of an entire meeting. The conceptualization of face and the analytical framework adopted by this study are based on the insights of several fields of linguistic study: pragmatic studies on politeness, different approaches to discourse analysis, works on discursive identity and speaker subjectivity, and research on Japanese linguistic markers. To delineate the connection between these diverse fields from the vantage point of my study, I will first introduce several theories of politeness and summarize the major issues discussed in previous studies of linguistic politeness. Among the different paths leading to a synthesis of these issues, a discursive approach to politeness seems the most promising one. Later in the chapter, I will examine how various approaches to discourse analysis relate to politeness and facework, and present an overview of recent discursive approaches to linguistic politeness, touching upon remaining issues. The recognition that the notion of face is a link between politeness research and various discourse studies necessitates a reexamination of the notion of face. The final task of this chapter is to formulate profiles of face and facework suitable for their discursive analysis, and in turn provide a foundation for the analysis performed in the middle section of the book. 2.1 Perspectives on Politeness Every discussion or critique of issues of politeness inevitably returns to the theoretical framework and to the basic concepts defining the field of politeness studies. Therefore, I would like to begin by briefly summarizing four different perspectives on politeness, based on Eraser's (1990) classification: the "social-norm" view (section 2.1.1), the "conversational-contract" view (section 2.1.2), the "conversational-maxim" view (section 2.1.3), and the "face-saving" view (section 2.1.4). Besides

12

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

clarifying their characteristics, I will also point out current developments in their scientific evaluation. A general understanding of these four approaches will help us in our later discussion of issues concerning politeness research. 2.1.1 Politeness as social norm

Viewed through the lens of social norm, linguistic politeness is a standard verbal practice within society. Every culture has specific norms of behavior, and behavior that conforms to these rules is considered "polite." In this normative view, according to Fraser (1990), politeness is generally associated with formality. In other words, the degree to which people use linguistic resources associated with the formal register correlates with the degree of politeness (Fraser 1990). Fraser (1990) notes that there are few adherents to the social-norm view in current studies of politeness. This claim is valid if we accept Fraser's characterization that this approach equates politeness with formality or etiquette. However, the social norms of a society generally constitute a more complex and inclusive system containing components other than formality. Within this broader understanding, politeness as a social norm can include "discernment politeness," the "almost automatic observation of socially-agreed-upon rules" (Hill et al 1986: 348), frequently discussed in relation to Japanese culture (Hill et al. 1986, Ide 1989). The behavioral norm presupposed by the social-norm view agrees with the notion of discernment politeness - both are concerned with normative, appropriate behavior in a particular social setting (e.g. the use of "Sir" in addressing a male guest of high social status at a formal dinner). (Discernment politeness will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2.2, which introduces different types of politeness.) If a social norm is understood as appropriateness in a social setting, the social-norm view has common characteristics with Meier's (1995) definition of politeness as "socially appropriate behavior" (351) and with Fraser's (1990) conceptualization of politeness, which will be discussed in section 2.1.2. Since social norms are shared by ordinary people in a given society or culture, this view is also related to "first-order politeness," the laypersons' conceptualization of language as being polite or impolite (discussed in section 2.2.4). Several studies cast doubt on the autonomy of "norms" in a given society. Okamoto (1999) demonstrates that norms concerning politeness can be considered ideology and that they vary over time and among individuals. Researchers who explore gender and politeness issues (e.g. Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999, Mills 2003) claim that politeness norms ought to be discussed with reference to the community of practice (cf. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1999, Lave and Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998) in which the communication is situated. The term "community of practice" refers to a loosely defined group of people who are jointly

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

13

engaged in a particular task and have "a shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time" (Wenger 1998: 76). Eelen (2001), in his critique of existing politeness theories, claims that social norms are created discursively through practice. If we incorporate the suggestions offered by these critical approaches, the view of politeness as social norm can become a more valuable tool in the discursive analysis of politeness (see sections 2.4 and 2.5 for a further discussion of discursive approaches to politeness). 2.1.2 Politeness as conversational contract

Fraser and Nolen conceptualize politeness in terms of the rights and obligations of conversation participants (Fraser 1990, Fraser and Nolen 1981). These rights and obligations constitute a conversational contract (CC) which, in turn, determines participant expectations in conversation. Politeness, according to this approach, is defined as the normative act of "operating within the then-current terms and conditions of the CC" (Fraser 1990: 233). The conversational-contract view is the most generalized view of politeness - it equates politeness with appropriate language use. In this respect, it is compatible with the social-norm view discussed in the previous section: both locate politeness in the appropriate application of linguistic resources. The defining quality of the conversational-contract view is the premise that conversational contracts (the situation-dependent rights and obligations of participants), and not social norms, govern participants' expectations of appropriateness. Moreover, in contrast to the static nature generally ascribed to social norms, conversational contracts are conceived as dynamic and interactive phenomena. They remain subject to change in every phase of an interaction, in response to the participants' constant assessment of varying contextual factors. By connecting politeness to the concept of a conversational contract, this perspective presents the most dynamic view of politeness. Since it situates politeness in the moment-by-moment progression of talk, it is possible to categorize the conversational-contract view as a discursive approach to politeness. Even though Fraser and Nolen's (1981) model does not specify methodological details for detecting components of conversational contracts (rights and obligations in interaction) and participant expectations in analytical practice, it nevertheless makes valuable contributions to the development of a discursive analysis of politeness. Heritage and Raymond's (2005) recent treatment of rights and obligations in agreement segments is relevant to this perspective of politeness. The authors claim that participants' interactional rights and obligations are closely linked to their identity and face (i.e. their positive self-image) (see section 2.5 for a further discussion of identity and face). They state that "participants' concerns with face can be found in the

14

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

management of rights and responsibilities related to knowledge and information" (16). Through their rigorous analysis of conversational practice, Heritage and Raymond demonstrate how participants' relative rights to perform evaluative assessments are indexed in talk. Even though they do not connect their research to the notion of politeness per se, their treatment of face in interactional practices can be seen as a link between Eraser's view of politeness and the conceptualization of face in this study. 2.1.3 Politeness as conversational maxim

The conversational-maxim view is related to Grice's (1975) cooperative principle (CP), which states that participants in conversations try to cooperate in order to ensure the most efficient transmission of information. He identifies four basic conversational maxims that constitute the CP: (1) (2) (3) (4)

maxim of quantity (to make one's contribution as informative as necessary) maxim of quality (to make a truthful contribution) maxim of relevance (to make a relevant contribution) maxim of manner (to make a clear contribution)

Any mutually recognized deviation from the CP and its maxims gives rise to conversational implicature. The fact that they indicate what is inferred in conversation makes both the CP and the maxims immensely useful in the pragmatic analysis of verbal interactions. Politeness as a conversational maxim can be viewed as an expansion of the cooperative principle, in which Grice's maxims are supplemented by other pragmatic rules or principles. In other words, the conversationalmaxim view of politeness formulates principles concerning the interpersonal aspects of talk to supplement the cooperative principle. Lakoff (1973) was the first to account for politeness within this framework. Eraser (1990) summarizes LakofFs view of politeness as "a device used in order to reduce friction in personal interaction" (223). In LakofFs (1973) model, the interpersonal rule "be polite" supplements the co-operative principle, which she rephrases as the rule "be clear." The rule "be polite" consists of three sub-rules: (1) do not impose, (2) give options, and (3) make the addressee feel good. These sub-rules correspond, respectively, to three types of politeness: (1) formal/impersonal politeness leads to the rule "do not impose," (2) informal politeness leads to the rule "give options," and (3) intimate politeness leads to the rule "make the addressee feel good." Lakoff (1979) later modified this model, distinguishing four stylistic strategies: clarity (adhering to the CP), distance (adhering to sub-rule [1] above), deference (adhering to sub-rule [2]), and camaraderie (adhering to sub-rule [3]). A speaker chooses one of these strategies according to his or her speech style and assessment of the situation. This choice, Lakoff

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

15

posits, occurs on a continuum of social distance: clarity is associated with the most distant, camaraderie with the closest relationship between participants. Lakoff (1990) also points to potential cultural differences in placing emphasis on particular strategies. According to her research, European cultures tend to emphasize distance, Asian cultures deference, and American culture camaraderie. Leech's (1983) approach to politeness is also based on Grice's maxims. His work situates politeness within the broader framework of interpersonal rhetoric, which is tied to social goals (what social position a speaker assumes) rather than illocutionary goals (what a speaker tries to convey through a speech act). Within the domain of interpersonal rhetoric, Leech (1983) establishes three sets of maxims, related to three principles: (1) the cooperative principle (CP), (2) the politeness principle (PP), and (3) the irony principle (IP). His cooperative principle corresponds to Grice's. The general function of the politeness principle is to "minimize the expression of impolite belief (Leech 1983: 81). Leech lists six maxims associated with the politeness principle: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

tact maxim (minimize cost to hearer, maximize benefit to hearer) generosity maxim (minimize benefit to speaker, maximize cost to speaker) approbation maxim (minimize dispraise of hearer, maximize praise to hearer) modesty maxim (minimize praise to speaker, maximize dispraise of speaker) agreement maxim (minimize disagreement between speaker and hearer, maximize agreement between self and other) sympathy maxim (minimize antipathy between speaker and hearer, maximize sympathy between speaker and hearer)

Leech (1983) suggests that a number of scales are involved in determining the type and degree of politeness: cost-benefit, optionality, indirectness, authority, and social distance. The complex interrelation between maxims and scales creates the nuances in politeness style and level. A further structural feature in Leech's (1983) work is the distinction between relative and absolute politeness. The former denotes politeness within a particular setting or culture; the latter refers to politeness inextricably linked to specific speaker actions. The idea of absolute politeness implies that speech acts are intrinsically polite or impolite based on their illocutionary force. Leech stresses the importance of absolute politeness, stating that "general pragmatics may reasonably confine its attention to politeness in the absolute sense" (84). The author names four main illocutionary functions - competitive, convivial, collaborative, and conflictive - and associates them with types of politeness. For instance, competitive illocution (e.g. ordering), which is

16

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

inherently impolite, requires mitigation. On the other hand, convivial illocution (e.g. thanking), which is inherently polite, calls for politeness to enhance the positive impact. The conversational-maxim view of politeness offers a parsimonious (i.e. LakofFs) and a comprehensive (i.e. Leech's) model of politeness, and provides rules, strategies, maxims and scales as the basic building blocks of politeness. For the researcher, these elements constitute an important set of considerations for tracing the occurrence of politeness. 2.1.4 Politeness as a face-saving device

Among the approaches to politeness, Brown and Levinson's (1987) has been the most influential paradigm to date. Like the concepts formulated by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), it is based on the maxims of Grice's cooperative principle (CP), yet it does not supplement Grice's maxims with a new set of maxims, nor does it present an overarching notion that includes the CP (cf. Eraser's conversational contract). Instead, Brown and Levinson's model views politeness as a reason for deviations from Grice's maxims. One essential assumption is that rational conversation contains "no deviation from rational efficiency without a reason" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 5), and considerations of politeness in ordinary conversation provide a reason for deviation. Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory is also unique because it links the CP with the notion of face, as used in social studies. Adapting Goffman's (1967) conceptualization, the authors define "face" as "the public selfimage that every member wants to claim for himself (61). Brown and Levinson (1987) distinguish between two types of face, positive face and negative face. Negative face is defined as "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-destruction - i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition" (61). Positive face is defined as "the positive consistent self-image or "personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants" (61). Brown and Levinson consider these two types of face to be the "wants" of every competent adult member of society. In other words, every speaker wants his or her action to "be unimpeded by others (negative face wants)," and every speaker wants his or her action to "be desirable to others (positive face wants)" (68). For Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is the manifestation of respect for the interlocutor's face. Participants in interpersonal communication want to maintain each other's face, and they want to defend it when threatened. The underlying assumption is that face is vulnerable. Most speech acts can be regarded as being inherently face-threatening, either to the speaker, the hearer, or both. Consequently, these facethreatening acts (FTAs) require softening devices that alleviate the threat with appropriate doses of politeness (Rasper 1994). In order to meet this requirement, speakers employ "politeness strategies," conveying their

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

17

Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4) (Adapted from Brown and Levinson 1987: 69) intention to be polite while performing FTAs. Brown and Levinson's taxonomy of politeness strategies is summarized in Figure 2.1; it contains their super-strategies of politeness (items 1-4 in the figure). Committing an FTA on record without redressive action parallels Grice's maxims. It is the most efficient, clearest way of performing an act. When performing an FTA on record with redressive action, positive or negative politeness strategies are utilized. The former include expressions of solidarity, the latter primarily expressions of restraint. Off-record politeness, the avoidance of explicit imposition, is the most indirect type of politeness strategy, requiring a greater amount of inference. The authors claim that the superstrategies are hierarchically organized. Speakers can choose from among them, depending on the seriousness of the face threat posed by a specific FTA. The most serious offense requires an off-record strategy, the least serious a bald-on-record strategy. The seriousness or "weightiness" of an FTA is measured by assessing contextual factors. The relevant formula is: Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx where Wx represents the "weightiness" of FTAx, which estimates the risk of face loss. Wx, in turn, determines the degree of politeness the speaker needs to attend to in performing x. The three variables that determine the degree of weightiness (W) are: D(S,H), the social distance between the speaker and the hearer; P(H,S), the relative power of the speaker with respect to the hearer; and Rx, the absolute ranking of imposition of an act x in the particular culture in which x is performed. Brown and Levinson's D, P and R factors are comparable to Leech's social distance, authority and cost-benefit scales, respectively, which determine the type and degree of politeness. 2.2 Issues of Politeness Scholars generally regard Brown and Levinson's (1987) approach as the most comprehensive, in part because their notion of face provides a social

18

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

and psychological explanation for the phenomenon of politeness. The extensive use of cross-cultural data lends further credibility to their theory. These strengths notwithstanding, Brown and Levinson's theories have created much controversy. Their claim that politeness is universal is debatable since the notion of face on which it is based may be culturespecific; the notion of politeness itself needs to be clarified; and the formula of sociolinguistic variables has been criticized as well. All these issues will be discussed in this section. In addition, I will review another fundamental issue debated in various current theories of politeness, namely the distinction and relationship between politenessl (i.e. firstorder politeness, or the layperson's concept of politeness) and politeness2 (i.e. second-order politeness, or politeness as a theoretical construct). In the following pages, I will introduce these issues separately, but the reader should bear in mind that they are closely connected and that their description requires numerous cross-references. 2.2.1 The notion of face

The notion of face, which forms the basis of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, has generated scholarly debates on two interrelated issues. The first is the claimed universality of the notion of face; the second is the distinction between positive and negative face. Before addressing these two issues, however, I would like to add a few remarks on the origin of the terms "positive face" and "negative face," since the way in which Brown and Levinson (1987) incorporated these notions into their theory is relevant to the discussion at hand (see Figure 2.2). The positive/negative distinction originates in Durkheim's (1995) description of basic religious cults. The term "face" derives from an English folk term (which is in turn based on the translation of a Chinese expression), as well as from GofFman's (1967) notion of face. 2.2.1.1 The origin of "face"

Brown and Levinson (1987) introduced the notion of face as a universal human need to explain why certain expressions are considered polite. It has become a focal point in the debate about the universality of politeness. According to the authors, two sources for their notion of face are the English folk term "face," as well as Goffman's (1967) extended notion. Brown and Levinson (1987) note that the English folk term "face" is taken from the metaphorical expression "to lose face" (to be embarrassed or humiliated). The origin of this expression can, in fact, be traced back further. Translated from the Chinese phrase tin lien, it was "originally used by the English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace" (Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn, XIV: 526). That the notion of face should originate in a Chinese expression is not without irony since, as we

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

19

Figure 2.2 The origin of the terms positive and negative face will see later, researchers from East Asian countries often argue against Brown and Levinson's claim that the notion of face is universal. Goffman (1967) adopts the term "face" for his theory of interpersonal communication. He defines face as "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact" (5). Elaborating on these thoughts, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that face is "something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction" (61). By integrating Goffman's (1967) terminology, the study of politeness became linked to other fields, such as self-presentation in social interaction and managing interpersonal relationships. Fraser (1990) questions whether Brown and Levinson's conceptualization maintains Goffman's original notion of face. O'Driscoll (1996) argues in a similar vein: while Goffman's notion of face refers to self-image, Brown and Levinson's can be perceived both as self-image and as the desire for a positive self-image. Furthermore, researchers doubt whether it is possible to expand Goffman's notion to such a degree that it accommodates Brown and Levinson's conception of negative face (O'Driscoll 1996, Watts et al 1992). (For a more thorough comparison of the notion of face as conceived by Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987), see sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.) An informed appreciation of the positive/negative distinction is therefore essential to an understanding of the various notions of face. 2.2.1.2 The origin of the positive/negative distinction The dual concept of negative and positive face has its source in Durkheim's (1995) distinction between negative and positive cults.

20

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

These cults are a system of ritual practices, performed to maintain a balanced relationship between sacred and profane beings. Negative cults are rites of prohibition to "prevent undue mixings" between the sacred and profane; positive cults are rites of approach to exalt and propitiate the sacred. This division can be extended to interactional rituals in everyday life. Durkheim (1995) regarded religious forces as "transfigured collective forces" (327). By studying one archaic religion, he hoped to "reveal a fundamental and permanent aspect of humanity" (1). Durkheinrs thinking exerted considerable influence on sociological theory. For example, Goffman (1967) asserts that individuals are endowed with sacredness and that interactional rituals are remnants of earlier public rituals. Brown and Levinson (1987) take the argument one step further. They regard interactional rituals as an "omnipresent model for rituals of all kinds" (44). In this interpretation, both negative and positive face concern the sacredness of the individual: negative face is attended to by negative rites of avoidance, positive face by positive rites of approach. 2.2.1.3 Universal vs culture-specific face

Brown and Levinson's (1987) notion of positive and negative face is, therefore, a combination of two theses concerning fundamental human traits: Durkheim's (1995) distinction between positive and negative rites and Goffman's (1967) notion of face. It is not without internal logic, then, that Brown and Levinson (1987) claim the universality of their notion of face, as follows: [W]hile the content of face will differ in different cultures (what the exact limits are to personal territories, and what the publicly relevant content of personality consists in), we are assuming that the mutual knowledge of members' public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal. (61-62) Other researchers (e.g. Tracy 1990, Wood and Kroger 1991) also support the universality of the notion of face, drawing on its origins as addressed by Durkheim and Goffman. Criticism of the universality claim is often registered by non-Western researchers (e.g. Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1988, 1989, Nwoye 1992, Pan 1995). They argue that the concept of self and its relation to society vanacross cultures, and that the multiplicity of concepts of self in turn gives rise to culturally mediated interpretations of face. As a result, these authors claim cultural specificity for either the concept of face itself or for the elevated status of negative face in Brown and Levinson's (1987) paradigm. The notion of face, these scholars contend, receives a different

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

21

interpretation in group-oriented cultures. For instance, the Japanese configuration of self is claimed to be distinct from the American (Ide 1977, cited in Kubota 1990). The boundary between self and in-group (e.g. family and intimate friends) is more clearly drawn in America, while the Japanese make a clearer distinction between the in-group and the outside world. A thin boundary between self and in-group creates interdependence among insiders (Doi 1971). The collective orientation of Japanese culture is manifested in its emphasis on empathy, belongingness, and dependency (Clancy 1986, Lebra 1976). Markus and Kitayama (1991) distinguish between independent and interdependent selves. They associate the independent self with Western cultures, which emphasize the separateness of individuals. Conversely, the interdependent self, associated with non-Western cultures, emphasizes the connectedness of members of society. Similar observations can be made in other cultures. Sifianou (1992, 1993) studies in-group and out-group orientation in Greek society, and argues that it encourages involvement and in-group relationships based on mutual interdependence. Nwoye (1992) characterizes the Igbo society as similarly group-oriented: the Igbo conceive of the relationship between self and others as "I and others" - and not as the "I versus others" relation prevalent in Western society. In cultures with a different social orientation, the notion of face and its role in the politeness system can vary considerably from practices customary in the West. In Japan, research shows, politeness is not driven by concerns regarding the maintenance of face, but by concerns regarding the maintenance of the place or position relative to others (Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1988). Consequently, the highly individualistic face proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), indicative of Western society, cannot, according to Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1988), serve as the underlying motivational impulse for politeness in Japanese society. A similar situation prevails in Chinese society, where, researchers maintain, the primary consideration in polite behavior is "relation acknowledgment" (Pan 1995). Mao (1994) assigns a distinct notion of face to Chinese culture, which cannot be fully subsumed by Brown and Levinson's precept, and postulates two interactional ideals: "ideal social identity" and "ideal individual autonomy," operative in Asian and Western societies, respectively. He coins the term "relative face orientation," conveying the idea that in China and Japan face is oriented towards "ideal social identity," whereas Brown and Levinson's notion of face is oriented towards "ideal individual autonomy." Nwoye (1992) establishes a similar dichotomy, contrasting "public/group face" (the notion of face in Igbo culture) and "private/individual face" (the notion efface in Western societies). Critics of the universality of face have also raised questions regarding the status of negative face within the politeness system. As mentioned, in

22

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

group-oriented societies the boundaries of personal territory are less well defined than in Western societies. The fact that their collective nature tends to devalue negative face wants casts doubt on Brown and Levinson's (1987) assertion that both positive and negative face wants exist in all cultures. Some researchers dispute that negative face wants can account for polite behavior in Japanese culture, citing its collective rather than individualistic orientation (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1988, 1989). The Chinese notion of face has spurred a similar debate. Researchers believe that neither of the two prevalent concepts, lian and mien-tzu, studied first by Hu (1944), is associated with negative face (Gu 1990). Even in European cultures, Sifianou (1992, 1993, 1995) argues, positive rather than negative face wants are more significant, as for example in Greek culture. Wierzbicka (1985) presents a similar case for Polish interaction. She raises objections to Western values of individualism manifested in politeness and other pragmatic theories in general, and cautions that these values are not necessarily shared by other cultures. In essence, the critique leveled against the universality claim rests on the perception that Brown and Levinson's (1987) notion of face, especially negative face, is individualistic in nature, and therefore cannot be readily applied to non-Western societies with a collective orientation. In defense of the universality of face, however, O'Driscoll (1996) notes that "a link between the concept of face itself and individualism has been forged" (7). He contends that even though Brown and Levinson (1987) envisioned face as the attribute of an individual, their notion does not necessarily imply a linkage between the concept of face and the cultural value of individualism. Several scholars have tried to synthesize the controversial arguments surrounding the universality of face. Brown and Levinson (1987) address cultural variability by asserting that positive and negative face are assigned specific values of content and weight in each culture. Fukada and Asato (2004) make the case that Brown and Levinson's universal theory of politeness is adequate to account for Japanese politeness, when the vertical and hierarchical structure of that country's society is taken into consideration. Watts et aL (1992) introduce the distinction between firstand second-order politeness - the everyday notion of what constitutes polite and impolite behavior (first-order), and politeness as a theoretical construct (second-order). According to the authors, most of the approaches pursuing universals in politeness necessarily involve secondorder notions of politeness. On the other hand, studies of politeness in particular cultural frameworks tend to involve first-order notions of politeness. The universal principles and the cultural relativity of politeness can be studied simultaneously, they conclude, as long as the two distinct levels of analysis are not confused. (See section 2.2.4 for a further discussion of these concepts.)

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

23

In a similar vein, O'Driscoll (1996) contrasts "foreground-conscious" and "preconscious" face. "Foreground-conscious" face is culture-specific, while "preconscious" face, which encompasses positive and negative face, is universal. He subscribes to the notion that positive and negative face wants are fundamental human wants, and observes that speakers frequently attend to these face wants unconsciously. The conscious desire for a "good" face, on the other hand, is variable since a culture determines what constitutes such a "good" face. O'Driscoll's (1996) conscious/preconscious attribution points to an important fact: much of our knowledge about face depends on "conscious" sources, such as introspective language data or research results in the fields of anthropology and social psychology. If O'Driscoll's premise (that speakers frequently attend to their face wants unconsciously) holds true, then the mentioned conscious sources may not be sufficient to describe linguistic politeness. More precisely, introspective sentential data may not be suitable to assess underlying unconscious face wants, since these are manifested in subtle mechanisms of talk which are only observable in natural data. Another pertinent issue concerning the notion of face is the relationship between positive and negative face. Brown and Levinson (1987) present these face categories as two aspects of fundamental human desire, without clarifying their relationship. They touch upon this subject in their discussion of the hierarchical order of superstrategies (68-71). Strategies attending to negative face are apparently chosen when performing a more serious face-threatening act, while positive strategies are associated with less serious face-threatening acts. This passage reveals that the authors consider positive and negative face as distinct and more or less opposite entities. Brown and Levinson's thoughts on the combined use of politeness strategies, discussed in the following section, provide deeper insights into their conception of positive and negative face. 2.2.1 A Multiple politeness strategies

Since politeness in language has been chiefly discussed in conjunction with the analysis of speech acts performed in individual utterances, cooccurring politeness strategies in connected discourse have not been the focus of Brown and Levinson's (1987) work. Their study had the general purpose of covering the potential range of strategies constituting the enactment of politeness, and did not include a more thorough investigation into the question of how multiple strategies co-occur and interact with each other. Yet there is a section where Brown and Levinson (1987) turn to the use of multiple politeness markings ("mixture of strategies" in their terms) (230-232). In the following paragraphs, I will review this section and pose several questions. Brown and Levinson's (1987) description of how multiple strategies are

24

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

integrated in talk, provides evidence that the authors viewed negative and positive politeness as distinct and more or less opposing directionalities on a linear scale. They list two ways of incorporating co-occurring strategies: (1) a speaker can create a "hybrid" strategy, located "somewhere between the two [i.e. the negative and positive strategies]" (230), and (2) a speaker can make a moment-by-moment "minute adjustment," which moves speaker and addressee "back and forth between approaching and distancing in their interaction" (231 ).* Brown and Levinson's (1987) argument is intuitively appealing since interactants constantly negotiate their relationship with each other. Okamoto (1999) presents data on honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversation, which empirically support this account. Okamoto demonstrates how speakers attempt to express "the right degree of formality/deference" (64) by "mixing" honorific and non-honorific expressions. In other words, speakers utilize both honorific and nonhonorific expressions in addressing the same interlocutor within a single speech event in order to create a desired interpersonal relationship. Nevertheless, Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization invites questions concerning the contrastive relationship between negative and positive strategies. The authors' proposition that these strategies function as approaching and distancing devices appears to situate them on a social distance scale, depicted as (A) in Figure 2.3. However, the conflation of negative and positive strategies with the dimension of distance puts special emphasis on the corresponding parameter D(S,H) in Brown and Levinson's formula of social variables affecting politeness: Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx. The other two parameters - power (P) and the absolute value of imposition (R) - remain unexplained.2 A discourse perspective reveals other concerns as well. Brown and Levinson's (1987) concept of strategy mixture applies only to the multiple politeness markings of a single speaker. It would be worth exploring whether employed strategies interact with one another across speakers. It also remains to be seen if minute adjustment and hybridization suffice to flexibly depict a phenomenon as complex as the moment-by-moment process of facework in a stretch of discourse. Valuable contributions to these issues have come from the field of discourse analysis (Scollon and Scollon 1981, 1983, 1995, Tannen 1984,

Figure 2.3 Illustration of Brown and Levinson's (1987) negative and positive strategies on social distance/politeness scales

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

25

1994) (see section 2.3.4 later in this chapter). Through the analysis of discourse data, researchers were able to show that independence and solidarity politeness (Scollon and Scollon 1995) or distancing and solidarity functions of indirectness (Tannen 1984) are seemingly opposing but actually interrelated notions, standing in a paradoxical relationship both entail and limit each other simultaneously. One could conclude that every communication is a double bind, since both independence and solidarity are present at all times. Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization of face and later alternative theories are oriented towards a parsimonious model of interactional aspects of human behavior. This orientation, however, may obscure our vision of subtle interactional activities related to interactants' "positive self-image." In other words, if we free ourselves from the overarching dual concepts of face (e.g. positive vs negative, solidarity vs independence), and if we put aside our desire to arrive at a categorical and parsimonious understanding of interpersonal behavior, we open ourselves to the possibility that something else - more ambiguous and chaotic, yet perhaps also richer in nuance - may come into view in the exploration of facework (see section 2.5 later in this chapter for an elaboration of this point). 2.2.2 Strategic and social index politeness Our next topic is the distinction between politeness as a strategic device and as a social index. Brown and Levinson (1987) consider politeness a strategic device that interlocutors employ to attend to negative and positive face wants. According to Rasper (1990), they see politeness as a redressive action employed to "counterbalance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts" (194). Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) present a similar conceptualization of politeness as a strategy of conflict or friction avoidance. However, questions were raised concerning the cross-cultural applicability of this view of politeness as a strategic device. In certain societies, as some scholars have pointed out, politeness operates "independently of the current goal a speaker intends to achieve" (Ide 1989: 196) and can therefore not be characterized as a strategic device. Researchers adhering to this school of thought distinguish between two kinds of politeness: strategic or volitional politeness, and discernment or social index politeness (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1982, 1989, Ide et al 1986, Rasper 1990). Strategic or volitional politeness is also considered politeness as strategic conflict avoidance, whereas discernment or social indexing politeness is "the linguistic expression of 'social warrants'" (Ide 1989: 196), which marks the speaker's recognition of expected norms. The concept of "discernment" is synonymous with the most basic meaning of the Japanese word wakimae, "conforming to the expected norm," which refers to an "almost automatic observation of socially-

26

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

agreed-upon rules" (Hill et al 1986: 348). After assessing role relations and situational factors, the choice of the appropriate linguistic form is almost obligatory and automatic. Discernment is perceived as independent of the speaker's current goal in interaction. A type of politeness similar to discernment has been observed in Chinese (Gu 1990, Mao 1994, Pan 1995) and in Igbo culture (Nwoye 1992), where "discerning what is appropriate and acting accordingly is much more important than acting according to strategies designed to accomplish specific objectives" (Nwoye 1992: 311). Nwoye distinguishes between politeness addressed to "group face" and that addressed to "individual face." Likewise, Gu (1990) distinguishes between "normative" and "instrumental" politeness. These dichotomies resemble the conceptual division between strategic and social index politeness. The key criteria in differentiating between these two kinds of linguistic politeness - strategic (volitional) politeness on the one hand, and discernment (social index) politeness on the other - are the speaker's intention and the degree of freedom in his or her choice of linguistic expressions (O'Driscoll 1996). As for the first, strategic politeness is generally used intentionally, and discernment unintentionally. This distinction is not always easy to make, however, since intentionality is elusive and difficult to detect in analysis. As O'Driscoll maintains, all utterances can be said to have purpose (and are therefore intentional), and even consciously goal-oriented utterances are constrained by social norms. Brown and Levinson (1987) apparently attempted to incorporate both the intentional and unintentional enactment of politeness into the term "strategy." The authors state that this term should cover both "innovative plans of action, which may still be (but need not be) unconscious," and routines or ready-made plans whose application is automatic (85). In other words, their definition of "strategy" includes both intentional and unconscious politeness. Regarding the second criterion, the optionality, or the degree of freedom of linguistic choice, Hill et ai (1986) claim that volitional politeness offers the speaker a "considerably more active choice [to select] from a relatively wider range of possibilities" (348), whereas in the case of discernment, the choice is mostly obligatory. However, the strictness of social obligation in conforming to an expected norm can vary not only from culture to culture, but also within the same culture from expression to expression and from situation to situation. For instance, both the conventionality of an expression and how politeness is marked in a particular language are factors that determine whether a politeness enactment is considered a social index. Within the same culture, one situation may allow more linguistic latitude than others. This situational variation may obscure the distinction between the two types of politeness solely on the basis of obligation.

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

27

Given that it is difficult to draw a clear dividing line, strategic politeness and discernment should be viewed as interrelated and complementary aspects of politeness, rather than distinct, mutually exclusive types of politeness (O'Driscoll 1996, Van De Walle 1993). Rasper (1990) proposes that future studies investigate "the exploitation of social markers in expressing strategic politeness" (197), admitting the possibility that socialindex politeness can be used strategically. In order to explore this possibility, it is important to examine variations in the enactment of socialindex politeness in naturalistic discourse data. Volitional (strategic) politeness and discernment have been observed in both Japan and the West, but studies suggest that politeness in Western societies is skewed towards strategic politeness, while politeness in Japan is predominantly discernment (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1982, Ide et al 1986). Although these observations may be the valid result of cross-linguistic comparisons, they may have partially contributed to the view that Japanese politeness is rigid and mandatory. Research establishing the central role of discernment in Japanese politeness is often based on data consisting of a single speech act assessed by a written questionnaire, correlating the subjects' judgment of situational factors with linguistic choice (Hill et al. 1986, Ide etaL 1986). Recent studies on Japanese honorifics, based on discourse-level conversational data, demonstrate flexible and diverse enactments of politeness (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1998, Maynard 1993, Okamoto 1999). The considerable variety of honorifics observed in these studies provides an alternative view of Japanese politeness. The diversity of Japanese politeness enactments, including honorifics, within larger stretches of discourse requires further study. 2.2.3 Sociolinguistic variables and politeness Inquiries into linguistic politeness face another critical issue: the identification of sociolinguistic variables affecting the use of politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson's (1987) original theory includes the formula of "weightiness of FTAs," which is measured as the sum of three variables: power, social distance, and an FTA's inherent degree of imposition. Prior to Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, Brown and Gilman (1960) attempted to account for pronoun usage in terms of two variables: power and solidarity. Among the "scales" that Leech (1983) introduces in his politeness theory, the social distance, authority, and costbenefit scales function in a similar way to Brown and Levinson's variables of distance, power, and degree of imposition, in determining the degree and type of politeness. Researchers continue to discuss these and other social and psychological variables affecting the enactment of politeness. A number of speech act studies focusing on first and second language performance have examined the effect of power and distance on politeness. They report

28

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

cross-cultural differences in the performance and perception of politeness in various speech acts, such as disagreements (Beebe and Takahashi 1989), refusals (Beebe el al 1990), requests (Blum-Kulka 1982, 1983, Blum-Kulka and House 1989, Ervin-Tripp 1976, Fraser et ai 1980), and apologies (Fraser 1981, Olshtain 1989). Wolfson (1988,1989) studied the influence of social distance and power on the amount of elaboration in talk, which may be a result of politeness concerns. Based on comparisons between intimate and non-intimate interlocutor groups, she developed her "bulge theory." It states that the power and distance between interlocutors affect the amount of elaboration in talk, and that the amount of linguistic elaboration forms a bulgeshaped curve along the scale of social distance. According to the author, speakers engage in more elaborated talk with status equals, friends, coworkers and acquaintances, than they do with intimates, status unequals or strangers. In the first case speakers are continually negotiating their relationship with their counterparts, while in the second case they have less need to negotiate relationships that are either secure or non-existent. Even though Wolfson did not relate her theory directly to politeness, the linguistic elements involved in elaboration seem to support such a link. A number of researchers took issue with Brown and Levinson's set of three sociolinguistic variables and added supplementary factors affecting politeness behavior to the list. Brown and Gilman (1989), in their study of politeness strategies in Shakespeare's tragedies, claim that degree of imposition and power, rather than social distance, affect the enactment of politeness. They argue that social distance must be distinguished from affect, and they demonstrate that the latter has an impact on politeness behavior. In addition to social distance among interlocutors, the metaphorical distance between interlocutors and conveyed information may also influence linguistic behavior (Kamio 1979, 1990). According to Kamio, information presented in conversation can be judged as belonging to the speaker, the addressee, or both. The judgment depends on the metaphorical distance between interlocutors and information; the person who is better acquainted with the information at the time of conversation is regarded as "nearer" to it. The content of an utterance can be shared by speaker and hearer (as their common territory of information), held only by the hearer (as the hearer's territory of information), or held only by the speaker (as the speaker's territory of information). Kamio (1979, 1990) reports that Japanese speakers vary their use of sentence-final forms, depending on their perception of information territory. For instance, when two people meet on a hot day, they are obviously both aware of the weather condition. In this situation, a speaker can remark atsui desu ne "it is hot, isn't it?", adding the final particle ne, but it would sound inappropriate to say atsui desu "it is hot" without the particle. Even though Kamio, too, does not refer directly to politeness in his study, his notion of

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

29

information territory is related to a type of face described by Heritage and Raymond (2005), namely the speaker's claim of epistemic authority (see Chapter 4 for a further discussion of this point). Other factors affecting politeness behavior include topic and goal of interaction (Blum-Kulka et ai 1985), age (Blum-Kulka et al 1985), type of speech event (Blum-Kulka 1990), type of offense (Holmes 1989), and gender (Brouwer 1982, Holmes 1986, 1988, 1989, Kemper 1984, Zimin 1981). The studies on interlocutors' gender reached opposing results. Some show that gender difference has a negligible effect (Kemper 1984, Zimin 1981), while others suggest that a speaker's gender does play a role (Holmes 1986, 1988, 1989). In a number of these studies, considerable cross-cultural differences have also been observed. Kasper (1990) categorizes sociolinguistic variables by differentiating context-external variables, such as the social factors of power and distance, and context-internal variables inherent in specific speech acts, such as the rank of imposition (R) of the act as formulated by Brown and Levinson (1987). A number of speech act studies have presented various R-factor components for specific speech acts (e.g. Blum-Kulka and House 1989, Holmes 1989, Olshtain 1989). These components are frequently associated with the rights and obligations of interlocutors; their weightiness shows cross-cultural variation. Several studies on sociolinguistic variables have demonstrated how difficult it is to determine which variables affect politeness at any given point of an interaction. Kasper (1990) encapsulates this dilemma in her remark that "what exactly the mechanics are of this delicate interplay of social, psychological and communicative processes remains a major issue for pragmaticists to address" (205). One factor contributing to this problem may be the correlational treatment of social variables and sentence-level speech enactments employed by many studies. Changing phenomena, in particular the processes of communication, are difficult to capture with a quantitative analytical framework. The practice of displaying and managing facework and politeness involves variable parameters and is best assessed by analyzing the phenomenon qualitatively within a longer unit of talk. Moreover, correlational studies cannot account for the varied use of politeness markers within a stretch of discourse, as reported by Cook (1996a, 1996b), Maynard (1993), and Okamoto (1999). Kasper (1990) poses the poignant question: how can a researcher know which contextual feature, from an infinite number of possible features, affects linguistic practice at any given point in talk? This question leads to another, more fundamental one, which concerns the notion of context itself, and the relationship between discourse and context. The studies on social variables cited above are based on the underlying assumption that there is a set of pre-existing contextual features enfolding and affecting discourse. Yet there are other approaches to discourse available (e.g. conversation analysis), which consider context

30

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

as "both a project and a product of the participants' actions" (Heritage 2004: 224). Discussing the use of conversation analysis in research on institutional discourse, Heritage states: The assumption is that it is fundamentally through interaction that context is built, invoked, and managed, and that it is through interaction that institutional imperatives originating from outside the interaction are evidenced and made real and enforceable for the participants. (224) If we transfer this line of thought to politeness and facework, it may be premature to consider the relationship between social variables (context) and politeness enactment as unidirectional (i.e. social variables affect politeness). Rather, a discursive treatment of politeness and facework may have to consider not only the context-dependent nature of discourse but also the contextual elements occasioned in discourse. If a researcher decides to select certain relevant aspects of contextual information (e.g. speaker A's higher social status relative to speaker B's) and unquestioningly interprets a stretch of discourse according to this information (e.g. B recognizes A's higher status and shows deference), the analysis ends up reproducing common-sense knowledge without providing original insights. If, on the other hand, we focus on participants' discursive practices and start from contextual features occasioned in discourse, we may sidestep the cycle of commonsensical reproduction (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of the treatment of context in this study). 2.2.4 First- and second-order politeness (poKtenessl and politeness2) As pointed out in section 2.2.1.3, reviewing the debate on the universality of politeness, Watts et al (1992) introduced the dual concept of first- and second-order politeness, termed by Eelen (2001) as politenessl and politeness2, respectively. Politenessl refers to the common-sense, lay notion of politeness, the everyday understanding of what constitutes polite and impolite behavior, while politeness2 refers to politeness as a theoretical and scientific construct Watts et aL (1992) maintain that the simultaneous examination of universal principles (which are primarily the subject of politeness2) and cultural relativity (requiring references to politenessl in particular cultural frameworks) can be accomplished in politeness research, as long as the two levels of analysis are not confused. Although insightful, the introduction of two different levels of politeness poses practical difficulties. Since researchers observe the same linguistic behavior regardless of whether their study focuses on first- or second-order politeness, it is often not easy to draw a clear distinction between the two levels. As Eelen (2001) remarks, "our scientific efforts should be aimed primarily at understanding the (social and linguistic) world we live in, so it is to this real world that our attention should be

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

31

directed" (252). Furthermore, researchers continually create their own levels of abstraction that may or may not correspond to the notion of second-order politeness of Watts et al (1992). As a result, Eelen (1999) comments that the relationship between first- and second-order politeness is "a bit unclear to say the least" (167). Eelen (2001) gives a detailed description of politeness 1 and politeness2. Many existing politeness theories, he maintains, fail to recognize the distinction between these two concepts, which mirrors the emic/etic distinction established by Pike (1967). The emic perspective is relevant to insiders, while the etic description refers to outsider accounts of participant behavior. A methodology that does not establish a clear boundary between hearer and researcher, according to Eelen (2001), can result in the contamination of one notion by the other: the researcher imitates the hearer's evaluative behavior while claiming to capture the behavior in scientific terms. In Eelen's (2001) judgment, this contamination leads to "the essentially normative nature of most theories, and their simultaneous denial of any such prescriptive intent" (242). He explains: They [i.e. most politeness theories] are normative in that they confound their own position with that of the everyday hearer who is engaged in normative evaluations, and they deny prescriptivism because they are not aware of this confusion between the etic and emic viewpoints. (242) Eelen (2001) concludes that a theory of politeness should first and foremost be concerned with the evaluation of politenessl (i.e. the evaluation of the everyday phenomenon of politeness). His conceptualization of politenessl comprises three distinct phenomena: actors' expressive behavior or politeness encoded in speech, actors' evaluations about other people's interactional behavior, and actors' metapragmatic discourse about politeness. While most of the politeness theories reviewed earlier in this chapter (i.e. Brown and Levinson 1987, Fraser 1990, Lakoff 1973, Leech 1983) concern themselves primarily with politeness2, there are researchers who study what Eelen (2001) calls "metapragmatic" politenessl with reference to a particular period of time or a particular cultural framework. BlumKulka (1990, 1992) introduces the results of ethnographic interviews in which Israeli families were probed for their notions of politeness within their family life and within Israeli culture. Experimental research conducted by Ide et al (1992) assesses the extent to which adjectives such as "polite," "friendly," or "appropriate" (and their Japanese equivalents) correlate in a questionnaire completed by Japanese and American speakers. They found that "politeness" correlates with "friendliness" in the American data, but that no such relationship exists in the Japanese data. Haugh (2004) compares the notion of politeness in English with its Japanese equivalents, teinei, reigi tadashii, and keii hyogen. He asserts

32

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

that these terms encompass slightly different conceptual ranges, which give rise to different ways of expressing politeness. Other researchers recognize the need to analyze interactants' expressions and evaluations of politeness 1. Watts (2003), for instance, explicitly stresses the importance of politeness 1: A theory of linguistic (im)politeness should take as its focus the ways in which the members of a social group conceptualise (im)politeness as they participate in socio-communicative verbal interaction. In other words, it should concern itself with first-order politeness (or politenessl). (27) A critical assessment of the politenessl/politeness2 dichotomy leads directly to an examination of how politeness is realized in discourse. At the same time, questions remain as to what aspects of politenessl should receive primary attention, how politenessl can be examined, and how the relationship between politenessl and politeness2 should be addressed. So far, this chapter has summarized related issues pertaining to the notion of face, types of politeness, sociolinguistic variables affecting politeness, and first- and second-order politeness. Discrepancies in the literature, we have surmised, are partly due to the use of introspective, sentence-level language data, and partly due to the conception of politeness as a function of static sociolinguistic variables. An analysis of naturalistic extended-discourse data, therefore, becomes pertinent to the study of politeness as a dynamic phenomenon.

2.3 Discourse Analysis and Politeness Given the premise stated above, this section provides an overview of how politeness relates to different approaches to discourse. First, it describes the connection between speech-act-related studies and politeness. Second, it introduces the study of arguments and verbal disputes. Finally, it presents several research traditions for analyzing verbal interactions conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics - and discusses how the key concepts of these approaches can relate to linguistic politeness.

2.3.1 Politeness and speech act studies

The strong tie between politeness and speech act studies derives from the fact that the core concept of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, the face-threatening act (FTA), has its roots in speech act theory.3 Even though speech act studies generally rely on sentence-level analysis, they do provide an analytical tool applicable to discourse-level analysis.

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

33

Recent studies have incorporated discourse-level performance into the analysis of speech actions. Extensive studies based on cross-cultural data of diverse speech acts have provided a deeper understanding of politeness strategies. In speech act studies, the notion of politeness is usually conceptualized as the mitigation of a hearer-costly act For example, the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), an early comprehensive study of speech acts, investigated requests and apologies in British, American and Australian English, Canadian French, Danish, German, and Hebrew (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984, Blum-Kulka et al 1989). Studies exist on FTAs such as apologies (Bergman and Rasper 1993, Cohen and Olshtain 1981, Coulmas 1981, Holmes 1989, Olshtain 1983, 1989, Olshtain and Cohen 1983, Owen 1983), refusals (Beebe and Cummings 1996, Beebe et al 1990), requests (Blum-Kulka 1987, 1989, Blum-Kulka and House 1989, Blum-Kulka et al 1985, Weizman 1989, 1993), disagreements (Beebe and Takahashi 1989, D'Amico-Reisner 1983, Kakava 1993), and complaints (House and Kasper 1981, Olshtain and Weinbach 1987). Politeness strategies have also been analyzed as a maximization of hearer benefits, for example in research on compliments (Herbert 1989, Holmes 1986, 1988, Manes 1983, Wolfson 1983). Brown and Levinson (1987) characterize the relationship between their notion of FTAs and speech acts as follows: "Face-threatening acts" or FTAs need not be realized in sentence-like units, and the upshot of all this is that we must now acknowledge that the speech act categories that we employed were an under-analyzed shorthand, but one which, were we to try again today, would still be hard to avoid. (10-11) Speech act based studies have been criticized for relying heavily on sentence-level analysis. Since empirical research on linguistic politeness often developed in conjunction with the study of speech acts, the discourse-level analysis of politeness strategies has largely been neglected in spite of Brown and Levinson's precautions cited above. Some researchers have attempted to incorporate discourse-level analysis into speech act studies. Held's (1989) work on requests demonstrates that certain politeness strategies occur in relation to the function and placement of requestive behavior in a discourse sequence. Blum-Kulka (1990) suggests that discourse organization and conversational management can be seen as a component of politeness strategies in performing requests. Studies of speech act performance in first and second languages evaluate discourse data gathered from role plays (e.g. Houck and Gass 1996, Scarcella 1979, Trosborg 1987, 1995) and from the observation of authentic discourse (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1993, Beebe and

34

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Cummings 1996, Ellis 1992, Kanagy and Igarashi 1997, Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig 2001, Wolfson 1981). Even though earlier speech act studies tended to focus on sentence-level analysis, studies on specific speech acts are indispensable resources for the development of politeness research, and both these disciplines, speech act studies and politeness studies, benefit from each other. For instance, speech act studies contributed functional notions such as upgraders, downgraders, and grounders, which are useful in discerning politeness in sentence- or discourse-level analysis. 2.3.2 Face-threatening acts and conflict talk

Since politeness studies work with the notion of face-threatening acts (FTAs), discourse events that contain a series of such acts are often associated with politeness. A pertinent subfield of discourse analysis is the study of arguments and verbal disputes, since one of the defining qualities of a dispute is the face threat it engenders. Various linguistic features analyzed in these studies relate to politeness strategies (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1993, D'Amico-Reisner 1983). Disputes and arguments are not just regarded as face-threatening activities, however. Studies of conflict talk among children and adolescents often depict conflict talk as status- and solidarity-building activities (Boggs 1978, Eckert 1990, Eder 1990, Eisenberg and Garvey 1981, Emihovich 1986, Goodwin 1983, Goodwin and Goodwin 1990, Katriel 1985). In certain cultures, such as the African-American (Kochman 1981, Labov 1972) and Jewish community (Schiffrin 1984, 1985, 1990), disputes are considered solidarity-building. In certain settings, such as the courtroom (Atkinson and Drew 1979, Conley and O'Barr 1990, Lakoff 1989, 1990) and in therapy sessions (Labov and Fanshel 1977, Lakoff 1989, 1990), disputes are expected rather than avoided, and the strategies encountered in these settings differ from those described in other works on disputes. A number of research projects based on discourse-level analysis have incorporated the notion of linguistic politeness, although their objective was not to study politeness per se. These are beneficial to politeness studies in two ways: (1) they emphasize the significance of social factors affecting politeness strategies (e.g. discourse setting and interlocutors' attributes); and (2) they provide a methodology for the analysis of discourse strategies related to linguistic politeness. In research on sentence- and discourse-level FTAs, the discourse-level analysis of politeness is achieved either by describing discourse-level strategies or by studying verbal disputes, a form of discourse-level FTA. Brown and Levinson's (1987) original work itself contains discourse-level strategies. Although the authors admit that their politeness theory largely neglected conversational structure, their categories of positive and negative politeness strategies do include more than a few discourse-level items such as safe topics, repetition, and small talk. Their definition of off-

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

35

record strategies implicitly acknowledges the relevance of larger structural dimensions. Brown and Levinson argue that conversational plans are hierarchical and that conversational understanding is achieved by reconstructing the speaker's intent above the utterance level. They seem to recognize that some strategies can be captured effectively only if we follow their realization through a sequence of utterances, yet they did not develop this argument to a substantial degree. Towards the end of their introduction to the 1987 reissue, Brown and Levinson address the importance of discourse-level analysis. They state that their cognitive approach to interaction falls short in accounting for the "emergent," process-oriented character of social interaction, and that "[w]ork on interaction as a system ... remains a fundamental research priority, and the area from which improved conceptualizations of politeness are most likely to emerge" (48). In the field of discourse analysis, researchers often discuss topics related to politeness and facework. Even though politeness issues are seldom the focus of discourse analytic studies, their analytical approach is pertinent to elucidating facework and politeness. The next section attempts to establish a connection between discourse analysis and politeness, in order to lay the groundwork for the discursive analysis of linguistic politeness.4 2.3.3 Politeness and conversation analysis

Conversation analysis has been developed to study the social organization of everyday talk (e.g. Sacks et al 1974). By producing systematic descriptions of recurrent structural characteristics of talk-in-interaction, it aims to discover systems of discourse by which individuals create social order. A number of studies within the conversation analytic approach discuss organizational features of talk, such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, pre-sequences, repair construction, overlap, and topic organization. The speech objects they examine include non-lexical and quasi-lexical speech objects, such as laughter, pause, and response tokens. More recent contributions analyze nonverbal behaviors such as gaze and body movement as part of interactional behavior. Conversation analysis investigates characteristics of recurrent sequences of interaction to identify the normative expectations that underpin action sequences. Since these normative expectations relate to appropriateness and politeness, several conversation analytic concepts are relevant to the study of linguistic politeness. Preference organization is one of them. The notion of "preference" characterizes the unequal status attached to alternative second parts of adjacency pairs (e.g. agreeing or disagreeing on an assessment). Some second pair parts are routinely preferred while others are dispreferred. Preference does not refer to personal desires or psychological dispositions of speakers, but rather to recurrent sequential and turn-organizational features of alternative actions (Pomerantz 1984,

36

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Sacks 1987, Schegloff et al. 1977). Second pair parts recurrently exhibit a set of distinct features, depending on whether they are preferred or dispreferred. Researchers found that a variety of first pair parts have preferred and dispreferred second parts (see Table 2.1). While preferred actions are usually performed directly with little or no delay, dispreferred actions exhibit one or more of the following features: (1) delay of delivery within a turn or across several turns; (2) preface and qualification accompanying the second pair within the same turn; (3) mitigated or indirect performance; and (4) accounts or explanations of why the action is performed. Table 2.1 First parts and their preferred and dispreferred second parts Second Parts

First Parts

request offer invitation assessment question

Preferred

Dispreferred

acceptance acceptance acceptance agreement expected answer

refusal refusal refusal disagreement unexpected answer or non-answer

(Adapted from Levinson 1983: 336) Some of the features of dispreferred sequences are similar to politeness strategies in Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework: they introduce types of preface accompanying dispreferred actions, such as token agreement and hedging expressions, as examples of politeness strategies. For instance, a token agreement is considered a positive politeness strategy, displaying the speaker's desire to agree with the hearer. Thus, the same linguistic markers are listed as politeness strategies attending interactants' face wants in Brown and Levinson's (1987) study and as prefacing elements marking dispreferred actions in the conversation analytic framework. Even though it is plausible to assume some kind of face consideration underlying preference organization, it would be premature to draw a direct connection between dispreferred and face-threatening acts or between preferred and non-face-threatening acts.5 Adherents of the "purist" tradition of conversation analysis pay secondary attention to interactants' cognition and intention, since their analytical methodology requires that context relevance be grounded in interaction. The research conducted by this strain of conversation analysis aims to describe organizational features of talk with minimal reference to the interactants' psychological state. Consequently, the notion of polite-

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

37

ness, defined in terms of the underlying interpersonal motivation of talk, has no place within "purist" conceptions of conversation analysis. Despite this line of reasoning, there are researchers who maintain that face considerations can be associated with notions advanced by the conversation analytic approach (Heritage 1989, Heritage and Raymond 2005, Lerner 1996, Levinson 1983, Owen 1983, Taylor and Cameron 1987). Although preference is thought to be a purely structural concept referring to structural markedness, the fact that an act is marked or "dispreferred" can be accounted for by the interlocutors' attempt to maintain each other's face and to offset the potentially face-threatening import of that particular act. Levinson (1983) points out that one characteristic of dispreferred actions is that "they tend to be avoided" (333), implying the psychological mechanism of preference. Heritage (1989) explicitly states that "[t]he role of preference organisation in relation to a wide variety of conversational actions appears to be strongly associated with the avoidance of threats to 'face'" (26-27). Preference organization, assert Heritage and Raymond (2005), has the function "to maximize the likelihood of affiliative, socially solidary actions, and to minimize the consequences of disaffiliative, socially divisive ones" (16). Lerner (1996) attempts to present face concerns in interactional terms, and illustrates how anticipatory completion can convert a structurally dispreferred action (e.g. disagreement) into a preferred alternative (e.g. agreement). Since, as Lerner maintains, face is recognizable as an expression of self, his description of "self' and "other" in anticipatory completion segments establishes a site in which we can locate face in talkin-interaction. The rationale for connecting preference organization and facework lies in the dual aspect of norms and normality, as pointed out by Eelen (2001), who states that normality has both a moral evaluative aspect and a purely numerical aspect, and that "both sides are connected in that people generally follow the rules because they know about the moral evaluations involved" (140). Eelen's argument supports the supposition that preference is associated with facework. Another valuable insight that research on facework can gain from the conversation analytic perspective is its interest in participant identity and membership categorization occasioned and displayed in discourse (see section 2.5.3 for a further discussion of the relationship between identity and face). Wooffitt and Clark (1998) contrast the conversation analytic treatment of identity with other more traditional approaches as follows: Those studies regard social identity in terms of lay or vernacular social categories, the ascription of which is inextricably tied to the details of talk-in-interaction. This is a radical departure from those psychological (and commonsense) accounts which treat identity as a fixed set of properties or operations residing in the individual's cognitive make up,

38

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

and which regard language as a largely docile medium through which dimensions of a person's identity (among other psychological characteristics) may receive occasional expression. (107) Within the conversation analytic framework, interactants' identity is indexically ascribed and made accountable in discourse. Since interactants' identity and face are closely related, such treatment of identity opens up the possibility of a similar treatment of face, as pursued in this study (see section 2.5.3 below for a further discussion of this point). Discursive psychology uses conversation analysis as its main analytical framework. While conversation analysis is mainly concerned with organizational features of talk, discursive psychology attempts to explore psychological notions (e.g. investments and stakes) in terms of their role in talk and text For instance, researchers in discursive psychology observe how speakers display their own activities as rational, sensitive, or justifiable, and how they construct their interactional position as neutral and unbiased. Some of these topics are closely related to the notion of face as defined by Gofrman (1967) - "the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself' (61). As we will see in later sections, this parallel points to the possibility of reconsidering the notion of face and formulating the analytic approach to facework utilized in this study (see section 2.5 and Chapter 3 for a further discussion). 23A Politeness and interactional sociolinguistics Interactional sociolinguistics proceeds from the fundamental premises that meaning is interactionally created, that interpretation is based on shared expectations among interlocutors, and that interlocutors' interpretations of context are crucial to understanding discourse. As a research discipline, it focuses on cross-cultural communication, delineating how different cultural backgrounds influence a speaker's interpretation of interaction. Several concepts of interactional sociolinguistics are closely linked to the notions of politeness and facework: frame in discourse, power and solidarity, and the treatment of discourse markers. According to the tenets of interactional sociolinguistics, interactants make sense of ongoing discourse by creating an interpretive frame, "a set of expectations which rests on previous experience" (Gumperz 1982: 102). Since the interaction is dynamic, frames are interactive and continually redefined. Participants use interpretive frames to mutually read and negotiate interactional meaning. Frames in discourse become particularly constructive in the discussion of politeness as an evaluative phenomenon. The evaluation of speech as either polite or impolite reflects a particular conversational frame. An utterance can be perceived as polite or appropriate when it occurs within the frame of intimate talk, and can acquire an offensive quality when it comes from a bystander with whom no such intimate frame exists.

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

39

Gumperz (1982) illustrates how interactants signal their interpretive frames by means of varying "contextualization cues" - linguistic and paralinguistic features of talk signaling speakers' conversational intent These cues include lexical and syntactic choices, tone of voice, and intonation of utterances. Speakers from different cultural backgrounds have their own ways to signal conversational intent or, in other words, they utilize specific sets of contextualization cues. Tannen (1984) terms a set of cues employed by a group of people "conversational style." Speakers from different countries, different regions of the same country, or different ethnic backgrounds may exhibit different styles. Tannen identified gender-based differences in conversational style in American middle-class society. Tannen (1984) asserts that conversational style "results from the need to serve basic human needs in interaction" (19). Building on concepts developed by Brown and Gilman (1960), she positions power and solidarity as the two motivating factors underlying stylistic choices. Tannen (1984) writes that power and solidarity are "not precisely parallel" (15), but are in fact similar to Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization of negative and positive face wants. Evidently, Tannen interprets Brown and Levinson's positive politeness as a rapport- or solidarity-building strategy, and their negative politeness as a deference or distancing strategy. Scollon and Scollon (1983, 1995) present similar interpretations. Tannen (1984, 1986, 1994) depicts the relationship between power and solidarity that emerges in conversation. In a summary of her earlier work (1984, 1986), Tannen (1994) concedes that "although power and solidarity, closeness and distance, seem at first to be opposites, each also entails the other", and therefore the relationship between them is "paradoxical" (22). Tannen (1994) contrasts the unidimensional with the multidimensional model of conceptualizing power, solidarity, and related notions. She begins by introducing the unidimensional model which, she claims, reflects American assumptions. This model places power and solidarity on a single continuum, which also represents symmetry/asymmetry, hierarchy/equality, and distance/closeness, as shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Unidimensional model (Adapted from Tannen 1994: 27)

40

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Figure 2.5 Multidimensional model (Adapted from Tannen 1994: 28) Tannen (1994) then represents the relation between power and solidarity as a multidimensional grid of intersecting continua, as shown in Figure 2.5. The typical employer/employee relationship can be found in area B, the relationship between siblings in area C. Both attributions are based on prevalent American conventions. However, Tannen's crosscultural perspective includes other relations, such as the Japanese amae (a term originally coined by Doi [1971]), typified by parent-child or employer-employee relationships (Yamada 1992). Amae affiliations are characterized by tight hierarchical interdependence and are therefore located in area A of Tannen's multidimensional model. It is interesting to note that Tannen's dimensions of power and solidarity and the corresponding examples appear to be equivalent to Brown and Levinson's (1987) sociolinguistic variables, namely power and distance. In Brown and Levinson's model, negative and positive face wants are conceived as motivational factors underlying polite behavior, while sociolinguistic variables are contextual factors determining the "weightiness" of the FTA and consequently affect the enactment of politeness. These two sets of notions - positive/negative face wants and sociolinguistic variables - are discussed separately in Brown and Levinson's work, with little elaboration on their relationship. In Tannen's model, power and solidarity are motivational factors underlying the choice of linguistic styles as well as contextual features, namely the interpersonal relations between interlocutors. As a result, it remains questionable whether one can equate Brown and Levinson's pair of terms, negative and positive politeness, with Tannen's pair, power and solidarity. Yet Tannen's discussion proves insightful in several ways. First, the view of power and solidarity not as opposites, but as paradoxical phenomena entailing each other, can guide us in our analysis of interactionally delicate actions such as teasing and troubles talk, which tend to be considered as both face-threatening and face-saving. Second, Tannen (1984) considers elements of speech style such as overlap, pause, silence, and narrative strategy, as polysemous - i.e. they contribute to both solidarity and power. Similar claims might be made about other linguistic

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

41

devices in relation to interactants' face. More precisely, it is conceivable that a linguistic device can assume a polysemous function in discourse, serving different types of face. Relevant to this discussion is another study in the field of interactional sociolinguistics, Schiffrin's (1987) analysis of discourse markers. Schiffrin describes how several discourse markers (oh, well, now, then, or, you know, I mean, etc.) function on various "planes" of talk, which jointly contribute to both the local and global coherence of talk. These planes of talk include exchange structures, action structures, idea structures, participation frameworks, and information states. In Schiffrin's analysis, several functions of markers appear to be associated with politeness. For instance, or presents the hearer with options, while you know adjusts the interactional alignment between speaker and hearer. Schiffrin's (1987) thorough analysis of marker function stands in contrast to the lack of similarly detailed efforts in studies of linguistic politeness, despite Brown and Levinson's (1987) remark that "politeness is ... not communicated by 'markers' or 'mitigators' in a simple signaling fashion" (22). Politeness research may benefit from the observation of action-oriented variances in the use of linguistic markers. This section has summarized the relationship between studies of politeness and discourse. Even though early research on linguistic politeness relied primarily on sentential-level analysis, various discourse analytic approaches either explicitly or implicitly incorporated the notion of face or politeness into their analysis. Most relevant are features of dispreferred second parts in conversation analysis; the linguistic construction of stakes, investments, and other elements of speaker subjectivity in discursive psychology; and the notion of power and solidarity in interactional sociolinguistics. There is a link connecting politeness studies with these discourse analytic approaches - the notion of face. For example, face considerations are thought to underlie preference organization; several subjectivity categories established by discursive psychology can be considered as types of face; and Tannen's notion of power and solidarity has been associated with positive and negative face. Taking this observation one step further, this study attempts to reconceptualize the notion of face in a way that strengthens the tie between politeness and discourse studies (see section 2.5 for a more detailed discussion of the reconceptualization of face).

2.4 Discursive Approaches to Politeness As illustrated in section 2.2, several interrelated issues concerning linguistic politeness call for a broader scope of analysis. In fact, a recent trend in politeness research shows a marked shift from a sentential to a

42

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

discursive framework. This section presents an overview of such efforts and reviews several unresolved concerns. In his critique of politeness theories, Eelen (2001) cites a common presupposition underlying most of these constructs: they adopt, albeit unintentionally, a Parsonian worldview, where the social/cultural level constitutes an independent reality residing on a cybernetically higher level than the individual, in the sense that social values and systems of social norms - which are internalized during socialization - are a priori regulative factors determining the individual's behaviour. (244) Because of this presupposition, Eelen (2001) concludes, existing theories of politeness manifest a twofold conceptual bias: they tend to emphasize the polite side of the polite/impolite spectrum, and they conceptualize politeness primarily as a mode of speaker production rather than one of hearer evaluation. As mentioned in the discussion on sociolinguistic variables (section 2.2.3) and on first- and second-order politeness (section 2.2.4), Eelen (2001) is equally critical of the analytical process adopted by current politeness research, in which researchers mimic the hearers" interpretation and still claim their reasoning is scientific. As a result, Eelen (2001) comments that politeness theory reproduces researchers' commonsense knowledge, and thus "fails to provide any original insights beyond those already available on the intuitive level" (246). To remedy the shortcomings uncovered by his critique, Eelen (2001) suggests an alternative view of politeness. As a guiding principle, he chooses Bourdieu's (1977, 1991) notion of habitus, defined as "systems of dispositions which can be 'regulated' and 'regular' without in any way being the product of obedience to rules," and which are "collectively orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conductor" (Bourdieu 1977: 72). Habitus orients people's actions by giving them a "feel for the game," without strictly determining their actions (Bourdieu 1991). In Eelen's (2001) estimation, empirical politeness research must begin with politenessl, and it must take into full account the hearer's position and evaluative participation in discourse. Eelen, who conceived of his work mainly as a critique, does not include a concrete methodology for politeness research in his thesis. Watts (2003) takes up Eelen's (2001) proposals, devising an analytical tool as well as a discursive model of politeness. He claims that the analytical object of any theory of politeness should be the lay conception of politeness (politenessl), and he subscribes to a Bourdieuan view of society. Watts (2003) distinguishes between polite, impolite, and politic (i.e. socially expected) behavior, and postulates that politeness is a situated evaluation made by participants in an emergent network (i.e. a

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

43

network of social links among participants set up in the course of interaction). This evaluation process can be traced by inference mechanisms based on Sperber and Wilson's (1995) relevance theory. Locher (2004), in her analysis of power and politeness in disagreement sequences, adopts the same tripartite partition of polite, impolite, and politic behavior. She cites the relevance theory as a fundamental influence on her thinking, but does not refer to cognitive inferential processes in her analysis. In her work on the relationship between gender and politeness, Mills (2003) agrees with Eelen's (2001) caveat that researchers should be aware of issues of social struggle in the assessment of politeness, and argues for their inclusion in the scope of analysis. In her attempt to develop a community-based, discursive model of gender and politeness, she draws on the notion of community of practice (cf. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1999, Wenger 1998): a group of people drawn together to perform a particular task. Based on these precepts, Mills (2003) describes how individuals negotiate norms (or what they assume to be norms) within a particular community of practice. Mills (2003) rejects the claim that most people tend to agree about what is polite and what is not. Instead, she asserts that "disagreement about politeness, and particularly about impoliteness, is one of the constituent and defining features of politeness" (6). Recognizing how difficult it is to capture the complexity of an ongoing conversation, Mills uses various types of data (e.g. recorded conversations, structured interviews, anecdotes), from which she extracts rich information about the role of stereotypes and about the ways in which individuals assess politeness. In their inquiry into issues of gender and politeness, Holmes and colleagues (e.g. Holmes and Schnurr 2005) utilize the notion of community of practice as well. Incorporating the dual concept of positive and negative face into their working concept of "relational practice'* (Holmes and Schnurr 2005: 125), they analyze discourse data situated in a particular workplace's community of practice. Other scholars have attempted to approach discursive politeness from a quantitative research paradigm. Usami (2001) evaluates the unmarked level of honorific usage in dyadic Japanese discourse between newly acquainted pairs, and interprets the deviation from the unmarked usage as a politeness strategy. Terkourafi (2001), in her frame-based study on politeness in Cypriot Greek data, conceives of politeness as regularities in the co-occurrence of linguistic expressions and components of the extralinguistic context, which are represented holistically as "frames." The regular occurrence of unchallenged realizations of particular acts, she infers, creates the perception of politeness. Terkourafi's (2005) conceptualization of politeness as regularity, which enables "the sociohistorically constrained 'preferred' interpretation of expression x" (254), is reminiscent of the conversation analytic notion of preference,

44

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

even though her quantitative orientation is distinct from the qualitative approach prevalent in conversation analysis. We turn now to interactional and conversational frameworks of politeness. Arundale (1999) takes up Brown and Levinson's (1987) prediction that future politeness studies will develop within "work on interaction as a system" (48). From this starting point, Arundale develops an alternative model of politeness, in which communication and politeness are regarded as dynamic and emergent phenomena framed within a broader and complex "co-constituting model of communication" (127). On a more practical level, Okamoto (1999) details the usage of mixed honorifics in Japanese connected discourse and, by analyzing newspaper articles, reports various competing evaluations attached to honorific usage in Japanese society. Rasper (2004) depicts politeness constructed in ongoing interaction in language proficiency interviews. She examines multiple questions performed on the same referential point and claims that the question versions often differ in their social stance, and are therefore differentially polite. Cook (2006) analyzes style shifts in Japanese academic consultation discourse. She illustrates how participants' social relations and social personae are displayed in a moment-by-moment fashion as the interaction unfolds. All studies reviewed in this section treat politeness as a discursive phenomenon, yet they exhibit considerable variation in their analytical frameworks, stemming from divergent interpretations of the terms "discourse" and "politeness." Despite their apparent differences, most of these studies share the following premises: they consider politeness a situated phenomenon in a particular group and context, termed a community of practice (Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999, Mills 2003), emergent network (Locher 2004, Watts 2003), or frame (Terkourafi 2005); and they reject an act-by-act, speaker-centered approach to politeness and choose interaction as the object of study instead, focusing not only on the speakers' production but also on the hearers' evaluation of prior utterances. Despite these shared theoretical inclinations, there appears to be little agreement among discursive politeness studies on the most essential terminology - that of "politeness" itself. Some argue for a tripartite division into polite, politic, and impolite behavior (Locher 2004, Watts 2003), and accept within that set of attributes only those behaviors as polite, which are "beyond what is perceived to be appropriate" (Watts 2003: 21). Others consider all actions unchallenged in interaction as polite (Terkourafi 2005), or they look to participants' reported feelings (e.g. whether they perceived a certain interaction as polite or impolite) as indicators to determine politeness (Mills 2003). This diversity is caused by the methodological difficulties researchers encounter when they attempt to make politeness analyzable in discourse. Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003) contend that the subject of politeness

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

45

research ought to be the discursive struggle over politeness 1, and that researchers should focus on evaluative moments in which such struggles manifest themselves. Theoretically appealing as they are, practical difficulties emerge as soon as one attempts to pin down such "evaluative moments." For one, discursive struggle over politeness 1 can mean at least two different things, depending on how we define politenessl. If one takes Eelen's "metapragmatic politenessl" as the valid definition, then the discursive struggle will manifest itself when people talk about what (im) politeness (or its equivalent in other languages) means (cf. Blum-Kulka 1992). Appraising this type of approach, Terkourafi (2005) issues the warning that "eliciting participants meta-linguistic comments about politeness runs the danger of becoming an exercise in the lexical semantics of the lexeme 'politeness,' if we lack the speaker-independent definition of politeness" (242). If we choose "politeness-as-action" or "expressive and/or evaluative politenessl" (Eelen 2001: 32) as our definition of politenessl, then the "discursive struggle over politenessl" occurs when participants do not agree whether a certain behavior is polite or not, and an evaluative moment has arrived when participants explicitly evaluate some preceding act as polite or impolite. As Watts (2003) states, "first-order evaluations ... are often not expressed in terms of the cluster of adjectives associated with (im)politeness" (8). Participants whose utterances are examined in discursive politeness studies rarely evaluate prior utterances explicitly as polite or impolite. In this context, an analysis of politeness depending on hearer expectation presumes the researcher's awareness of the range of hearer expectations in order to identify an inexplicit participant reaction as an evaluation of politeness, or to reliably detect (im) politeness in the absence of any relevant participant reaction. Researchers recognize the challenge involved in such an analytical practice. Watts (2003) recommends that "if the researcher wishes to locate polite behaviour, s/he must begin by examining very closely what happens in the flow of social interaction in order to identify the kinds of behaviour that seem to warrant the attribution of the term 'polite'" (8). Mills (2003) devises a method that incorporates various types of data, such as tape recordings, participants' comments on recorded conversations, anecdotes, and the researcher's own interpretation of experienced events. These approaches open up a promising line of study. Researchers who attempt to identify instances of politenessl are faced with the difficulty of looking into a hearer's cognition and of determining his or her expectation concerning what is appropriate or inappropriate in an interaction. Mills (2003) states that capturing the in-the-moment evaluation of (im) politeness is often impossible since it depends on hearer expectation. Yet if politeness research, trying to avoid this difficulty, confines its

46

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

object of study exclusively to the "discursive struggle over politenessl" (i.e. when participants do not agree whether a certain behavior is polite or not, and when participants explicitly evaluate some preceding act as polite or impolite), it would lose sight of politeness that passes unnoticed (Rasper 1990) or is not commented on as such in discourse. Followed strictly, such a stringent effort to locate explicit politenessl in discourse limits our scope of analysis considerably. Politeness research has gained currency in diverse scientific disciplines because of its omnipresence in everyday language use. We forgo its overarching analytical potential if we confine our analysis to scarce moments in which first-order evaluations are plainly observable in discourse. Instead of limiting the object of analysis to explicit evaluative moments in which actors convey their assessment of politeness, this study takes as its focal point the notion of face. Centered upon this concept it will try to develop a reasonable account of the ways in which participants display and manage face in several delicate interactional practices (collective disagreement, teasing, and troubles talk). While this study assumes that facework and politeness are not identical (see section 2.5.4 for a further discussion of this point), its focus on face and facework is motivated by the fact that the notion of face serves as a tentative link between politeness and discourse studies. By pursuing this path, it seeks an adequate level of empirical accountability in facework analysis, while keeping in sight the intricate interactional mechanisms of talk. Section 2.5 outlines various conceptualizations of face and presents a Goffmanian respecification of this notion which, I hope, will better accommodate the empirical analysis of social interaction. 2.5 Politeness, Face and Identity The first part of this section highlights the differences between the notions of face formulated by Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987). The Goffmanian notion, I will argue, is better suited for the discursive approach adopted in this study. Later sections explore the relationship between face and identity, and face and politeness. 2.5.1 Revisiting Goffman9s social notion of face

As noted in section 2.2, the central tenet of Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness is their notion of face, which is, in turn, based on ideas advanced by Goffman (1967) and Durkheim (1995). Goffman (1967) states that "the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact" (5), where the term "line" means "a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts" (5). According to Goffman, face is "not lodged in or on his body, but rather something that is diffusely located in

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

47

the flow of events in the encounter" (7) - it is only "on loan" to him from society. Face can be saved, threatened, or lost in interaction. The act of making whatever a person is doing consistent with face is called "facework," which may be performed consciously or unconsciously and frequently becomes habitual. For Goffman (1967), then, facework involves self-presentation in social encounters. The pronounced social orientation of his concept of face and facework is clearly in evidence in the following passage: To study face-saving is to study the traffic rules of social interaction: one learns about the code the person adheres to in his movement across the paths and designs of others, but not where he is going, or why he wants to get there. One does not even learn why he is ready to follow the code, for a large number of different motives can equally lead him to do so. (12) Scholars such as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), Locher (2004), and Watts (2003) assert that the social orientation of Goffman's notion of face is all but lost in Brown and Levinson's more cognitively and psychologically inclined notion of face. 2.5.2 Face as wants At the beginning of their book, Brown and Levinson (1987) define face as ''public self-image." In their framework, face consists of two related aspects: negative face (the basic claim to freedom from imposition) and positive face (the positive self-image claimed by interactants). Brown and Levinson (1987) present their view of face as "wants" as follows: negative face: the want of every "competent adult member" that his or her actions be unimpeded by others positive face: the want of every "competent adult member" that his or her wants be desirable to at least some others. (62) Yet the focus on self-image gets "increasingly lost during their analysis," claims Locher (2004: 53). Negative and positive face wants are treated as intrinsic parts of an individual who seeks "association/belonging/ merging" on the one hand, and "disassociation/independence/individuation" on the other (O'Driscoll 1996: 10). Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) remarks that Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive concept of "face" does not agree with Goffman's study of interaction. The notion of negative face proves to be especially problematic. Researchers have pointed out that while both Goffhian, and Brown and Levinson, draw on Durkheim's notion of positive and negative religious rites in their conceptualization of face, they extract different interpretations and implications from this common source (e.g. Bargiela-Chiappini

48

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

2003, Holtgraves 2005). While Goffman (1967) treats the avoidance ritual as a process or type of facework, Brown and Levinson (1987) view nonimposition as a universal human desire. As recounted in section 2.2.1.3, the universality of Brown and Levinson's concept of face has been questioned by many, mainly non-Western, researchers (e.g. Ide 1989, Mao 1994, Matsumoto 1988). The definition of face as "wants" and the construction of a rational "model person" who has these wants are the consequence of Brown and Levinson's (1987) formal adherence to the Gricean theory of communication. While their theory stimulated research on politeness in the fields of cognitive and social psychology, their treatment of face as a cognitive notion does not concur with a more socially oriented view of politeness. Most of the politeness research based on Brown and Levinson's framework conceptualizes face as an intrinsically cognitive entity. The resulting analysis tends to become an interpretive attempt to look into interactants' hidden intents. Given the inherent difficulty in depicting interactants' cognitive workings (e.g. intentions and expectations) in unfolding discourse, my study takes Goffman's (1967) definition of face as its guiding principle in the construction of an alternative analytical framework of facework. Informed by discursive psychology's respecification of psychological elements in terms of discursive reality, I replace Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive notion of face with Goffman's more socially oriented one. The implementation of this Goffmanian respecification of face in the treatment of facework as a discursively constructed phenomenon provides direction for an empirically grounded analysis of facework. Goffman's (1967) notion of face is concerned with interactants' public self-image, which is closely related to speaker identity and subjectivity, much-studied subjects in social psychology and discourse studies. In order to contextualize my approach to analysis of facework within the larger field of discourse studies, the next section explores the relationship between participants' face and identity. 2.53 Face and identity Just as there are many conceptualizations of face, researchers have presented diverse views of interactants' social and discursive identity. In one school of thought, identity is treated as a static descriptive label of an individual ascribed by society or acquired and internalized by the individual. In another, it is regarded as an individual's ascription to a membership category observable in discourse. This section attempts to link these diverging views to our understanding of face. 2.5.3.1 Power, distance, and identity In Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework, interactants' social identities are related to the contextual variables determining the weightiness of a

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

49

face-threatening act. The weightiness, then, decides how much politeness is needed in a particular situation. As introduced in section 2.1.4, the weightiness or seriousness of a particular act (Wx) is calculated by the formula Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx, where D(S,H) is the social distance between the speaker and hearer, P(H,S) the power that the hearer has over the speaker, and Rx the level of imposition caused by the facethreatening act x in the culture in which it is performed. Holtgraves (2005) recognizes that the three variables (D, P, R) are "high-level, abstract variables that should subsume more specific variables," and that identity categories such as gender, ethnicity, or occupational differences "feed into power and distance, and ultimately, politeness" (79). 2.5.3.2 Identity face Spencer-Oatey (2005) takes the relation of face to identity one step further. Based on Simon's (2004) notion of self-aspects, she coins the term "identity face," a situation-specific face equivalent to Goffman's (1967) definition. This type of face is contrasted with another she calls "respectability face," a "pan-situational" face, which "refers to the prestige, honor or 'good name' that a person or social group holds and claims within a (broader) community" (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 102). Selfaspects are categories or concepts such as physical features, abilities, roles, behaviors, or group memberships, which serve to process and organize information about oneself. People's claims to identity face, according to Spencer-Oatey (2005), are "based on the positive social values that they associate with their various self-aspects" (104). Identity face is threatened when individuals' self-aspect sensitivities are challenged, while it is enhanced when their self-aspect sensitivities are ingratiated appropriately. Thus, instead of retaining Brown and Levinson's (1987) dual conception of positive and negative face, Spencer-Oatey's (2005) framework proposes multiple aspects of face based on identity categories. Holtgraves (2005) and Spencer-Oatey's (2005) views of identity and face suggest strong ties between these two entities. These studies appear to conceive of identity categories as static social ascriptions or as intrinsically stable aspects of the concept of self. Identity is something that interactants "are" and that affects how they employ politeness, and its various aspects form the basis of interactants' positive self-image. Another view of identity - as interactants' discursive ascription to a membership category - will be introduced in the next section. 2.5.3.3 Discursive identity and face As discussed in section 2.3.3, the notion that identity and speaker subjectivity are discursively displayed was adopted widely by conversation analytic approaches to interaction, and more specifically by conversation analysis and discursive psychology (e.g. Antaki and Widdicombe 1998, Edwards 1997). In these approaches, and discourse psychology inter-

50

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

actants' identity and subjectivity are indexically assumed and ascribed through the exploitation of various conversational structures, leaving open the possibility of multiple identity and subjectivity ascriptions. Identity, defined as a static sociopsychological category in the previous section, is thus reconceptualized as a discursive entity. Informed by conversation and discourse analytic studies, this project regards identity in terms of lay social and membership categories (e.g. woman, teacher, dog owner, moderator, project representative), "the ascription of which is inextricably tied to the details of talk-in-interaction" (Antaki and Widdicombe 1998: 107). In relation to politeness, one aspect of identity - gender - and its performativity have been studied extensively. Gender is considered "a repeated performance of a range of behaviors associated with a particular sex" (Mills 2003: 173). In other words, gender is discursively performed in interactional practices in which interactants "do," rather than "are," men or women (e.g. Crawford 1995). Studies on gender and language positioned at the gender/politeness nexus often draw on the community of practice framework, which provides a community-based perspective on gender and politeness as performed and displayed in discourse. Eelen (2001) likewise recommends that politeness studies ought to focus on discursive reality and develop a new "discursive" approach based on Bourdieu's sociological insights and contributions from discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards 1997, Edwards and Potter 1992). My study recognizes Eelen's (2001) theoretical recommendations and applies them to the empirical analysis of facework in discourse. The discursive psychological approach depicts issues that are commonly considered psychological in terms of human behavior. It promises to be a useful aid in the reconceptualization of face. Instead of contrasting cognition with action, discursive psychology regards cognition as a form of acting. This focus on social practice suggests the possibility of a definition of face, otherwise considered as psychological wants, in terms of discursive reality. In other words, face, construed as an internal "want" that underlies and influences talk by Brown and Levinson (1987), can be respecified as a phenomenon that is constructed, manipulated, and displayed in interaction. This respecification can be understood as a return to the Goffmanian notion of face, where an interactant's face manifests itself as his or her interactional self-image, which is determined in relation to others, discursively constructed during a particular contact, and closely aligned with the participant's discursive identity. This notion of face, referred to as "discursive face," "interactional face," or "interactional self-image" in this study, includes dispositional features such as competence or autonomy. For instance, certain face categories (e.g. expertise) may be ascribed and displayed in relation to the membership category "doctor" in a doctorpatient conversation. Multiple face ascriptions, like multiple identity

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

51

ascriptions, can occur in ongoing discourse, i.e. it is possible that participants in interaction display multiple faces simultaneously. Facework, considered in this context, is a face-invoking device (by which a speaker, for example, projects his or her own competence or acknowledges the competence of another person) operative on linguistic and other levels, which can be traced empirically in discourse. In a framework in which an interactant's positive self-image is determined in relation to others, facework also includes relational stances such as alignment and opposition. A speaker's projection of alignment with other participants in the interaction can be considered facework, for it constitutes an endorsement of others' positive self-image, as well as the display of the speaker's own self-image as sharing common traits with others. The proposed conceptualization of face is less cognitive (since it does not consider face as wants) and less parsimonious (since it involves more types of face than the dual aspects of positive and negative face) than Brown and Levinson's (1987). As a result, the analysis based on this conceptualization will probably not produce a clear categorical understanding of politeness in isolated sentences. Instead, what this notion of face can capture is the moment-by-moment management of multiple faces constructed and displayed in discourse, thereby permitting a closer look at the intricate mechanisms of interpersonal communication. Equipped with this notion of face, the researcher can apply discourse analytic research on identity and on speaker subjectivity to the analysis of facework. For instance, in her study of interactants' overt and covert orientation to regional or linguistic category membership in otherinitiated repair sequences, Egbert (2004) illustrates how a German student implicitly assigns herself to "a category of persons intimately familiar with university life in the US" (1474). This category, when evoked in a story about the participant's experience of studying abroad in the US, is related to the discursive face of having expertise in American student life. Egbert cites instances in which interlocutors form alliances and draw separations between themselves and others through the collaborative achievement of successive repair initiations. Such a solidarity-building practice can be considered facework as well (see the discussion on alignment as facework earlier in this section). In short, Egbert's inquiry suggests that the incorporation of conversation analytic insights into the study of facework can lead to constructive results. Heritage and Raymond (2005) examine how interlocutors negotiate their epistemic authority in first and second position assessments (i.e. an initial assessment, and a responsive assessment to the previously offered assessment). The authors report that considerations of face are implicated in these epistemic negotiations. Although second position assessments frequently take the form of an agreement and are fundamentally affiliative, "they can involve complex face considerations relating to the management of knowledge and information" (16). The concept of

52

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

epistemic authority advanced by Heritage and Raymond (2005) implicates elements of situated social identity (e.g. "dog and cat owners ... expect to be treated as experts on their pets" [36]), and it can be taken as an instance of face as defined in this study. Drew (1998), in his study on indirect complaint sequences, demonstrates how speakers describe others' behavior as a transgression, while portraying themselves as reasonable individuals who are neither biased nor overly negative. Drew identifies these activities as moral work but, from the viewpoint of my study, a speaker's claim to be reasonable represents an example of facework. These and other works provide valuable ideas for the analysis of facework in this study, for they point out exemplary ways in which facework manifests itself in conversation. Before closing this review, I would like to consider a last, but no less important, question in the politeness riddle - the relationship between face and politeness. What role does the discursive conceptualization of face play in an overall discursive approach to politeness? By searching for an answer to this question, we will gain a clearer understanding of how the notion of face is conceptualized in this study. 2.5A Face and politeness As we have seen earlier in this chapter, "face" is a central notion in Brown and Levinson's (1987) seminal work on politeness. They consider politeness as facework - language use that is geared towards mutual face needs. However, this equation is not always supported by discursive politeness research. Watts (2003), whose work is more informed by Goffman's (1967) socially oriented notion of face than by Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive approach, states explicitly that "Politeness Theory can never be fully equated with Face Theory" (117). He summarizes his argument as follows: (Im)politenessl ... emerges contextually from instances of socio-communicative verbal interaction and is salient linguistic behaviour beyond the structures used in facework and politic behaviour. To classify as linguistic politeness all those structures which are used in positive and negative facework is to empty the terms "polite" and "impolite" of the meanings we attribute to these, and similar, lexemes in social practice and to deny that there is a discursive struggle over their use. (141) In a similar line of thought, Locher and Watts (2005) introduce the term "relational work," signifying the relational nature of facework, or the "work" individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others. Relational work "comprises the entire continuum of verbal behavior from direct, impolite, rude or aggressive interaction through to polite interaction, encompassing both appropriate and inappropriate forms of social behavior" (11). The relationship between relational work and

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

53

politeness is described in terms of individual participants' perceptions of verbal interaction, which decide if behavior is considered polite, politic, or impolite within the continuum of relational work. When participants perceive behavior as marked and noticeable, it is polite, over-polite, or impolite; when the behavior remains unmarked and unnoticed, it is politic. Consequently, politeness comprises positively marked (noticed) appropriate behavior, even though Locher and Watts (2005) admit that "there can be no objectively definable boundaries between these categories [i.e. polite, politic, and appropriate relational work] if ... politeness and related categories are discursively negotiated" (12). The cited studies provide a notion of facework as (1) distinct from politeness, and (2) encompassing a wider range of behavior than politeness. As quoted above, Watts (2003) mentions that "(im)politenessl ... is salient linguistic behaviour beyond the structures used in facework and politic behaviour" (141). In this framework, the evaluation of politeness appears to be established in reference to a baseline involving facework and politic behavior. In other words, evaluations regarding facework and politic behavior lie at the core of politeness evaluation. This study, too, endorses the idea that the analysis of politeness should focus on participants' evaluations of their and others' behavior as polite or impolite. Taking the argument of the above-mentioned studies one step further, this project assumes two interrelated main components constituting politeness evaluations: evaluations of facework (e.g. "Does a behavior enhance or threaten face?" "Which types of face are displayed in this behavior?") and evaluations of appropriateness (e.g. "What degree of face threat and face enhancement is allowed and expected in a given community of practice?"). These two types of evaluation are interrelated: a face evaluation can be affected by an appropriateness evaluation, and vice versa. For instance, when a certain behavior is evaluated as inappropriate, it may lead to the speaker's loss of face. In addition to these two interrelated types of evaluation, moment-by-moment politeness evaluations involve still other aspects of participant expectation, such as hearer attribution of speaker motivation (Jary 1998), interactants' past discursive history, their then-current emotional states, and their perception of the lexeme "politeness" or any possible equivalent in their language.7 Due to the multiplicity of cognitive elements, it is difficult to represent the working of moment-by-moment politeness evaluations methodologically. Face, as defined in this study, is less dependent on cognitive factors and therefore more clearly discernable in discourse. Moreover, as we have seen in section 2.3, the notion of face serves as a link between politeness and discourse research. The description of facework provided by this study can strengthen this link, and points to the possibility of a more empirically grounded analysis of facework and politeness. Previous discursive studies on politeness centered primarily on the topic of appropriateness evaluation and on the distinction between

54

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

appropriateness and politeness, while taking the notions of face and facework for granted. Nevertheless, the mutual acknowledgment of face and facework in interaction within a certain community of practice, along with evaluations of appropriateness, can be seen as basic constituents of politeness evaluations. Another distinguishing mark between politeness and face (as defined in this study) is whose face the speaker attends to in interactional work. Practices in which the speaker maintains others' face are likely to be conceived of as politeness; facework includes in addition instances in which the speaker maintains his or her own face. For instance, a speaker's display of his or her own competence may be regarded as facework, but not necessarily as politeness. At the same time, there are cases in which the speaker's display of deference towards others' face is directly related to the display of his or her own face as a considerate interactant, or in which the speaker's display of his or her own face is embedded in an action which marks consideration for others. In any case, the analysis of facework in this book encompasses a wider range of activities than just politeness phenomena. My analytic framework treats face not as a normative, uncontestable concept. Rather, it defines face as interactants' positive self-image, constructed, displayed, and managed in discourse. As such, my notion of face shares some characteristics with Eelen's (2001) conception of politeness: it is discursive, evaluative, and argumentative. The first quality, discursiveness, is an integral part of our definition of face. The evaluative nature of face derives from the fact that the construction of face inevitably involves the normative evaluation of what is considered "positive" in a given community of practice. Evaluations of face (e.g. what is considered "competence") are contestable by the participants in talk, and therefore argumentative. In my depiction of discursive and evaluative facework, I will pay primary attention to details of talk, apply my knowledge of the particular community of practice in which the data are situated, and evaluate reflexively how this knowledge as well as my stance toward the notion of face might influence the interpretation of the data. The analysis of facework emerges through an oscillation between observable linguistic actions, my knowledge of the relevant communities of practice, and my perspective on the subject matter (see Chapter 3 for more methodological details). As a component in this methodological process, this chapter serves the purpose of testing out and shaping my academic stance in relation to politeness and facework. It is through the examination of studies on politeness, facework, and their underlying ideologies that my own position on politeness and facework has emerged. The wealth of findings and insights supplied by established politeness theories has provided me with an initial inventory of behaviors that can potentially qualify as face

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

55

threatening or face enhancing. The subsequent broad review of approaches to discourse analysis and of recent developments in discursive politeness studies has guided me to a discursive and constructive approach to politeness and facework. This approach requires analysts to seek sequential and/or linguistic accountability based on their knowledge of the relevant communities of practice. Various linguistic and discursive structures (e.g. preference organization, contextualization cues, membership categorization devices, discourse markers) and analytical procedures pertaining to face-related issues (e.g. solidarity, alignment, autonomy, competence) encountered during this review have suggested viable ways to achieve accountability in the discursive analysis of facework.

2.6 Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of studies on linguistic politeness and of several issues associated with notions of face, types of politeness, and sociolinguistic variables affecting the enactment of politeness. As mentioned at several points in the discussion, it is my belief that the utilization of naturalistic discourse data will lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon of politeness. In several sections of the chapter, I have delineated the relationship between politeness and various approaches to discourse analysis. Among the features of conversation analysis and discourse analysis (as applied in discursive psychology), preference organization, and participant identity and subjectivity, were shown to be closely related to the notion of face. From the perspective of interactional sociolinguistics, I reviewed Tannen's (1994) conceptualization of power and solidarity, and the relationship of these dimensions to positive and negative face. In the subsequent sections, I introduced recent discursive approaches to politeness and synthesized associated unresolved issues which, in turn, informed my reconsideration of the notion of face. Comparing Goffman's (1967) notion of face with Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive adaptation, I explained why I chose the GofTmanian approach as the basic notion underpinning my framework. Next I clarified the relationship between face and identity, to underscore my conceptualization of face and facework and its potential benefits. Towards the end of the synthesis, the relationship between face and politeness was critically examined. Even though facework cannot be equated with politeness, my argument situates face evaluations at the core of politeness evaluations.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3: Analyzing Facework

3.1 Introduction Near the end of Chapter 2, I outlined the Goffmanian respecification of the notion of face and facework that forms the basis of my analysis. My study attempts to provide an accountable analysis of the operation of facework. To this end, it draws a link between interactants' discursive face and their identity, which are both constructed and negotiated in discourse. Through the analytic assessment of various linguistic (lexical, grammatical and discursive) elements, and cultural and institutional norms in the respective community of practice, my project represents facework as an intersection of language, culture, action, and cognition. From this core concept, connecting lines reach outwards to politeness scholarship and to other disciplines such as conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and discursive psychology. This chapter assesses the practicability of a methodology that draws on several analytical traditions in order to establish a discursive approach to facework. It also presents the analytical framework of this study, and describes the data and the community of practice within which the data are situated. I begin by introducing the conversation and discourse analytic approaches (as applied in discursive psychology), which share many methodological concerns, and which inform the examination of facework presented in Chapters 4 to 7. I will delineate how the framework of conversation and discourse analysis is adopted in the study, note the role of ethnographic information in my analysis, and explore the relationship between social action and culture. Considering that the analysis of facework requires reference to the community of practice in which the examined segment of talk is embedded, and that discourse analysis scrutinizes the role of the researcher and the contingent nature of the act of analysis itself, my project achieves analytical validity through the combination of (1) primary attention to details of talk, (2) ethnographic knowledge concerning the community of practice, and (3) reference to previous research in the field. These practices allow the reader to check analytic claims against the data and the treatment of the subject matter in existing studies (e.g. how facework and politeness-related subjects have been studied). The subsequent sections describe the data and the community analyzed, the preparation of the database, and the nature of the collected

58

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

conversational data (i.e. structure and topics). Along with a sketch of the institutional setting, I will share my preliminary understanding of the institutional faces prevalent in this community of practice. In combination with the critical review of politeness research and various approaches to discourse provided in Chapter 2, these accounts serve as an initial pointer for capturing facework in interaction, and as a reference point for the empirical work performed in later chapters. 3.2 Analyzing Facework in Social Interaction The primary objective of this study is to describe how facework is constructed, displayed, and managed in talk. Among the different paths available to realize this goal, a qualitative conversation and discourse analytic approach appeared to be the most constructive. This section characterizes these analytic frameworks and appraises their adequacy for the analysis of facework, their applicability to institutional discourse, and their treatment of ethnographic information and culture. An eclectic approach incorporating conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and ethnographic information is proposed as the analytical framework best suited for the interactional analysis of facework. 3.2.1 Conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and facework

In this section, I discuss the theoretical and analytical precepts of conversation analysis and discourse analysis. A word of caution is in order before we begin. I acknowledge that there are numerous forms of discourse analysis with different disciplinary traditions. In this chapter, however, I use the term "discourse analysis" to refer specifically to the analytical method that originated in social studies of science (Gilbert and Mulkay 1984), developed in the fields of social psychology (Potter and Wetherell 1987), and serves as the analytical framework of discursive psychology (Edwards 1997, Edwards and Potter 1992). I will examine both conversation analysis and discourse analysis, and highlight their similarities and differences. Next I explain why I consider conversation and discourse analysis suitable to the analysis of facework in interaction, and point out the importance of ethnographic information to the analysis of facework - a culturally bound evaluative phenomenon. Towards the end of this section, I detail the eclectic approach implemented in this study, which allows me to integrate ethnographic knowledge and other important information into the analysis. Discourse analysis shares various theoretical and methodological concerns with conversation analysis, which has become one of the most empirically cumulative fields in the study of interaction. Due to their convergent understanding of interaction, we see an increasing crossover between research in conversation analysis and in discourse analysis. Both

ANALYZING FACEWORK

59

approaches are concerned with actions and practices, and avoid assumptions concerning an underlying cognitive organization. Discourse is treated as a "situated" phenomenon: it is embedded in sequences of interaction, and it is oriented to participant identities and conversational settings (see section 3.2.2 for a further discussion of this point). Conversation analysis, as well as discourse analysis, attends to detailed features of discourse, such as lexical and rhetorical choices, repair, pause, laughter, and response tokens, and traces how these features construct discourse in the performance of actions. These methodologies' actionoriented focus and attention to details of interaction contrast with other more psychologically inclined approaches (e.g. earlier politeness studies), whose primary concern is the relationship between different linguistic realizations and a putative underlying cognitive organization (e.g. intentions or "wants"). As stated in Chapter 2, a number of studies in conversation and discourse analysis have examined how interactants display their membership categories, discursive identities, and subjectivity - attributes closely related to discursive face. Especially relevant among these studies are those that illustrate how interactants display face-related concepts such as alliance (Egbert 2004), epistemic autonomy (Heritage and Raymond 2005), and morality (Drew 1998). Their findings constitute vital reference points in the realization of a data-based analysis of facework. In short, through their attention to details of talk, both conversation analysis and discourse analysis contribute valuable methodological insights to this study's research objective: to capture facework as a discursively constructed phenomenon. Moreover, both conversation analysis and discourse analysis serve as primary research methods in discursive psychology, whose discursive treatment of psychological notions provides an analytical model for this study. While the main concern of the more traditional strain of conversation analysis is to discover systems of talk (e.g. organizational features of talk such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, pre-sequences, repair construction, topic organization), discursive psychological studies, utilizing conversation analysis or discourse analysis, pay attention to psychological aspects (e.g. stake, investment, speaker subjectivity) of human behavior. As discussed in Chapter 2, discursive psychologists' respecification of psychological notions in terms of their role in talk provides a strong rationale for the treatment of face and facework in this study. Despite their similar views on interaction, discourse analysis diverges from conversation analysis in other aspects. In his examination of the relationship between the two disciplines, Wooffitt (2005) sees a key difference in their research focus. According to the author, conversation analysis seeks to discover sequential patterns of interaction and to explore the normative expectations that inform sequential characteristics, while

60

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

discourse analysis displays a greater diversity of approaches and goals, and is primarily concerned with "accounts" (e.g. expressions of opinion, formulation of versions of events) in talk or texts. Since facework emerges within participants' descriptions of, for example, past and ongoing troubles (see Chapter 6) or events (see Chapter 7), the analysis in these two chapters benefits from the discourse analytic focus on accounts in talk. My study examines facework performed in delicate interactive actions such as collaborative disagreement (in which several dissenters form a dissenting "team"), teasing, and troubles talk (see Chapters 4 to 6). There are several reasons why I chose these social actions for my examination of facework in interaction. First, they promise to be suitable for a discourselevel analysis, for they can rarely be accomplished in a single utterance; and second, they appear to be both face-threatening and face-enhancing, requiring delicate interactional negotiations. My analysis explores how these seemingly conflicting evaluations are attached to specific actions, by paying attention to details of talk. So far, speech act based politeness research has rarely ventured beyond the analysis of obvious face-threatening actions (e.g. requests) or face-enhancing actions (e.g. compliments). Yet proponents of a discursive approach to politeness point to the benefits of expanding the analytical scope. For instance, Eelen (2001) predicts that one of the advantages of reconceptualizing politeness as a discursive process of social production would be "a full(er) coverage of empirical data, since statistically marginal and contradictory data are also covered" (240). Arundale (1999), too, asserts that a validating factor of the new approach is its ability to explain "new and important phenomena" (147). In my estimation, the ability to examine delicate discursive social actions that have rarely been the subject of inquiry in politeness research is sufficient justification for an alternative theoretical and empirical approach. Moreover, the actions mentioned above appear to be closely related to norms effective in communities of practice (e.g. troubles talk recounts problematic events, which are conceived of as a deviation from the normative condition). Since the construction and negotiation of norms are connected to appropriateness and politeness, the examination of these social actions may provide insights into the ways in which appropriateness and/or politeness is negotiated in discourse. Due to these characteristics, the selected social actions appear to be suitable for a detailed moment-by-moment description of multiple facework. In addition, the study explores how facework is constructed in a seemingly face-neutral activity, event description, and in the course of an entire meeting. Adopting conversation and discourse analytic frameworks, the analysis of facework in this study will focus primarily on discursive details, including participants' use of discourse markers, lexical choices, self- and other-repairs, pauses, overlaps, laughter, and tone of voice. In particular,

ANALYZING FACEWORK

61

the action-oriented workings of language-specific discourse markers such as the final particle ne, the contrastive particle kedo, and the plain and masu forms of the clause final predicate are observed throughout the analysis of distinct social actions. A word of caution is necessary here regarding the adaptation of conversation and discourse analytic techniques into the analysis of facework. While there is a broad agreement within the conversation/ discourse analytic tradition that participant orientation can be analytically powerful, my study is mainly concerned with facework that is displayed in discourse, but may or may not be acknowledged as such by recipients in subsequent turns. For analytical validation, I will rely on "coherence" and "reader's evaluation," as discussed in Potter (2003). To achieve coherence, I will weigh my conclusions against the accumulation of empirical studies, and I will present my empirical material "in a form that allows readers to make their own checks and judgements" (Potter 2003: 618). I value the discourse analytic "recognition of the constructed and contingent nature of researchers' own versions of the world" (Potter 2004: 202). Discourse analysis treats "reality", whether constructed by participants or researchers, as a "rhetorical production that can itself be decomposed and studied" (ibid.). Mills (2003), in her study on gender and politeness, takes a similar position concerning the role of the researcher in politeness studies (although she is not working within a discourse analytic paradigm). Drawing on literary and cultural theory, she maintains that the role of the analyst/critic, who cannot possibly be aware of everything that is going on in any one interaction, should come under intense scrutiny. Since my study treats politeness and facework as discursive and argumentative phenomena, I intend to maintain a similar awareness of the analyst's role and the contingent nature of his or her interpretation. I acknowledge the fact that analyzing facework is in itself an evaluative act, and that my analysis is situated within the larger field of politeness research. With these considerations in mind, I have clarified my understanding and my stance toward politeness, face, and interaction in Chapter 2. Mills (2003) finds Brown and Levinson's (1987) work constructive "in terms of being able to trace the sites where politeness behaviour may be taking place" (245). In a similar way, I appreciate the conclusions of earlier politeness theories and the concepts related to face and politeness contributed by such diverse disciplines as speech act studies, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics. They opened my eyes to the first traces of facework in my data, and aided me in their analysis. I recognize the constructed and contingent nature of my analysis and attempt to clarify my predispositions about politeness and face, which may color my interpretations. In order to allow the reader to check analytic claims against the data, the analysis proper will be supplemented by my knowledge concerning the particular community of practice in which the data are situated. Since the

62

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

treatment of context and culture is a controversial issue in both discourse analysis and conversation analysis, it will be discussed in the next section. 3.2.2 Facework in context and culture

The debate concerning the issue of context and culture has a long history in discourse and conversation analysis, as well as in politeness studies. In order to consider the connection between earlier and recent politeness studies, and to account for my decision to utilize conversation and discourse analytic frameworks, it is important to elucidate the meaning of context and culture for the purpose of this study. This section summarizes how context and culture are conceptualized and incorporated in (1) earlier politeness theories, (2) discursive politeness studies, (3) conversation and discourse analysis, and (4) the present study. As we have seen in Chapter 2, most key issues discussed in early politeness research pertained to social context (e.g. social variables affecting politeness) and to culturally specific notions of face and politeness (e.g. discernment vs volitional politeness). Researchers tried to identify social variables affecting the enactment of politeness, such as power difference, social distance, or the gender of participants, and sought to explicate variations in polite behavior (e.g. in-group vs outgroup orientation, individualistic vs collective culture) in terms of cultural difference. In his critique of existing politeness theories, Eelen (2001) points out that underlying these claims are certain conceptions of the terms "individual," "society," and "culture" which, in turn, are related to a Parsonian world-view. This world-view, explains Eelen, envisions culture as a stable, self-sufficient system, which resides on a higher level than the individual and determines their behavior. Individual behavior, then, is the enactment of an individual's social role, regulated by various contextual parameters and by the consensus present in a specific cultural setting. Seen from this vantage point, the individual figures merely as a passive receptor for cultural values and situational variables. Eelen (2001) maintains that the definition of culture in most politeness studies is vague and influenced by Parsonian ideas. In his estimation, "it does not perform well as an explanatory concept, at best hindering an adequate account of interaction, at worst leading to the reduction of human beings as mere manifestation of cultural characteristics" (187). Resonant with Eelen's (2001) recommendation that "culture should not be treated as a given entity, but rather as an argumentative practice" (238) is the dynamic and argumentative conception of culture evident in discursive studies of politeness. Mills (2003) defines culture as "a set of assumptions made by the individual because of his/her involvement with groups where those values are affirmed and contested" (32). Watts (2003) also registers his skeptical assessment of the treatment of culture as an objective entity that can be used to explain politeness. He turns to

.ANALYZING FACEWORK

63

Bourdieu's concept of habitus, a set of dispositions shaping practices, perceptions, and attitudes that are considered regular. At the same time, recent discursive politeness studies (e.g. Holmes and Schnurr 2005, Mills 2003, Watts 2003) seem to agree that the inclusion of social context is essential to their analysis. This development was triggered by researchers' interest in (im)politenessl and its evaluative and argumentative nature. There is now a general consensus among scholars that interactants' moment-by-moment evaluations of (im) polite behavior cannot be accessed without reference to contextual information. In connection with the issue of context, the framework of community of practice is considered beneficial to the analysis of politeness (e.g. Holmes and Schnurr 2005, Mills 2003). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the term "'community of practice" refers to a loosely defined group of people who are jointly engaged in a particular task and have "a shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time" (Wenger 1998: 76). Within this framework, knowledge regarding appropriate behavior is acquired through participation in activities and tasks. Since individuals do not always take part in the same activities to the same degree, the associated knowledge is not necessarily distributed equally within the community. This particular characteristic of the notion of community of practice provides a rationale for the argumentative nature of politeness. Interactants who possess different levels of knowledge and experience regarding appropriate behavior are likely to be engaged in argumentative practices over politeness. Mills (2003) states that "although context is something which is invoked by speaker and hearer on an ongoing basis throughout the interaction, that does not mean that larger forces are not also at work" (49). She appears to suggest the possibility of referring to contextual information that is not oriented to by participants (see the discussion on the treatment of context orientation in the conversation analytic tradition later in this section). An open stance toward context appears to be quite common in discursive politeness research. Let us now turn to the treatment of context in conversation analysis. Regarding the sequential context of talk, conversation analysts view all communicative actions as doubly contextual because they are shaped by the immediate sequential context and simultaneously renew the sequential environment for following turns (Heritage 2004). Communicative actions are context-shaped in that they display an understanding of the preceding sequence and of the environment of the ongoing activity. For instance, when an interlocutor gives an answer, he or she demonstrates his or her understanding of the prior turn as a question. Communicative actions are also context renewing since they initiate changes in the local configurations of talk and, therefore, influence subsequent turns. How do conversation analysts treat social context? Because of their focus on participant orientation, they have developed a critical view of the

64

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

"bucket theory" of social context, in which interaction is treated as the outcome of pre-existing circumstances (Drew and Heritage 1992, Goodwin and Heritage 1990, Heritage 1987, 2004). In his study of teasing sequences, Drew (1987) criticizes the treatment of contextual features as an explanatory measure: since there are an indefinite number of possible contextual features, one cannot predict which of these are actually involved in triggering a certain action such as social bonding or conflict It is the researcher who chooses one or more contextual features (e.g. the characterization "close friends") from a vast inventory of features, and based upon his or her choice assigns a specific function (e.g. "bonding") to a particular linguistic behavior. The unquestioning reliance on contextual features can only compromise the validity of the analysis, which in the end merely reproduces what was already known at the intuitive level. Drew's (1987) claim mirrors Eelen's (2001) criticism that the use of culture as an explanatory device in current politeness research is the symptom of an underlying Parsonian world-view. In contrast, conversation analysts hold the view that social context is "both a project and a product of the participants' actions," "built, invoked, and managed" through interaction (Heritage 2004: 224). Primarily concerned with the sequential organization of discourse, they adopt a cautious attitude toward the invocation of contextual information as a means to explain elements of interaction. To establish a meaningful connection between talk and context, Schegloff (1987) requires analysts to demonstrate that a feature of the context is oriented to by the participants as relevant to the interaction, and that the context is consequential to the talk. Conversation analytic research on institutional discourse has evidenced ScheglofFs requirements - relevance and consequentiality through the examination of participants' interactional practices such as lexical choice, turn taking, and turn design. Other conversation analytic studies have taken up the question of how institution-specific properties of a setting, for example a doctor-patient consultation (e.g. Maynard 1991), or a news interview (e.g. dayman and Heritage 2002), are constituted in talk, rather than being stable and predetermined in any straightforward way. Recent work in discursive psychology has depicted the processes by which psychological notions are constructed in institutions and for institutional ends (Edwards and Potter 2001). These cited efforts are relevant to my study since my data capture one type of institutional discourse: interactions recorded in gradelevel faculty meetings in Japanese secondary schools.1 The skeptical view of the "bucket theory" of context held by conversation analysis is equally evident in its position on the treatment of culture. Instead of conceptualizing culture as an entity that is located outside of the sphere of social interaction, influencing and determining interactional practices, conversation analysts conceive of culture as commonsense knowledge that is constantly deployed, renewed and co-constructed

ANALYZING FACEWORK

65

in interaction. (Note the similarities of this conceptualization of culture to the one formulated by discursive politeness studies.) The cautious approach to context and culture in conversation analysis contributes to its reluctance to incorporate ethnographic information into the analysis. Conversation analysts rely exclusively on recorded and transcribed data, and refrain from interpreting features of talk in terms of context external to the talk itself. However, there is a group of conversation analysts who are more disposed to include contextual information in their work (Bilmes 1996, Moerman 1988, Saft 2000). These scholars primarily study interactions situated in non-English-language settings. They claim that familiarity with the context of the data is a precondition for their analysis and that neither data nor analysis would be comprehensible to (English-speaking) readers without relevant contextual information. Since my study explores the mechanisms of facework in Japanese institutional discourse collected in grade-level faculty meetings at Japanese secondary schools, the reader may not be familiar with the type and setting of the data, or the wider cultural background that surrounds it Therefore, following the above-mentioned conversation analytic work on interactions situated in non-English-language settings, and discursive politeness studies (e.g. Mills 2003, Watts 2003), I welcome the inclusion of ethnographic information and incorporate relevant information into my analysis. However, as Maynard (2003) observes, when advocating for investigations of context, investigators do not often specify what is meant by "broader" or "larger scale" social structures and organizations or precisely how to incorporate features of context residing outside of and purportedly influencing direct interaction and talk. (69) The reliance on ethnographic information requires a delicate balance: the researcher has to assess what amount of data is needed to make his or her analysis more understandable (to readers unfamiliar with the setting), yet at the same time he or she has to be aware that over-use of contextual information may compromise the validity of his or her analysis. Maynard's (2003) study of news delivery in medical settings utilizes both conversation analysis and ethnography. He discusses "three uses to which conversation analysts put ethnography: in description of settings and identities of parties; in explications of terms, phrases, or courses of action unfamiliar to an investigator or reader; and in explanations of 'curious' patterns that prior sequential analysis may reveal" (73). In other words, he recommends the use of ethnographic information in a limited manner, only to make the data and their analysis more understandable to investigators and readers. Following his proposal, I include an overall description of the setting (in

66

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

this chapter and in Chapter 7) as well as several clearly distinguishable identity categories, which may or may not influence the way participants talk (in Chapters 4 to 7). These categories include gender, age group (e.g. in his 30s), function (e.g. head teacher), and divisional membership (e.g. member of the Student Life Division). In instances where I assume that the reader may not be familiar with them, I include an explanation of terms, phrases, and "curious" patterns of practice. In this study, ethnographic information serves as a background, against which the linguistic actions of interlocutors may acquire sharper contours. At the same time, I recognize the value of relevance and consequentiality and will not use contextual information as a simple explanatory measure: my analysis refrains from drawing any conclusions from the assessment of external contextual factors, such as the gender or age of speakers and addressees. For, as Maynard (2003) cautions, even when it seems important to see "how the practices they comprise may be distributed among participants according to their sociodemographic and other identities," we should "not engage in studies of variation until we have grasped the phenomena ... in the full integrity of their locally produced orderly detail" (72). In Chapters 4 and 5,1 rely primarily on conversation analytic sequential analysis, while I draw on the discourse analytic approach to "accounts" in Chapters 6 and 7. The latter two chapters contain a greater quantity of ethnographic information regarding the community of practice. The choice of method is necessitated by the type of social action under investigation. Collaborative disagreement (Chapter 4) and teasing (Chapter 5) are frequently achieved interactionally through relatively short contributions by multiple participants. Consequently, they are best captured by sequential analysis. In contrast, troubles talk (Chapter 6), event description (Chapter 7) and the examination of an entire meeting (Chapter 7) require an increased measure of reference to the content of the participants' talk and their rhetorical practices, as well as to the specific attitudes and beliefs of the examined community (e.g. what is considered trouble or incipient trouble in a given group). As a result, the degree to which ethnographic information is incorporated varies between the first half and the latter half of the analysis chapters. 3.3 Data, Community and Institutional Face This section describes the social and institutional context of the data examined in this study. The general information about the participants of the meetings and the relevant institutional characteristics derive from the observation of school sites and informal interviews conducted with several participants, and the author's nine years of experience in similar institutions (Japanese secondary schools).

.ANALYZING FACEWORK

67

3.3.1 Grade-level faculty meetings and participating teachers

This study documents facework constructed and displayed in multiparty interactions among adult native speakers of Japanese, more specifically, teachers participating in faculty meetings at several secondary schools in the Tokyo metropolitan area. These meetings, called "grade-level faculty meetings," are scheduled for teachers who teach the same body of students (i.e. teachers assigned to the same grade). Six or seven instructors in public secondary schools participated in each of the faculty meetings recorded on tape. The teachers' ages ranged from early 20s to late 50s. Their degree of teaching expertise varied as well. Some had been teachers for more than 30 years; others had just graduated from college the same year the data were collected and had only completed a few months of teaching. Each faculty meeting brought together a group of teachers who taught various subjects to the same body of students. These groups are formed when a new set of seventh-graders enters the school, and they stay responsible for this set of students for the full three consecutive years of secondary school, minor personnel changes notwithstanding. One group member serves as head teacher. Each group consists of several homeroom teachers and a smaller number of other instructors. A homeroom teacher takes care of a class unit of approximately 40 students. Besides teaching, his or her duties include conducting daily class assemblies (one in the morning and another after the last class session of the day), organizing class participation in numerous school events such as sports day, hiking, summer camp, school trip and school festivals, and talking with parents both individually and at parent/teacher meetings. The main responsibility for student behavior rests with the homeroom teacher as well. To this end, the homeroom teacher often acts as an informal counselor. (At the time of data collection, few Japanese secondary schools had in-school counselors.) When students encounter troubles with study, friends, family, and so on, the first person they turn to is supposed to be their homeroom teacher, who takes on the role of "surrogate parent," caring for his or her students for at least one year. The non-homeroom teachers in the group support the homeroom teachers in the above-mentioned activities. The teachers' desks in the faculty room are arranged based on their grade levels, and various school events are planned and conducted in the grade-level unit. Therefore, teachers who belong to the same grade level tend to talk with each other in the faculty room on a daily basis. Besides the group of grade-level instructors, each teacher belongs to one or two "divisions" (e.g. Student Life Division, Curriculum Division, Facility Division). These divisions deal with school-wide matters, and each grade has at least one teacher representing each division. The role of the Student Life Division (seekatsu-bu or seekatsu-shidoo-bu in Japanese) becomes pertinent in the later analysis and requires a short explanation.

68

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Seekatsu-shidoo, roughly translated as "guiding students' life" or "exercising control over the student body," counts among the essential duties of a Japanese teacher. Teachers belonging to this division are supposed to prevent instances of severe student delinquency. A number of school-wide events, such as the election of student committee members, are planned in the division as well. The instructors are also grouped by the subject they teach, and each grade level consists of instructors representing at least four or five different subjects. The instructors teaching the same subject meet once or twice a semester to discuss teaching practices, materials, and subjectrelated school events (e.g. a chorus competition organized by music teachers). Among these three types - grade-level, division, and subject groups teachers meet most often with other members of their grade-level faculty group. Grade-level faculty meetings are held regularly, at least once every month, throughout the school year. These after-school meetings offer a relaxed atmosphere. The participants sit together in a small room sharing tea and snacks. The length of a meeting depends on the number and content of the items on the agenda. Among the topics discussed in these meetings are upcoming events, as well as problems concerning the students. In addition, participants are permitted to raise any issue they deem important. Most of the extracurricular activities involved in Japanese secondary school life are planned and executed by the grade-level unit, and there are a number of these activities all year round. Since teachers of various subjects are present at these meetings, specific issues of instruction (e.g. methods or materials) are rarely brought up. The opposite is true of student misconduct. Japanese teachers are held responsible for their charges' behavior, and disciplinary matters figure as a regular topic on the agenda. The institutional face (i.e. the positive self-image related to this institution) we encounter in these groups corresponds to qualifications that can be best summarized as "a good teacher" and "a good colleague." I created an initial inventory of interrelated face categories based on informal participant interviews and on my own experience as a teacher in Japanese schools.2 This inventory includes the following categories: competence (being good at teaching, being able to keep students under control), cooperation (being able to work well with other teachers), experience (being a practiced instructor in general and within a particular school in particular), motivation (being eager to engage in current tasks), and open-mindedness (being flexible and receptive to new ideas). This inventory overlaps with the description of "good teachers" published by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2003), which lists qualities such as teaching competence, humanity, competence in human relations, problem-solving skills, and pride in the teaching profession as desirable teacher characteristics. These

ANALYZING FACEWORK

69

preliminary categories do not reflect the cultural specificity attached to the community of practice in which the data were collected. The observation of facework in discourse rendered in later chapters will bring more community-specific features of face into play (What kind of behavior is considered co-operative? Is openness valued over competence? etc.). At the present stage, these preliminary categories, supplemented by the more general face values contributed by studies on politeness and related subjects (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987), prepare the terrain for the empirical analysis conducted in Chapters 4 to 7. 3.3.2 Data collection procedures

This section introduces the data collection procedures and the characteristics of the resulting data. Next, the strengths and weaknesses of the collected data are discussed. 3.3.2.1 Audiotaping the data The data analyzed in this study consist of audiotapes recorded at six gradelevel faculty meetings held at four different secondary schools in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Each meeting was recorded by one of the participants. All of the conferences provided naturally occurring speech data. They were ordinarily scheduled meetings without any interference by the researcher. To minimize the intrusion caused by the presence of a tape recorder, audiotaping began before the meeting was scheduled to open, during the informal chatter as participants arrived. This portion of the recording was not analyzed. Preceding the data collection, written consent forms were distributed to all participants informing them that (a) the study would not report recognizable details of the discussions, (b) individuals and organizations would remain anonymous, and (c) participation was voluntary. 3.3.2.2 Overview of the data The audiotape recordings of six faculty meetings provide naturally occurring data of spoken Japanese. Of the six recorded conferences, 4, 5, and 6 were conducted by the same group of teachers (group D). At each conference, six to seven participants were present, with the head teacher acting as chairperson. The length of the conferences ranged from approximately 20 to 90 minutes. A teacher who wished to add an item to the agenda could notify the chairperson before the meeting. Even though participants were encouraged to raise both related and unrelated topics during the meeting, all main issues documented in the data were pre-scheduled and introduced by the chairperson during the meeting. In addition, the tapes contain discussions on numerous sub-topics, some of which were

70

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Table 3.1 Meeting Summary Meeting Group Participants

i

Length Main topics (minrsec)

1

A

7

85.20

guidance sessions extra course during summer vacation problem students

2

B

6

74.30

student council assignments for summer vacation assembly during summer vacation problem students

3

C

6

26.50

parent/ teacher meeting guidance sessions

4

D

7

40.30

school trip during summer vacation

5

D

7

35.10

parent/ teacher meeting problem students

6

D

6

23.00

problem students

spontaneously initiated by participants. Table 3.1 summarizes the characteristics of each meeting. 3.3.2.3 Transcription Converting audio data into written language is "a selective process reflecting theoretical goals and definitions" (Ochs 1979: 44). The transcription method a researcher chooses reflects which aspect of interaction he or she considers important. For my study, I decided to use a notation that includes a moment-by-moment sequential representation of the interaction as well as selected linguistic and paralinguistic features (e.g. laughter). Since my study adopts a conversation/discourse analytic approach, the transcription of audiotapes adheres on the whole to the accepted conventions of conversation analysis (Atkinson and Heritage 1984), with some minor modifications (see Appendix A for transcription conventions). The data analyzed in this study consist of spoken Japanese. Japanese transliteration is presented in a phonetic orthography called the Hepburn

ANALYZING FACEWORK

71

style. To secure the anonymity of participants, all proper names have been replaced by pseudonyms. The excerpts presented in the analysis chapters include word-by-word glosses and turn-by-turn English translations. Since it is the objective of the analysis to depict the management of facework as a process, the sequential order of expressions in Japanese became an important consideration. As much as possible, I have tried to maintain the sequential placement of linguistic expressions in Japanese, even when the resulting translation into English lacks a sense of naturalness or fluency. 3.33 Limitations This study conducts a qualitative analysis of facework. The quantitative treatment of linguistic elements and social variables is not a central focus of analysis. A number of studies in the existing literature have looked at the correlation between social variables and politeness enactments. They have tried to establish, for example, which types of politeness strategy are used in addressing higher- or lower-status addressees, or which social attributes of speakers and settings are associated with certain linguistic forms. However, the quantitative treatment of facework, linguistic practices, or social variables is beyond the scope of my study, for "issues of how frequently, how widely, or how often particular phenomena occur are to be set aside" (Psathas 1995: 3) in the conversation analytic framework. Despite this limitation, the chosen analytical method serves best for the purpose of this study - to capture the moment-by-moment progression of facework in interaction. The second limitation of this study concerns the nature of the collected data. They contain excellent examples of naturally occurring spontaneous discourse, but they obviously lack visual information. Numerous researchers have stressed the importance of visual cues such as gaze, body alignment, and head movement in analyzing spoken discourse (Ford et al 1996, Goodwin 1981, Goodwin and Goodwin 1987). One cannot overemphasize the importance of nonverbal cues in tracing emergent properties within ongoing talk. This recognition notwithstanding, my study confines itself exclusively to the verbal elements of interaction. I hope that future studies of facework and politeness will incorporate the crucial visual dimension of interaction into their analysis. Lastly, I do not claim that the findings of this study describe the whole range of characteristic facework enacted in Japanese conversation. The analyzed data are situated in a particular institutional setting and cannot possibly represent the full spectrum of face-related actions available to speakers of Japanese. However, I do believe that this study offers a basic understanding of how facework is constructed, displayed, and managed in interaction, and how these practices are often related to particular institutional norms.

72

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

3.4 Summary Chapter 3 has provided an overview of the research procedures used to attain the objective of this study: to depict facework as a discursive and constructed entity. To this end, the study employs conversation and discourse analytic approaches. The evaluative nature of facework and politeness, as well as the particularity of the collected data, necessitate the incorporation of ethnographic information. In addition, constant awareness of the contingent nature of the analysis is required. The study pursues its research goal by oscillating between three main methodological components: attention to details of talk, knowledge concerning the relevant community of practice, and my stance toward the subject matter, informed by its treatment in the literature. In the latter part of the chapter the data, the institutional setting, and the participants of the study were reviewed. An initial understanding of face categorizations relevant to the institution of Japanese secondary schools, supplemented by facework- and politeness-related practices derived from the literature, provides suggestions for the analysis of facework in Chapters 4 to 7.

Chapter 4: Collaborative Disagreement

4.1 Introduction This chapter illustrates a range of facework performed by multiple participants in collaborative disagreement sequences, in which two or more participants form a dissenting "team." In collaborative disagreements, oppositional stances are displayed collaboratively. While disagreement is considered an archetypical face-threatening act within Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework, other studies have demonstrated that disagreement can enhance solidarity in certain social and cultural settings (Kakava 1993, Labov 1972, Schiffrin 1984, Tannen 1990). Alliances among dissenters involved in multiparty disagreement add considerable complexity to its analysis. As a disagreement sequence unfolds, participants may engage in interactional practices that display different degrees of opposition and alignment, as well as other types of facework. The sequential achievement of collaborative disagreement poses a methodological challenge, for we can no longer solely rely on Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework with its emphasis on speech-act level analysis. In my study, facework is conceptualized as the discursively displayed self-image of multiple participants. This chapter attempts to capture facework operative in the mechanism of collaborative disagreement as a discursive phenomenon constructed in a moment-by-moment fashion. After providing an overview of previous studies on disagreement and conflict talk, including multiparty disagreement, this chapter will explore how alignment, opposition, and other types of facework are formulated and managed interactionally in the course of collaborative disagreements during Japanese faculty meetings. 4.1.1 Disagreement and conflict talk

Disagreement is a form of verbal conflict, which can develop into an argument or dispute. Brown and Levinson (1987) define disagreement as an act that threatens the addressee's positive face want "by indicating (potentially) that the speaker does not care about the addressee's feelings, wants, etc. - that in some important respect he doesn't want H's [=addressee's] wants" (66). Brown and Levinson present two disagreement-related positive politeness strategies that redress this threat to positive face wants: "seek agreement (e.g. to engage in talk with safe topics)" and "avoid disagreement (e.g. the use of token agreement and

74

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

hedges)." These strategies neutralize the face threat by claiming common ground (e.g. common points of view, attitudes, knowledge) shared by speaker and hearer. A different view of disagreement has been developed in conversation analysis, which considers disagreement a type of dispreferred second pair part within an adjacency pair based on its sequential characteristics (Pomerantz 1984). While agreement turns are usually unmarked, occupying the whole turn with a minimum temporal gap after the prior assessment, disagreement turns are recurrently delayed, elaborated, and prefaced by some type of agreement token or conversational marker (Pomerantz 1984). Even though the term "preference" refers "not to motivations of the participants, but to sequence- and turn-organizational features of conversation" (ScheglofT et al 1977: 362), a number of studies have associated it with the notion of face (Heritage 1989, Heritage and Raymond 2005, Lerner 1996, Levinson 1983, Owen 1983, Taylor and Cameron 1987). Contrary to the characterization of disagreement as a face-threatening act and a dispreferred second pair part, some researchers have focused their attention on showing that disagreement can be preferred and solidarity-building in certain contexts. For instance, disagreement is preferred when the first assessment is a self-deprecation or compliment (Pomerantz 1984), when it is issued in blame-allocation sequences in legal discourse (Atkinson and Drew 1979), or when it occurs in other settings in which the frame of argumentation is already established (Kotthoff 1993). Disagreement has also been characterized as a sociable activity enhancing solidarity. Schiffrin (1984) shows that disagreement in an East European Jewish community in Philadelphia can initiate a sociable argument, "a speech activity in which a polarizing form has a ratificatory meaning" (331). Disagreement or conflict talk can also build solidarity in Black teenager groups (Kochman 1981, Labov 1972), among Greeks (Kakava 1993), and among White male peers engaged in "report talk" (Tannen 1990). These diverse sequential characteristics and social functions of disagreement reveal that several interrelated contextual factors influence its enactment, including the type of speech action proffered in the first pair part (Pomerantz 1984), speech situations (Atkinson and Drew 1979, Kotthoff 1993), participants' background (e.g. age or gender) (Goodwin and Goodwin 1987, Labov 1972, Tannen 1990), social and psychological distance among participants (Kakava 1993, Labov 1972), and cultural norms (Kakava 1993, Kochman 1981, Labov 1972, Schiffrin 1984). The above-mentioned studies on disagreement point to the possibility of face-related accounts for those varied practices. For instance, disagreement issued against another's self-deprecation (i.e. acts to undermine one's own positive self-image) is preferred since, by opposing such a challenge, the speaker displays his or her adherence to the other person's

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

75

positive self-image. Prompt delivery of disagreement in blame-allocation sequences may project the speaker's competence in defending himself. The ability to engage in sociable arguments may be related to some ingroup situated competence. Moreover, in her research on face-to-face interaction among a children peer group, Goodwin (1983, 1990) illustrates how disputing allows participants the opportunity to construct and display character and to realign the "social organization of the moment" (1990: 142). The functions, sequential characteristics, and face implications of disagreement are closely related to the question of whether disagreement is considered polite and/or appropriate in a particular context Locher (2004) states that there is a "greater or lesser degree of tolerance for disagreement depending on the situation," and that whether an enactment of disagreement is perceived as impolite, merely appropriate, or polite by participants "depends on the frames and norms relevant for the specific situation" and may vary individually (98). Locher maintains that the successful analysis of disagreement depends on the availability of contextual information regarding the norms of the specific community of practice in which the interaction is embedded. While research incorporating contextual information can be beneficial, its use requires caution (see Chapter 3 for more discussion on this point). Conversation analytic approaches keep distance from using contextual information as an explanatory measure a priori. The analysis conducted in this chapter is based on the general understanding that opposing or correcting someone in a faculty meeting can cause offense to the opposed party: correction or disagreement are signs of the speaker's non-approval of someone's face (e.g. a claim of competence in the prior turn). However, instead of relying on contextual features such as gender and status of the participants to explain facework enactments, primary attention is paid to the details of discourse. In section 4.2, I will illustrate how multiple faces are displayed and managed in collaborative disagreement sequences. 4.1.2 Disagreement in multiparty discourse Some scholars claim that multiparty interactions differ considerably from dyadic interactions in their discursive practices and linguistic and nonlinguistic resources (e.g. Goodwin 1981). The range of facework displayed and managed in multiparty disagreement may be wider than that in dyadic disagreement. In her research on power and politeness, Locher (2004) chooses a discursive approach for her analysis of disagreement in three different interactional settings: a dinner conversation among friends and relatives, a business meeting at a research institution, and a radio interview program. The first two cases are examples of multiparty discourse, but the dinner conversation centers on two main antagonists, who exchange facethreatening acts during the gathering. The other participants serve

76

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

merely as an "audience," contributing primarily "in offering face repair" (Locher 2004: 202). In her analysis of the business meeting, Locher reviews participant contributions individually in separate sections; the interwoven threads of oppositional collaboration are not reported. Consequently, the relevance of Locher's study to our understanding of oppositional collaboration remains minimal. Among existing studies, Kangasharju's (2002) offers an important point of reference for the analysis of collaborative disagreements in this chapter. The author examines collaborative disagreements, "the alignment of two or more participants into teams in the course of a disagreement" (1447), in Finnish committee meetings. According to the study, alliances are frequently formed after matter-of-fact statements, stance taking, and proposals. Collaborative disagreement, Kangasharju claims, is a social activity generally patterned on the following structure: A: Statement B: Disagreement with speaker A C: Endorsement of B's turn (A: Defense, acquiescence, silence, etc.) (Kangasharju 2002:1450) In the alignment turns (C in the structure above), linguistic means such as collaborative completion and repetition of the elements of the prior turn are used, in combination with nonlinguistic devices such as headshakes. The collaborative disagreement sequences examined in Kangasharju's (2002) study can be divided into two parts: initial disagreement (B) and subsequent agreement (C). Each act can be analyzed separately by applying Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework. Kangasharju lists the tasks accomplished by alliances: correcting prior statements, adjusting or moderating a categorical or one-sided stance, acting against a proposal, and achieving social power. Collaborative disagreement may include agreement as one of its constituents. In their research on second position assessment (an assessment that expresses agreement with a prior assessment offered by another speaker), Heritage and Raymond (2005) maintain that a second speaker can index the independence of his or her agreeing second position assessment from the first speaker's assessment, and "resist any claim to epistemic authority that may be indexed by the first speaker in 'going first' in assessing some state of affairs" (15). Heritage and Raymond's observation becomes pertinent in our analysis of second dissenters' agreement turns in collaborative disagreement. The data examined in this study reveal an intricate pattern of talk realized through linguistic devices other than the collaborative completion and repetition observed by Kangasharju (2002). In our analysis of the following data excerpts, we will observe in detail how multiple discursive

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

77

faces are displayed and manipulated in the interactional practice of collaborative disagreement. 4.2 Analysis 4.2.1 Projecting alignment and claiming accountability

This chapter examines segments of talk in which several participants assume dissenting stances collaboratively. Within the community of practice of Japanese teachers at faculty meetings, assuming an oppositional stance toward a previously offered opinion or proposal can cause an interactional offense to the person who has advanced this opinion or proposal. A speaker who issues an opinion or proposal displays a certain face (e.g. as a competent participant of the meeting), and this face can be threatened by an oppositional statement. The formation of alliances among dissenters is an integral element of collaborative disagreement, and potentially compounds the challenge to the face of the opposed speaker. Under these conditions, the choice of alignment and opposition is a delicate matter in terms of face. Facework, as conceptualized in this study, encompasses relational stances such as alignment and opposition (see Chapter 2, section 2.5.3.3). The speaker's projection of alignment is considered facework, for he or she endorses the other's face and displays his or her own selfimage of a person who is sharing some commonality with the other. A dissenting stance, on the other hand, may undermine the opposed speaker's face and project the dissenter's face as an independent and competent (or reasonable, sensible, etc.) individual. The instances of collaborative disagreement recorded in the faculty meeting data attest to the critical role of the second dissenter. In Kangasharju's (2002) study, the first dissenter issues the disagreement, followed by the second dissenter, who shows alignment with the first through various linguistic means. In my data, too, the second dissenters align with the first, but, as we will see in later sections, their interactional contribution to the collaborative disagreement is more substantial than the one described by Kangasharju (2002). In some cases, it is the contribution of the second dissenter that frames the ongoing discourse as a disagreement, and thereby assumes accountability for the evolving disagreement. In the following analysis of examples demonstrating the collaborative construction of oppositional alliances, I will pay special attention to the role of the second dissenter. In addition, I will try to show that alliance is displayed not only through repetition and collaborative completion, but also through other language-specific register and lexical manipulations employed by multiple participants. In excerpt [1], Haga, a female teacher in her 40s, initiates a partial disagreement with a proposal concerning assignments during the

78

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

upcoming summer vacation. Before the onset of the segment, Baba, a male teacher in his 40s in charge of organizing summer assignments, proposed that all teachers individually assign some form of summer homework to their students. Prompted by another teacher's clarifying question, Baba specified that teachers who do not want to issue the proposed assignment would not have to do so. Excerpt [1] begins with an acknowledgment token offered by the teacher who asked the clarifying question, followed by a suggestion by Haga. Excerpt [I] 1 Muto:

hai wakarimashita. yes understood (I see.)

2 Haga:

ato (.) ichioo zenbu dashiowatta dankai de aruteedo bunryoo o= and once all finish-to-assign stage at to-some-extent amount O (And, when we all finish planning the assignment, to some extent, the amount...)

3->Kasai:

=amarini ookattara [ne. too much-if FP (If it is too much, right?)

4 Haga: 5

[o: mite amarini ooito nan te koto wa chekku O look-and too much-if such-as Qt thing T check shita [hoo ga, do rather S ([It might be better] to look at the amount and check if it is too much.)

6 Tanaka:

[un yappa ne, yes as-I-thought FP (Yes, as I thought, right?)

Haga's turn in line 2 specifies a point in time (when all teachers are finished planning the assignment) and ends with bunryoo "amount" and the direct object marker o. Typically, this object marker would be followed by a transitive verb. Since the predicate was not articulated, the illocutionary force of Haga's turn as well as her epistemic stance cannot be specified, although the adverbial expressions ichioo "once" and aruteedo "to some extent" appear to suggest some type of qualification. More specifically, since these expressions have limiting qualities, they point to a potential partial qualification of the prior turn.

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

79

Immediately after bunryoo o in Haga's turn, Kasai, a male teacher in his 30s, inserts the truncated supplementary comment amarini ookattara ne "if it is too much, right?" (line 3). Kasai's turn is a detached if-clause of the "if-then" sentence structure. Brief as it is, its meaning becomes more explicit by virtue of its sequential placement. Tanaka (2005) examined the role of adverbial phrases (e.g. anmari) and the conjunctive particle tara in designing and foreshadowing dispreferred turns. In Japanese, according to the author, the employment of the conjunctive particle tara at the end of a clause "defines the just-produced clause as a subordinate clause while simultaneously projecting a main clause" (418). She describes instances in which incremental projectability achieved by the placement of the conjunctive particle together with some adverbials heightens the projective capacity of a turn-in-progress, so that the visibility of implied dispreferred turns is improved. In a similar way, the combination of the adverb anmari, the expression of excess -sugiru, and the connective particle tara, foreshadows the dispreferred nature of Kasai's turn. Thus, while Haga uses the neutral term bunryoo, Kasai's turn explicitly advances the possibility that too much homework might accumulate. Taken together, Haga and Kasai's statements constitute a dissension from Baba's proposal to issue assignments individually, since it carries the risk of overburdening the students with homework. Sequentially, Kasai's disagreement follows Haga's turn. While aligning with Haga's proffered qualification, he assumes accountability for the opposing stance. At the same time, Kasai's turn is not a syntactic continuation of Haga's turn (the direct object marker at the end of Haga's turn in line 2 calls for a transitive verb, which Kasai does not offer in his turn in line 3). While Kasai's turn propositionally elaborates Haga's, it is offered in a syntactically disjunctive form. Another relevant feature in Kasai's turn is the particle ne at the turnfinal position, which solicits agreement and marks a shared affective stance (Cook 1992).l Sequentially, the placement of the final particle marks a turn transition relevant place where the current speaker (Kasai) relinquishes his turn (cf. Tanaka 2000). Doing so without syntactic completion invites other speakers to complete the statement. While Kasai's turn overtly points to his and Haga's dissenting stance through prepositional elaboration, its syntactically incomplete structure and the placement of the final particle invite collaborative completion. In terms of facework, Kasai's turn accomplishes two purposes: it establishes alignment with Haga's prior turn (by prepositional elaboration) and simultaneously displays his own face as the independent and accountable agent of the ongoing disagreement. These indexical accomplishments in a single turn seem to have a parallel in Heritage and Raymond's (2005) observation that speakers in second position assessments, while voicing their agreement, may also index the independence of their assessment. Yet there is a potential difference: in a second position

80

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

assessment, the claim of independence can qualify the current speaker's agreement with the prior speaker's first position assessment (Heritage and Raymond 2005); in a second dissenter's turn, where the current speaker joins the prior speaker in advancing a collaborative disagreement, the accountability assumed by the second dissenter can both qualify the agreement (by claiming his or her independence) and strengthen his or her affiliation with the first (by assuming accountability for the collaborative disagreement). In lines 4 and 5, without taking up Kasai's prompt to complete his turn in line 3, Haga continues her own turn, started in line 2, stating in truncated form that it might be better to check the amount of the assignment. Syntactically, she does not complete Kasai's turn and thereby completes the disagreement as her own. At the same time, she builds alliance with Kasai by uttering the phrase amarini ooito "if it is too much," similar to amarini ookattara in Kasai's prior turn. While Haga acknowledges the possibility of excessive assignment by repeating Kasai's phrase, her disagreement is embedded in a truncated suggestion, which qualifies Baba's proposal only partially. In line 6, Tanaka, a female teacher in her 30s, expresses alignment with Haga and Kasai. Her short insert consists of the agreement token un "yes" and the adverbial expression yappa (a variant of yappari "as I thought"), suggesting that she had held the same opinion prior to receipt of Haga's turn. She indexes her agreement with Haga and Kasai as her own independent viewpoint and assumes a "previously held" position (Heritage and Raymond 2005). A similar tension between assuming independence and displaying alignment is also shown in the practice of "complex advice acceptance" in Waring (2007). The co-construction framework exemplified in excerpt [1] can be summarized as follows: 1. First dissenter initiates incipient disagreement using neutral expressions. 2. Second dissenter demonstrates alliance in a brief turn, employing linguistic means to index his or her independence and accountability for the disagreement and to increase confrontation. 3. First dissenter takes up second dissenter's remark and incorporates it into his/her next turn. We may recapitulate the segment with regard to these three steps as follows: (1) Haga initiates the "disagreement" by questioning the "amount" of homework. (2) Kasai's short turn of alignment (amarini ookattara "if it is too much") acknowledges the possibility of excessive homework. (3) The first dissenter, Haga, incorporates this expression into her turn. The exchange is continued by a third dissenter, Tanaka, who aligns with dissenters one and two and indexes her previously held

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

81

confrontational stance through an interactional practice similar to the one observed in (2). In these steps, the dissenters' turns accomplish the dual facework of displaying alignment and asserting independence. The participation framework in the next example is similar to the one discussed above in that the second dissenter offers a short contribution that proves essential to the dissenting discourse. In the passage preceding excerpt [2], the meeting participants discussed the upcoming individual student guidance sessions. To fit these sessions into the already crowded timetable is a challenging task, since each homeroom teacher conducts approximately forty individual sessions. Seki, the female head teacher in her 40s, reports that the teachers' request to schedule the sessions in the time slots reserved for afternoon classes was rejected in the meeting of the administrative committee that she belongs to. The excerpt starts with the final part of Seki's statement, in which she announces that the number of afternoon classes cannot be cut back (line 1). Excerpt [2] 1 Seki:

..dame da to iu kotona n desu kedo ne, hopeless Cop Qt say thing Nom Cop but FP (It has been decided that we can't cut the afternoon classes.)

2

(1)

3 Abe:

mokuyoobi no rokkooji wa doo suru n daroo. Thursday Lk sixth-period T how do Nom Cop (I wonder what we'd do for Thursday sixth period.)

4

(.5)

5 Endo:

mokuyoobi (.) soo desu ne, Thursday so Cop FP (Thursday ... that's right)

6 Abe:

ima made wa (.) sore mo mendan ni ateteta n janai kana now until T that also consulting for assigned Nom Tag FP (Before, we also used that time for consulting, didn't we?)

7->Miki:

semete ne, at-least FP (At least, right?)

8 Abe:

semete gojikan ni suru gurai wa ne (.) shitekurenaito at-least five-periods to make about T FP do-for-us-Neg-if (At least reducing the classes into five periods, without them doing that,..)

82 9 Miki:

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS soo desu ne, so Cop FP (That's right)

10 Abe:

tootei yarikirenai naa. absolutely cannot-do FP (We can't possibly do it)

11 Miki:

soo desu nee, so Cop FP (That's right)

12 Seki:

jaa (..) jaa ichioo mokuyoo no gojikan iya rokujikanme wa katto shite then then for-now Thursday Lk fifth no sixth-period T cut do

13

hoshii to iu yooboo o dasu tte kotode ii desu ka? want Qt say request O submit Qt Nom-and good Cop Q (Well, then, is it all right to request to cut Thursday fifth, rather, sixth period?)

After a one-second pause following Seki's report, Abe, a male teacher in his 50s, states, "I wonder what we'd do for Thursday sixth period" in a selfcontemplating manner. His turn ends with daroo, a plain, tentative form of the Japanese copula, which is often translated into the English phrase "I wonder." It does not specify an addressee (at least in purely linguistic terms, as documented on the audio data) and therefore does not challenge Seki directly.2 The inquisitive nature of his turn as well as the use of the tentative plain form indicates a rather weak epistemic stance. The suggestive delivery of Abe's statement implies an incipient disagreement. This implication, however, does not prompt Seki to reformulate her previous statement. After a half-second gap, Endo, a female teacher in her 30s, repeats the word mokuyoobi "Thursday" from Abe's insert, followed by the agreement token soo desu ne "that's right" (line 5). Linguistically, the repetition of elements from a prior turn can index the current speaker's alliance (Kangasharju 2002). Endo's turn ends in the masu form, the formal register commonly used in utterances presenting the speaker's public self (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998), higher addressee awareness (Maynard 1993), and deference to the addressee (Cook 1998, Okamoto 1998) .3 Since the masu form is the formal register predominantly used in faculty meetings, Endo's uptake has the potential consequence of elevating Abe's self-contemplating utterance to a more official status. In line 6, the first dissenter, Abe, indicates that in previous years ("before") the teachers held guidance sessions in the sixth period. The content of the statement affirms that he is familiar with the school's

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

83

scheduling practices for guidance sessions, whereas the plain form of the tag expression janai and the final particle kana, frequently used in selfaddressed questions, qualify his epistemic stance. The phrase "that time" in this turn draws the participants' attention to "Thursday sixth period" in Abe's previous turn (line 3), suggesting that this slot would be suitable for guidance sessions. Overall, his statement is informative without an overtly confrontational tone. The next turn by Miki, another female teacher in her 20s, consists of the adverb semete "at least" and the final particle ne, indexing a shared affective stance. Albeit brief, this contribution contextualizes Abe's previous statements, investing them with a stronger sense of dissension. Since semete is generally used in sentences expressing needs or hopes, Miki's turn takes up Abe's remark about the previous years and reframes it as their (Abe's, Miki's, and possibly Endo's) shared expectation. In this way, Miki projects her face as the one accountable for the ongoing disagreement. In his subsequent turn (line 8), Abe repeats the adverb from Miki's statement (semete) and spells out the substance of the dissenters' expectation, in other words, the need to reduce the number of periods on consultation days to five. As Abe remarks in line 10, it is not possible to conduct the guidance sessions without cutting classes. He continues to use the plain form in both of these turns (lines 8 and 10), which are echoed by Miki's agreement tokens in the masu form (lines 9 and 11). In the subsequent summary (lines 12-13), Seki, the chairperson, incorporates the substance of the previous exchange (formulated in the plain form and masu form) into a formal statement (using only the masu form). In effect, uptakes in the masu form (lines 5, 9 and 11) may help to elevate Abe's selfcontemplating utterances (lines 3, 6, 8, and 10) to a more official status. Excerpt [2] contains several features of co-constructed facework. A brief adverbial insertion (Miki's turn in line 7) frames the preceding moderately confrontational statement into a discourse of noncompliance. In line with the co-construction framework summarized in the analysis of excerpt [1], the first dissenter (Abe) initiates his incipient disagreement in a neutral, informational tone. While Endo's turn (line 5) is similar to the alliance described by Kangasharju (2002) (i.e. endorsement of the first dissenter's turn), Miki's display of alliance (line 7) includes a linguistic element, an adverbial expression, which amplifies the dissenting nuance. Abe, the first dissenter, takes up this element and incorporates it into his turn. Another noteworthy feature is the situation-specific use of the formal and informal registers. The plain form in conjunction with final particles and tag expressions conveys the speaker's weak epistemic stance and contributes to the "unofficial" nature of the utterances, reducing the threat to the other party's situated face. Endo and Miki's uptakes in the masu form, on the other hand, serve two possible functions: to indicate

84

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

their deferential stance toward other participants, and to invest Abe's selfcontemplating utterances with a more official tone. This section has analyzed instances of collaborative disagreement in which the second (or third) dissenters display dual faces: their alliance with the first dissenter and their accountability as an independent dissenter. The second (or third) dissenters' turns play a crucial role. Despite their brief and truncated form, they are able to raise the dissenting stance to a more explicit level and hence index the speakers accountability. The first dissenters then incorporate the second dissenters' "punch line" expressions into their own turn. The interactional collaborations witnessed here function as a mechanism of offense management. While the first dissenter issues the incipient disagreement in the first position and provides the largest contribution in quantitative terms, his or her initial turn remains low-key or neutral and off-record. The second (or third, see excerpt [2]) dissenters' contributions appear sequentially after the first one and remain relatively small in quantitative terms, thereby reducing the face threat, yet at the same time they shape an overt dissension. My analysis does not posit psychological impulses that may or may not underlie the participants' speech. Rather, it attempts to delineate the inner workings of the participation framework in collaborative disagreement, which manages potential offenses to the discursive face of the opposed party through the order, quality, and quantity of the participants' linguistic contributions. 4.2.2 Framing disagreement as a side comment In this section, I continue to explore the role of the second dissenter in collaborative disagreement. The analyzed example involves a second dissenter who reframes the ongoing disagreement as a peripheral side comment In excerpt [3] a disagreement, or more precisely, a type of other-repair, is constructed collaboratively. Other-repair is often treated as a speech activity involving something more than just a correction (e.g. disagreement or criticism) (Kangasharju 2002, Schegloff et aL 1977). During the taped data segment, the teachers discuss when to schedule the next parent/teacher meeting. Sasaki, a new female teacher in her 20s, is in charge of the event In lines 1 and 2, she states that it was not held around the same time in the previous year. Two teachers, Kaga (female in her 30s) and Takubo (male in his 30s), disagree collaboratively in subsequent turns. Excerpt [3] 1

Sasaki:

kyonen made wa kono jiki ni mendan shitenakatta yoona n desu last-year until T this period at meeting did-not-do seems Nom Cop

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT 2

85

kedo:, but (Until last year, it seems that we didn't have a meeting during this period, but...)

3-»Kaga:

etto nee yatta kana?= er FP did FP (Well, I wonder if we did it?)

4->Takubo:=yatta ne, did FP (We did, right?)

5 Sasaki:

a (.) shita n desu ka. (.) jaa yappari kotoshi mo konojikini tte oh did Nom Cop Q then after-all this-year also this period at Qt

6

koto-de, Nom-and (Oh, you did? Then, after all, we are also thinking of around this time, and ...)

Kaga's turn in line 3 is prefaced by the hesitation marker etto "er" and ends with the final particle kana "I wonder", which frequently appears in self-addressed questions. The statement is phrased in the plain form, a register prototypically used in monologues and interactions among intimates in informal settings. A switch from the formal to the informal register can indicate low addressee awareness (Maynard 1993), little need for public self-presentation (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998), or expression of psychological closeness toward the addressee (Ikuta 1983, Makino 1983, Okamoto 1998). In the context of faculty meetings, the use of the plain form denotes the unofficial nature of the utterance (Fujita 2001). In all probability then, Kaga's use of the plain form and the final particle kana indicates her weak epistemic stance, evidenced by its unofficial and self-contemplating nuance. The result is a reduced threat to the other party's (i.e. Sasaki's) situated face (her positive image as an event planner with adequate knowledge). The subsequent uptake by Takubo (line 4) seems to raise the dissenting stance to a more explicit level (similar to the mode of second dissenters in the earlier examples in this chapter). From the audio data alone, we cannot deduce if Kaga's turn in line 3 is intended for any specific addressee. It may be a self-addressed contemplation, or aimed at all participants of the meeting or at a particular one, including Sasaki or Takubo. Takubo's response in line 4 treats Kaga's utterance as the first pair part of a question-and-answer sequence. In other words, his uptake determines retroactively the trajectory of Kaga's question. Takubo

86

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

reformulates Kaga's incipient repair into a part of an explicit repair containing factual information. By doing so, Takubo displays his face as the one accountable for the repair. At the same time, Takubo's uptake is offered as a confirmation of Kaga's contemplation. It is articulated in the plain form, lending the questionand-answer sequence an informal nuance. Taken together, the successive use of the plain form and the uptake's confirmatory content indicate Takubo's alignment with Kaga and formulate Kaga's question and Takubo's answer as a peripheral side comment sequence. Takubo's comment serves multiple functions: it makes the point of repair explicit, confirms his alliance with Kaga, and frames the sequence as a side comment. Realizing that her assumption was wrong, Sasaki corrects it in her next turns (lines 5-6). Her acknowledgment in line 5 is offered in the masu form, marking the return to the main sequence. In excerpt [3], the second dissenter's uptake achieves several faceworks. It displays his alliance with the first dissenter by affirming the prepositional content of the prior turn and co-constructing a question-and-answer sequence, which constitutes a repair, and it raises the dissenting stance to a more explicit level, indexing the speaker's accountability. Furthermore, since this sequence takes the form of an off-record exchange between the two dissenters, it avoids a direct confrontation with the addressee of the repair. This participation framework allows Sasaki to "eavesdrop" on the dissenters' side comments and to reformulate her statement essentially as a self-repair. (A similar pattern is observed in excerpt [2], in which the head teacher, whose report triggered a series of dissenting turns, summarizes the opinions dissenting with her own report as a shared conclusion.) Since the disagreement threatens Sasaki's face as a competent event organizer, the entire sequence can be interpreted as facework. In addition, we were able to observe in this example the working of language-specific register manipulation (i.e. use of the plain form) in accomplishing several types of facework. 4.2.3 Displaying alignment and neutrality

This section examines a consecutive segment in two parts (excerpts [4] and [6]; excerpt [5] is a partial repeat of [4]), in which participants collaboratively construct a disagreement against a proposal offered by Chiba, an experienced male teacher in his 50s. Several features distinguish these examples from the previous ones. First, unlike the partial disagreement performed in excerpt [1], the dissenters in excerpts [4] and [6] attempt an outright dismissal of the proposal. Second, unlike excerpt [2], in which the opposed party conveyed her proposal as the joint decision of a committee of which she is a member, Chiba, the opposed party in excerpts [4] and [6], is himself the sole author of the proposal. Third, unlike excerpt [3], in which the dissenters corrected a factual error, the purpose of the disagreement in excerpts [4] and [6] is to dismiss a

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

87

proposal out of hand. All these factors combine to constitute a grave potential face threat and may affect the way speakers participate in the disagreement. In excerpt [4], the participant who takes up the first dissenter's turns remains neutral and does not accelerate the confrontation. This practice stands in contrast to the earlier examples in this chapter as well as to excerpt [6], in which non-compliance "teams" display alliance among themselves. Furthermore, in excerpts [4] and [6] the opposition between Chiba and other participants is evidenced by Chiba's non-participation and exclusion by others. The discussion topic in excerpts [4] and [6] is the summer homework chronicling students' daily life. Right before the segment, Chiba suggested a special assignment for eighth-graders (called ninensee, "second-graders" in secondary school), requiring them to record their daily activities in detail. Chiba's proposal comes in addition to various school-wide assignments issued by the Student Life Division, which already include a similar diary project. The ensuing disagreement segment can be divided roughly into two parts, and since in each of them the co-construction of disagreement is achieved in a distinct manner, I will analyze the two halves separately. Immediately after Chiba's proposal, Honda, a female teacher in her 40s, initiates a disagreement sequence by referring to school-wide assignments (line 2). The excerpt starts with the last part of Chiba's proposal. Excerpt [4] 1 Chiba:

...maa sore dekiteiru ka o shirabetemoii well that able-to-do Q O check-if

n (). good Norn

(... well, it [might be] good to check if they are doing OK) 2 Honda:

seekatsushidoobu kara natsu wa kotoshi mo deru no kana,= Student-Life-Division from summer T this-year also assign Nom FP (I wonder if the Student Life Division has an assignment this year, too.)

3 Dewa:

=deru n desu yo.= assign Nom Cop FP (There'll be [assignments].)

4 Honda: =iroiro-= various (Various ...) 5 Dewa:

=hai demasu.= yes assigned (Yes, there'll be [assignments].)

88

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

6 Honda: =ironna novarious ones (Various ones.)

7

(1)

8 Dewa:

maitoshi onaji katachi de, every-year same form in (The same form every year.)

9 Honda: daitai onaji katachi no ga deru no ne,= over-all same form one S assign Nom FP (There will be one[s] in the same form, right?) 10 Dewa:

=hai. yes (Yes.)

11

(2)

12 Honda: dattara are dake de (.2) tte kangae mo arimasu yo ne, if-so that only with Qt idea also exist FP FP (If so, with only that one ... that's another idea, right?) 13 Dewa:

koomokubetsu-ni sono-hi sono-hi ncn= on-different-items that-day that-day Lk (On different items [to report], daily-)

14 Chiba:

=nisshi wa aru n da kedo ne, diary T exist Nom Cop but FP (There is the diary assignment, but..., right?)

15 Honda: onaji mono wa dasanakutemo-ii n ja:, same thing T don't-have-to-assign Nom Tag (I wonder if we have to assign the same thing twice.)

In line 2, Honda asks a question concerning the assignment of the Student Life Division in a self-contemplating manner. This query fulfills a function similar to that of the first dissenting turn in excerpts [2] and [3]: the combination of the plain form ending (i.e. the nominalizer no) and the final particle kana "I wonder" suggests self-contemplation, indicating Honda's weak epistemic stance and obscuring the addressee of the query. Anybody possessing relevant information about the Student Life Division's summer assignments could be the recipient of Honda's question. Since Chiba belongs to that division, he could very well provide an answer. Yet the actual reply comes not from him but from another division member, Dewa, a male teacher in his 30s. Dewa uses his uptake to affirm his

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

89

knowledge as a division member and to reframe Honda's prior turn from an implicit query obliquely intended for Chiba into a question for everyone who holds relevant information. Up to this point, Dewa's alignment strategy is of the same type as Takubo's in excerpt [3] (line 4, yatta ne "we did, right?"), confirming the content of the repair hinted at in the previous turn. Honda rejoins by asking Dewa a series of questions (lines 4, 6, and 9), which establish the foundation for her noncompliance. There are two possible reasons for her disagreement: (1) the Student Life Division issues a great number of assignments, and no additional homework is needed; (2) the two assignments (i.e. Chiba's proposal and the diary project issued by the division) are similar and therefore redundant. In her ensuing contributions, Honda mentions both of these issues. In line 4, Honda characterizes the division assignment as iroiro ''various." Dewa's response - hai demasu "yes, there'll be (assignments)" in line 5 - displays his understanding of Honda's previous statement as a question, while neither accepting nor rejecting its characterization. Honda then reiterates her previous statement, choosing a similar expression, ironna no "various ones." Her second attempt highlights the shortfall of Dewa's response in line 5 - it did not address the core of Honda's request for confirmation (i.e. the variety of the assignments). In reply to Honda's reiteration, Dewa states that the division issues the same assignments every year (line 8), again withholding any response to Honda's point of the division assignment being "various." The divergence in content from Honda's preceding turns makes Dewa's statement less collaborative. In line 9, Honda incorporates elements of Dewa's turn into her question whether "there will be one[s] (i.e. assignment[s]) in the same form." In response, Dewa issues a minimum affirmation hai "yes" without any elaboration (line 10). After a two-second pause (line 11), Honda proposes to adopt the Student Life Division's assignments only, thereby implying that the extra assignment proposed by Chiba is unnecessary (line 12). Upon receipt of Honda's overt opposition to Chiba's proposal, Dewa supplies details of a not clearly specified assignment, one that involves a daily routine and various items (line 13). The assignment Dewa describes is quite likely the one that will be issued by the Student Life Division, the one that was referred to by Honda as are "that" in the previous turn (line 12). This referential connection would establish a weak conjunction between Honda and Dewa's turn. However, Dewa's description as a whole cannot be conceived of as a reaction to the opposing stance Honda advances in line 12 (it does not, for one, register acknowledgment or agreement), and it is therefore sequentially disjointed, leading to a minimum degree of alignment. Dewa's statement is latched and completed by Chiba in line 14, who admits that the homework assigned by the division takes the form of a

90

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

diary. However, by adding the contrastive topic marker wa and the contrastive particle hedo "but," Chiba frames Dewa's previous turn as well as his own as a partial disagreement with Honda's alternative plan. The contrastive topic marker wa indicates that the diary (nisshi) assigned by the Student Life Division is different from the assignment Chiba proposed. The contrastive particle kedo anticipates a following clause, which presumably would advance an assessment contrasting with Honda's, for instance, "the Student Life Division assigns a diary, but my assignment is different", or "but their assignment is not enough". Interestingly, the progression of disagreement laid out by Dewa's and Chiba's turns in lines 13 and 14 is similar to the collaborative disagreements examined in excerpts [1] and [2], in that Dewa's neutral statement is framed as part of the dissenting statement overtly advanced by Chiba. Honda ignores this incipient disagreement aimed at her position and issues a second dissenting statement, openly disqualifying the redundant assignment by saying "I wonder if we have to assign the same thing twice" (line 15). Her crafty use of the word onaji "the same" is worth a closer look. Prior to her turn, this word is first used by Dewa in line 8. For convenience, I repeat the relevant portion of the data: Excerpt [5] (partial repeat of excerpt [4]) 8 Dewa:

maitoshi onaji katachi de, every-year same form in (The same form every year.)

9 Honda: daitai onaji katachi no ga deru no ne.= over-all same form one S assign Nom FP (There will be one[s] in the same form, right?) 10 Dewa:

=hai. yes (Yes.)

Honda confirms Dewa's statement by repeating onaji in line 9. Retrospectively, the phrase onaji katachi "the same form" (lines 8-9) can be interpreted in two different ways: the Student Life Division issues the same assignments every year; or the division's assignment is the same as the one Chiba proposed. Honda evidently chooses the second interpretation, making it the basis of her disagreement formulated in line 15, where she states that it is unnecessary to issue the same assignment (as the one of the division). In excerpt [4], the overall co-construction of the dissenting stance is only partially achieved, mainly through Honda's contributions. The

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

91

affiliation, if any, remains frail, due to the poor sequential coordination on Dewa's part. Throughout the sequence, Honda and Dewa co-construct the basis for a disagreement - the Student Life Division already gives plenty of assignments, and Chiba's proposal is therefore redundant The co-construction is realized in the sequences in which Honda expresses her assessments about the division's assignment and Dewa confirms that the division issues an assignment (line 3), and that it is in the same form every year (line 8). He provides more specific information about its content in line 13. The display of affiliation follows the pattern described by Kangasharju (2002) and observed in earlier examples in this chapter. The interactions follow in rapid succession, latching onto each other. Honda repeats the phrase onaji katachi "the same form" from Dewa's turn (line 8) in line 9, and includes a slight variation, onaji mono "the same thing," in line 15. Nevertheless, due to the poor sequential coordination and elaboration on Dewa's part, the segment does not produce a strong alliance between Honda and Dewa. Prompted by Honda to verify that the division's assignment covers many aspects ("various ones," line 6), Dewa's reply ("the same every year," line 8) provides neither a confirmation nor an elaboration. In fact, specific information on the assignments (a clarification of "various assignments") is spelled out much later at a sequentially irrelevant place (line 13), right after Honda registers her disagreement In other words, Dewa's contribution is sequentially disjointed, withholding his approval of Honda's disagreement As we see in this example, a sequential disjunction within a co-constructed disagreement can indicate a weak affiliation among interlocutors. Dewa projects his neutrality throughout the segment by performing the dual facework of affiliation and disaffiliation. He does divulge information needed to support the disagreement, yet he does so in a sequentially disjointed manner without providing any elaboration. In the latter half of the sequence, however, we witness the formation of a stronger alliance between Honda and the other participants who oppose Chiba's proposal. Excerpt [6] continues where excerpt [4] has left off (Honda's second disagreement). After a long pause, Honda conveys for the third time her intention to dissent (line 17).

Excerpt [6] (continuation of excerpt [4]) 15 Honda: onaji mono wa dasanakutemo-ii n ja:, same thing T don't-have-to-assign Nom Tag (I wonder if we have to assign the same thing twice.) 16

(6)

92

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

17 Honda: nandemo-ni naranakutemo-ii yo tte kanji mo everything don't-have-to-be FP Qt feeling also (I also feel that we don't have to assign this and that.) 18 Arai:

watashi mo katee no seekatsu made [hehe I also home Lk life as-far-as (I, too, (think) their family life ...

19 Honda:

[laughter]) [nanya yuu to ne, hehe this-and-that say if FP

(If we say this and that about it, then ..., right? [laughter]) 20 Hata:

maa shoojiki-ni wa kakanai daroo shi [ne, well honestly T write-Neg probably what's-more FP (Moreover, [they] probably won't write honestly, right?)

21 Arai:

[ee. yes (Yes.)

22 Honda: demo kore wa ichioo dasu hookoo de [itteru wake desho? but this T by-and-large hand-in direction to going Cop (But as for this one we are likely to assign, right?) 23 Dewa:

[hai yes (Yes.)

24 Arai:

sore kaku dake de ne, that write only by FP (Only writing that would be ..., right?)

25 Honda: un.= uh-huh (Uh-huh.) 26 Hata:

=kakanai yatsu mo ne, write-Neg one also FP (There will also be the ones who don't write, right?)

27

(5)

28 Chiba:

jaa moshikuwa are da ne (.) maa ninensee dake no o tsukutte then alternatively that Cop FP well second-grader only one O make

29

moratte (1) toka (.) ore mo omou n da kedo (.) jibun-de shabettetemo have like I also think Nom Cop but by-myself while-talking

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT 30 31

93

soogootekini natchau nda ne (.) are mo koremo tte (..) sore igai wa all-aroundbecome Nom Cop FP that also this also Qt that except T iranai tte iikicchatta hoo-ga-ii no kamoshirenai ... need-Neg Qt decide it-is-better Nom probably (Then, alternatively, how's this, to have them make a special one for the eight-graders ... or something like that... Come to think of it, I myself notice that I tend to include everything, right? Like "let's do this and that." It may be better to decide that we don't need anything else ...)

Two other meeting participants, Arai and Hata, support Honda's third disagreement. In line 18, Arai, a male teacher in his 30s, initiates a sentence stating that teachers should not be too inquisitive about students' family life. Even though his utterance is truncated, the use of mo "also" in watashi mo "I, too" signals that he agrees and aligns himself with Honda. Moreover, the word made "as far as" in this context qualifies any verb that would follow it, conveying Arai's opinion that inquiring about students' family life would be inappropriate. Pointing to the fact that both assignments peer into the student's private life during summer vacation, Arai's turn challenges not only Chiba's proposal but also the division's assignments. With his brief insert, he registers his alignment with Honda and his strong opposition against any and all assignments similar to the ones discussed. By invoking the privacy issue, Arai asserts his epistemic autonomy as an independent dissenter. Arai's utterance is latched and continued by Honda in line 19. Her utterance, stated in a truncated form, contains the phrase nanya yuu "say this and that," which indicates that school should not get involved in the students' private lives. Even though the conditional clause in Honda's contribution is not followed by a main clause, the negative slant such a main clause would have becomes evident from the stance Honda has assumed up to this point, as well as from the use of made in Arai's previous turn. In this exchange, the shared laughter in lines 18 and 19, the coconstruction of speech, and Honda's use of the confirmation-soliciting final particle ne (line 19) all indicate a strong alignment between Honda and Arai. Following Honda's turn, Hata, another male teacher in his 30s, voices his opinion that the students will probably not disclose honest information about their family life (line 20). Like Arai in line 18, Hata casts doubt on this type of assignment in general, and therewith supports Honda's oppositional stance. He is also asserting his epistemic independence by questioning the effectiveness and validity of the assignment. His turn starts with maa "well," which often initiates a qualification segment (Mori 1999), and ends with the conjunction shi "what's more," which frames the preceding phrase as one of several arguments supporting the dissenters'

94

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

case, followed by the final particle ne indicating a shared affective stance (Cook 1992). While the content of the utterance and the initial interjection maa signify the qualifying nature of Hata's remark, the turnfinal construction "shi ne'9 indicates alignment with Honda and Arai's position. Aral's agreement token ee "yes" (line 21) overlaps with Hata's previous turn. In lines 17 to 21, disagreement is elevated to a general opposition to the type of assignment in question. Following this acceleration, Honda asks for confirmation that the Student Life Division's assignment has already been approved in spite of the proffered dissenting voices (line 22). After Dewa's confirmation (line 23), Aral, Honda and Hata continue to coconstruct their opposition to Chiba's proposal (lines 24-26). Arai's contribution (line 24) has a truncated structure: the concluding clause is left unsaid. After Honda's brief agreement token un "uh-huh" in line 25, Hata reiterates his point (that students will probably not report on their private life), pushing it even further by hinting that some students may not write their homework at all (line 26). His statement, too, is brief and truncated, but it expresses a clear confrontational stance in its content Both Arai and Hata's contributions are in sharp contrast to Dewa's noncommittal ones observed earlier. After a five-second silence, Chiba, the presenter of the disputed assignment, offers a modified proposal: the Student Life Division should issue a special assignment just for eighth-graders (line 28). Seeing that none of the participants responds, he concludes with a conciliatory gesture toward his colleagues. He confesses that he tends to propose too much and that it might be better to limit assignments to the one issued by the division (lines 29-31). The construction of oppositional alliances documented in excerpts [4] and [6] involves delicate facework and the risk of a grave face threat. Participants negotiate stronger and weaker alliances by employing various linguistic and sequential means. Affiliation and disaffiliation are in part evidenced by the participation framework. For instance, the opposition between Chiba and the dissenters is reflected in Chiba's nonparticipation in the ongoing discourse. Even though there are several sequential locations where Chiba could step in, his participation remains minimal. His exclusion becomes especially marked when specifics of the Student Life Division's assignments, of which Chiba as a division member has ample knowledge, are discussed without him. Rather than engaging in direct oppositional talk, and thereby increasing the face threat, both Chiba and the dissenters choose to convey disaffiliation through nonparticipation and exclusion. This framework is similar to the other-repair segment in earlier excerpts. For instance, in excerpt [3], the recipient of the repair was allowed to "eavesdrop" on the dissenters' comments and to reformulate her statement as a self-repair. Similarly, Chiba's non-participation in

COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT

95

excerpts [4] and [6] allows him to listen to the dissenting voices as a bystander and reformulate his proposal accordingly at the end of the exchange. The participation framework observed in excerpts [3], [4], and [6] helps participants avoid direct confrontation and the risk of a grave face threat. 4.3 Summary This chapter has examined instances of multiparty disagreement, in which oppositional stances are displayed collaboratively by more than one participant. Special attention was paid to the role of second dissenters in shaping and influencing the co-construction of disagreement. In excerpts [1] and [2], the first dissenters initiate an incipient disagreement with neutral expressions; the second dissenters show alignment in a brief turn, increasing the level of confrontation with linguistic means; and the first dissenters incorporate this element into their subsequent turns. The second dissenters manage dual faceworks by showing affiliation and projecting their accountability for the ongoing disagreement. In this constellation, first and second dissenters share the weight of offense and confrontation (cf. "collaborative critique" in Waring's [2001] study of interactions in academic seminars). In excerpt [3], the second dissenter builds an alliance with the first dissenter by co-constructing a questionand-answer side sequence, which constitutes a repair. The second dissenter's turn makes the dissenting stance explicit, but at the same time it also makes the repair less confrontational by framing it as a side sequence through the continuous use of the plain form (informal register). In excerpt [4], the second dissenter stops short of a strong alignment with the first dissenter, permitting only a weak alliance. This example suggests that a sequential disjunction in a co-constructed disagreement can indicate the absence of a strong affiliation among dissenters. Furthermore, my analysis of excerpts [4] and [6] provided evidence that affiliation and disaffiliation are also reflected in the participant framework, i.e. the participation and non-participation (exclusion) of speakers. As various instances in the analyzed data indicate, the construction of participant alliance does not rely solely on the linguistic devices listed in previous studies, such as collaborative completion or repetition of elements of the prior turn (Kangasharju 2002), but also on other language-specific register and lexical manipulations. Throughout this chapter we have seen how the use of masu and plain forms, final particles, and various adverbial expressions signal different degrees of aligning and confrontational stances. In excerpts [1] and [2], a second dissenter's short yet "pronounced" opposition is articulated by a combination of truncated forms with the final particle ne. The latter, a marker of "affective common

96

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

ground" (Cook 1992), displays alignment and marks a turn transition relevant place that enables the current speaker to relinquish his or her turn. The combination of these two linguistic devices allows the speaker to present a statement that is suggestive yet forceful. Moreover, the use of the plain form in excerpt [3] displays alignment among dissenters and frames the ongoing disagreement as a side comment. The masu and plain forms are Japanese addressee honorifics, generally considered a typical example of discernment politeness (their socially appropriate use is defined by contextual features such as the formality of the setting and the social status of the interlocutors). Since the masu form predominates in faculty meetings, the switch from the normative masu to the plain form denotes an action-oriented variation and points to a more elaborate notion of discernment. Collaborative disagreement is a delicate interpersonal process in which participants project and manage multiple discursive faces. This chapter has shown that second dissenters do more than merely display alignment with first dissenters. We have followed their varied facework as they assume stances of accountability, independence or disaffiliation in the interactional co-construction of disagreement. The observations in this chapter elucidate the relation between two types of face - alignment and independence - involved in collaborative disagreements. While the second dissenter's projected independence qualifies his or her agreement with the first dissenter (i.e. it is not a straightforward agreement with the first dissenter), it, at the same time, strengthens the co-constructed disagreement and therefore leads to a stronger alignment between first and second dissenter. Through this practice, the second dissenter presents his or her face as an independent participant. The fact that most participants in the collaborative disagreement sequences observed in this chapter register independent viewpoints may have to do with the existence of a tacit institutional norm defining the type of contribution participants are expected to make to the respective community of practice (i.e. statements which are considered turn-worthy in a faculty meeting). In the case of collaborative disagreements, a second dissenter's turn may become more "turn-worthy" if an original thought or observation is added, instead of simply offering agreement. It is hence possible to propose that within a specific community of practice, the face of independence is displayed in accordance with institutionally organized norms of talk.

Chapter 5: Teasing and Humor

5.1 Introduction The previous chapter explored how collaborative disagreement at faculty meetings is negotiated through interactive multiparty facework. We looked at the ways in which dissenters display alliance among themselves and, at the same time, attend to their own and their opponents' face by employing various sequential and linguistic practices. This chapter focuses on another interactional activity, conversational teasing, as observed in the present data set, paying special attention to cases in which several participants jokingly instigate a verbal attack on another participant Participants in joint teasing follow a mode of action similar to those engaged in collaborative disagreement: several teachers form an interactional "team" that challenges the position of another participant or a group of participants. Despite this similarity, the results of the teasing sequences documented in this chapter are quite different from those achieved in collaborative disagreement. Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism, the nuanced subtlety of teasing raises certain questions: "Are teases a bonding experience?" "Are teases face threatening?" To which both layman and scholar will answer "It depends." Teasing is considered a context-bound social activity whose interpretation depends on a number of factors. Instead of relying on contextual variables as explanatory measures, this chapter highlights various faceworks operative in teasing segments, and attempts to trace how they are related to the mechanism of affiliation and disaffiliation in ongoing discourse. Before going into the analysis proper, I will provide an overview of the available studies on teasing and joking in the following section. 5.1.1 Conversational humor, joking, and teasing

The pragmatic study of conversational humor encompasses research into its underlying structure from a cognitively oriented post-Gricean perspective (Attardo 1994, Raskin 1985), as well as of its interpersonal functions through a more sociologically oriented discourse analysis (e.g. Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997, Crawford 2003, Holmes 2000). Humor is conceptualized as a distinct discursive mode, which accepts ambiguity, paradox, incongruity, and multiple interpretations of reality (Mulkay 1988). Due to its flexibility and ambiguity, conversational humor cannot only entertain interactants and create solidarity (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997, Eder

98

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

1993, Norrick 1993), but can also accomplish various other functions: it plays an important role in constructing and negotiating different aspects of identity in interaction (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997, Eisenberg 1986); it can be used to protect one's own positive face wants or to mitigate facethreatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987, Holmes 2000, Mullany 2004, Norrick 1993, van Dam 2002); it can foster collegiality in the workplace (Holmes 2006); it can convey social norms and local moral orders (Eisenberg 1986, Goldberg 1997, Miller 1986, Tholander 2002, Yedes 1996); and it can challenge social norms or established power structures (Holmes and Marra 2002, Tholander 2002). The distinctions among laughter, joking, humor, teasing, and language play have been "notoriously difficult to address conceptually or empirically" (Osvaldsson 2004: 518). Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) attempt to sort out the distinctions. According to the authors, conversational joking, a playful frame created by the participants of talk, is different from joke telling, a highly conventionalized behavior with formalized cues such as "I've got a good one." They distinguish three types of conversational joking: teasing (conversational joking directed at someone present), joking (about an absent other), and self-denigrating jokes. In general, researchers adopt a similar and rather broad view of teasing as "mocking but playful jibes against someone" (Drew 1987: 219), though some distinguish between teasing and ridicule or insult (Eder 1991). Most anthropological literature on teasing considers it as a behavior comprising both friendliness and antagonism. This ambiguity inherent in teasing can be used to manage social tension. Teasing observed in conversations among children and adolescents is often discussed as a socializing practice (Eder 1990, Eisenberg 1986, Schieffelin 1986, Tholander 2002). Teasing and humor in the workplace has been depicted as repressive humor or as enactment of power (Grainger 2004, Holmes 2000, Mullany 2004). Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) maintain that the most important functions of teasing are identity display and relational identity display both of which are closely related to the notion of facework in my study. Focusing on the functional aspect of teases, they state "teasing runs along a continuum from bonding to nipping to biting" (279). According to the authors, bonding, nipping and biting teases are not mutually exclusive, and the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear. Whether a tease bonds (i.e. affirms affiliation and solidarity) or becomes nipping or biting (i.e. face threatening) depends on a range of variables. Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) list participants' context and relational history as crucial factors to distinguish bonding teases from nipping or biting ones. A conversation between two intimate female friends illustrates their point:

TEASING AND HUMOR

99

Excerpt [1] (cited from Boxer and Cartes-Conde 1997: 291) Ellen: I was thinking of a lemon cake for dessert but it's $15.00. Who wants to spend $15.00 for a cake? Fran: Oh, you mean you're not going to bake it yourself?

When Ellen complains about the cost of lemon cake, her friend replies in a mocking manner. According to the authors, this is an instance of bonding through teasing: based on the interlocutors' shared background knowledge that neither likes to bake, it creates solidarity "through relational identity display as well as reaffirmation of shared identity (e.g. we don't bake)" (291-292). However, their analysis does not clarify which pan of the data contributes to identity and relational identity display. In this line of analysis, the evaluation of teasing, especially when it occurs among intimate friends and family members, relies primarily on information about participants' past relational history and other contextual factors. Teasing has been depicted both as face threatening (i.e. nipping or biting) and as face saving (i.e. bonding). Several studies consider teasing to be inherently context-bound: they account for teasing behavior by referring to such social variables as participants' social roles, relative status, and familiarity. Drew (1987) points out a limitation arising from the reliance on contextual features as explanatory measure: since there are an indefinite number of possible identities, one cannot predict which of these identities become the source of social bonding or conflict. Relying on contextual variables as an explanatory measure to account for the functions of humor reveals a bias similar to the "Parsonian bias" Eelen (2001) discusses in his critique of politeness research (see Chapter 2 for a further discussion on this topic). Moving beyond the treatment of identity as an explanatory variable, Drew (1987) demonstrates that participants' identities or membership categories are occasioned in talk. Analyzing "pro-faced responses to teases" in natural telephone conversations among adults, he demonstrates how teasing ascribes certain deviant actions and identities to the one who is teased, and how recipients respond to such attribution defensively in a pro-faced manner. Teasing, he finds, can be "a form of social control of minor conversational transgressions" such as exaggerated complaints or bragging (Drew 1987: 219). Drew is mainly concerned with exposing the sequential context and mechanism of teasing, but toward the end of his study he mentions the functional aspects of teasing and its hostile element: Insofar as recipients recognize that the normal identity/activity applies to themselves (usually they've laid claim to it in their prior turns), then they recognize that such is the basis for the deviance ascription

100

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

conceivably applying also. And therein lies the sense that teases are close enough to reality to have a hostile element. (247) The strength of Drew's (1987) analysis lies in its adherence to textual information. My study follows his approach in its close attention to details of talk and its consideration of identity categories occasioned in discourse. In this chapter, I will connect discursive identity occasioned in teasing segments with the notion of face, or participants' interactional self-image. I will also explore how evaluations attached to teasing (e.g. solidarity, hostility, face threat) are related to various aspects such as the content of the tease, the identity/activity ascription of its recipient, and the faces displayed in talk. Institutional discourse, the subject of this study, differs from ordinary conversation as examined by Drew (1987). How do characteristics of institutional talk influence teasing behavior? What constitutes a conversational transgression in institutional talk? With these questions in mind, let us now examine the first teasing segment.

5.2 Analysis

5.2.1 Displaying jovial authority and affiliation This section examines a case in which several participants make a jocular jibe on another participant The interactants in this practice assume opposing stances - of teaser or victim. Excerpt [2] occurs towards the end of a discussion of supplementary lessons planned for the upcoming summer vacation. Within the data set of faculty meetings, humorous side sequences are often observed in topic transition places. Humorous side sequences mark a slight deviation from the prior talk, and prepare interactants for the next topic of the discussion. This section provides an initial analysis of the teasing sequence, with special emphasis on the teasers' display of jovial authority and the participants' (i.e. both teasers and the victim) display of affiliation during the teasing sequence. After a general review of supplementary lessons, Kadota, the moderator of the meeting and the female head teacher of the group in her 40s, summarizes the results of the discussion and states that teachers should spare about three days for supplementary lessons during vacation (lines 1 and 2). At the time this meeting was held, secondary school teachers were not required to offer classes during paid vacations, despite demands from parents, principals and local education boards to do so. In the segment preceding the excerpt, the teachers agreed to set a minimum of three days of instruction since students were generally not very enthusiastic about this interruption of their vacation time. Kadota's summary is approved by others with a minimum response token in line 3.

TEASING AND HUMOR

101

Excerpt [2] 1 Kadota: jaa hoshuu no hoo desu kedo jaa mikka then supplementary-lesson Lk direction Cop but then three-days 2

teedo de [yoroshii deshoo ka ne, about Cop good Cop Q FP (Then, as for the supplementary lesson, is it all right to do it for about three days?)

3 Others:

[umm. uh-huh (Uh-huh.)

4 Kadota: jaa saitee mikka tte iu koto de,= then at least three-days Qt say Nom Cop (Then, at least three days ...) 5 Ohta:

=ii n janai desu ka, good Nom Tag Cop Q (Would be OK, I suppose.)

6 -»Kadota: oota sensee wa mainichi. Ohta teacher T every-day (Mr Ohta will do it every day.) 7-»Doi:

mainichi (.) yonjuunichi ne? every-day forty-days FP (Every day, for forty days, right?)

8 Ohta:

iya:: hhaha, no (Oh, no! [laughter])

9-»Kishi:

aa? (.) soo ka (.) soryaa sugoi na. oh that Q that's great FP (Oh, I see. That's great!)

When Kadota reiterates her summary in line 4, Ohta, a male teacher in his 20s, offers an explicit, audible approval (line 5). Upon Ohta's agreement, Kadota states that Ohta will offer the supplementary lesson every day. The condemning nature of this utterance invokes Kadota's superior standing in relation to Ohta. She displays her authority over Ohta by boldly assigning a difficult task. Several linguistic and suprasegmental features suggest that this display of authority can be interpreted as a jocular one. Previous studies have

102

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

concluded that suprasegmental features such as intonation and tone of voice frequently mark a joking frame (e.g. Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997). The laughing tone of voice in Kadota's turn indicates just such a frame. Moreover, Drew (1987) states that teases are recognizable as such by obvious exaggeration and contrast In our case, the unrealistic content of Kadota's utterance (to offer a supplementary class every day during vacation) counters Ohta's previous stance and qualifies Kadota's statement as a tease. Another language-specific sign of a humorous frame is Kadota's switch in register in line 6. The preceding interaction is delivered in masu form, a clause-final form indexing formality, deference, or presentation of the speaker's public self (e.g. Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1998, Maynard 1993, Okamoto 1999). Teachers in faculty meetings predominantly use the masu form, especially in official and planned talk, which is transactional in nature and whose content is likely to appear in meeting agendas or minutes (Fujita 2001). The plain form, the clause-final form without masuform endings, is frequently observed in monologues and in casual conversations among intimates where formality, deference, and the display of a public self are not necessary. Cook (1998) observes that plain forms placed with "affect keys" (linguistic and paralinguistic features such as animated tone and the final particle ne) can create a sense of solidarity among interactants. Within the present data set, shifts from the predominant masu form to the plain form are observed in unofficial and spontaneous talk, which is interactional in nature (i.e. expressing social relations and personal attitudes) and conveys peripheral content1 Kadota's switch to the plain form, along with her laughing tone of voice, clearly indicates a joking frame. In line 7, Doi, a female teacher in her 40s, specifies the number of days Ohta has to teach. This elaboration of Kadota's turn is delivered in the plain form, retaining the joking frame. It displays her affiliation with Kadota in the claim of jocular authority over Ohta. Upon receiving the joint tease, Ohta responds with the negative token iya, accompanied by laughter. Laughter is considered the preeminent contextualization cue of humor (Kotthoff 2000). Ohta's laughter in this turn may index the continuation of the established humorous frame. The following assessment ("that's great" in line 9) by Kishi, a male teacher in his 50s, does not treat the negative token iya issued by Ohta as a refusal. Instead, Kishi acknowledges Doi's elaboration of the tease (offered in line 7), by stating "oh, I see," and praises Ohta for his offer to teach the class throughout the vacation. Providing an assessment presupposes the existence of something that is being assessed. In other words, the act of issuing an assessment establishes an assessed entity as a "given" phenomenon. In this case, Kishi's evaluation posits Ohta's teaching as an already agreed-upon activity. Kishi thereby affirms his affiliation with the teasers, sending the message that the assignment is already established no matter

TEASING AND HUMOR

103

how Ohta reacts to it. This turn, too, is delivered in the plain form; the continued use of the plain form by various participants lends cohesion to the humorous frame. As we have seen, the head teacher Kadota initiates the teasing sequence by displaying jocular authority over Ohta. Other teachers take up her order by elaborating on it (Doi) and by confirming it as an alreadyestablished directive (Kishi). The joint tease of Ohta is accentuated by suprasegmental features (cf. Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997) (laughing tone of voice and laughter), by the obvious contrast between Ohta's agreement and the unrealistic content of the issued demand (cf. Drew 1987), and by the participants'joint and continuous use of the plain form. Let us now turn to the question of how the contrasting stances evidenced in this and other teasing sequences can generate a sense of affiliation. Even though the opposition between Ohta and the other teachers resembles the relationships observed in joint disagreement, there is a significant difference in the way affiliation and disaffiliation are presented in terms of face. In joint disagreement, the participants' display of alignment within the dissenting team inevitably strengthens the disagreement and makes it more face-threatening to the one who is opposed. At the same time, compared with direct opposition, showing alignment with the partners in the same discursive "team" can be less facethreatening to the one who is opposed (see Chapter 4). Participants use various modes of facework to cope with this ambivalence. The opposing stances taken by participants in excerpt [2] are slightly different. Kadota assigns Ohta an unrealistic task, thereby affirming her authority over him. The directness of her speech, its unrealistic content, and the use of the plain form and other affect keys frame it as a tease. Two other teachers (Doi and Kishi) join in the display of jocular authority. On a different level, however, all participants including Ohta are coconstructing a joke, in which Ohta plays a central role. In fact, what makes Ohta a clear co-constructor is the fact that he did not give a profaced response similar to the target of the tease in Drew's (1987) examples. The joking frame obscures the opposition between affiliation and disaffiliation: the disaffiliation displayed in the teasing provides the basis for "making a joke together," affirming alignment among participants. Joint teasing inherently encompasses a mechanism in which the target of the tease becomes a central figure in the co-construction of humor. The teasing frame makes it possible to bond through opposition and to disaffiliate through bonding. 5.2.2 Claiming competence and willingness

This section focuses on the onset of teasing sequences and addresses the question of how the recipients of the tease are selected. When Drew (1987) investigated the onset of teasing sequences in telephone conversations, he found that they were prompted by the recipients' "complain-

104

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

ing, extolling, bragging, etc., in a somewhat overdone or exaggerated fashion" (219) right before the onset. The tease, he infers, functions to display skepticism about the recipient's claims. In my data, too, most of the teases are "sequentially second(s) to some prior utterances of the one who is teased" (Drew 1987: 233). The teasing sequence is frequently triggered by the recipients' behavior, even though they have not engaged in speech activities such as complaining, extolling, or bragging. Instead, the teased sets him- or herself up through some sort of conversational transgression during the interaction preceding the onset. It is my contention that the recipient of the tease can assume a certain discursive identity, marking him or her as "leasable," by means of his or her conversational transgression, and that the examination of this transgression can reveal a tacit conversational norm valid within the prevailing community of practice. I will also explore how the assumed discursive identity invokes a certain institutional face. Let us take a second look at the onset of the teasing sequence in excerpt [2]: Excerpt [3] (partial repeat of excerpt [2]) 1 Kadota: jaa hoshuu no hoo desu kedo jaa mikka then supplementary-lesson Lk direction Cop but then three-days 2

teedo de [yoroshii deshoo ka ne, about Cop good Cop QFP (Then, as for the supplementary lesson, is it all right to do it for about three days?)

3 Others:

[umm. uh-huh (Uh-huh.)

4 Kadota: jaa saitee mikka tte iu koto de,= then at least three-days Qt say Nom Cop (Then, at least three days ...) 5 Ohta:

=ii n janai desu ka, good Nom Tag Cop Q (Would be OK, I suppose.)

6-* Kadota: oota sensee wa mainichi. Ohta teacher T every-day (Mr Ohta will do it every day.)

TEASING AND HUMOR

105

After Kadota's summary of the decision concerning the supplementary lessons is approved by others with a minimum response token in line 3, she repeats the summary for confirmation. The expression koto dein line 4, probably a truncated version of... koto de ii desu ne "Is it OK to do ...?",... koto de onegai shimasu "Please do ...," or some variation of these phrases, is frequently used in requests and confirmations. Kadota's turn in line 4 and Ohta's turn in line 5 can therefore be read as a truncated confirmation, followed by an approval of the confirmation. Excerpt [3] differs from Drew's (1987) examples, in which the recipients of teases complain or extol in an excessive manner prior to the onset of the teases. The conversational transgression committed here, if any, may have to do with a tacit institutional conversational norm: Ohta offers approval explicitly where it is not necessary. Discussing the conversation analytic approach to institutional discourse, Heritage (2004) claims that institutional talk may involve special turntaking procedures, and non-compliant participants face negative consequences. The decisive feature of a special turn-taking organization is that departures from it - for example, departures from the order of speakership, or the types of contributions individuals are expected to make - can be explicitly sanctioned.... These explicit sanctions are very important analytically. They tell us that the turn-taking organization is being oriented to normatively in its own right. (226) Just as the teases detailed in Drew's (1987) study serve to convey skepticism regarding the recipient's claims, the joint tease in excerpts [2] and [3] can be interpreted as a form of conversational reprimand. At the same time, the tease unveils a normative turn-taking organization that is being oriented to by the participants. A review of the entire data set reveals that at the end of the discussion of a certain agenda item the moderator habitually confirms the discussed points and prepares the transition to the next topic, and such a confirmative closing does not require an explicit verbal approval from other participants. Excerpts [4] and [5] contain examples of this type of topic transition.

Excerpt [4] 1 Ueno:

jaa to iu koto de (.) shukudai nitsuite wa kangaete-oite kudasai then Q say thing and homework about T think-in-advance please

2

amari hutan ni naranai teedo deshoo tte iu koto desu yo ne not-much burden become-Neg degree probably Q say thing Cop FP FP

106 3->

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS kore wa (3) hai jaa (.) konaida horyuu-ni-natteta kanpufaia no ken wa ... this T yes then last-time suspended campfire Lk issue T (So it will be like that. Please think ahead about the assignments. We've decided that we will limit the amount so that it will not be too much for the students, right? ... Well, then, how about the issue of campfire that we didn't have time to discuss the other day?)

Excerpt [5] 1-^Tada:

jaa konna kanji de ii desu ka ne (3) ganbatte ikimashoo (2) de (.) jaa then this-kind good Cop Q FP do-best let-us and then

2

asu no koto wa eeto (.) ii n deshoo ka ... tomorrow Lk thing T well good Nom Cop Q (Then is it OK to go about like that? Let's do our best..., and then, about tomorrow, would it be OK ...)

Ueno (in excerpt [4]) and Tada (in excerpt [5]) are both head teachers and are each acting as moderator. After issuing a confirmation, there are pauses for a few seconds before they introduce the next topic.2 During these pauses, almost no explicit approval (other than the token agreement un "u-huh") is audible in the present data. The only participants who may at times join in the topic-closure sequence are those responsible for the topic discussed. For instance, in the segment preceding excerpt [6], the teachers' discussion revolves around an upcoming guidance session. In line 3, Miki, who is in charge of this event, inserts an apologetic comment in the middle of the topic closure offered by the moderator Hirai. Excerpt [6] 1—>Hirai:

jaa getsumatsu madeni kimeru to iu koto desu ne (2) hai jaa then the-end-of-the-month by decide Q say thing Cop FP yes then

2

shinro kankee chotto owatte= guidance related a-little finish-and (Then we've decided that we will decide on that by the end of this month, right? OK, then, let's finish the guidance issue.)

3-»Miki:

=hai shinro jikan torasechatte= yes guidance time cause-to-take (Yes, the guidance ended up taking up a lot of time ...)

4 Hirai:

=ato hitotsu konogoro kininatteru no ga ... and one-thing recently worrisome one S (And there is one thing that is becoming worrisome ...)

TEASING AND HUMOR

107

Deviating from the pattern exhibited in the examples above (i.e. excerpts [4], [5] and [6]), the turn-taking in excerpts [2] follows a different path. Let's look at the relevant part (before the onset of the tease) once again: Excerpt [7] (partial repeat of excerpt [2]) 4 Kadota: jaa saitee mikka tte hi koto de,= then at-least three-days Qt say Nom Cop (Then, at least three days ...) 5 Ohta:

=ii n janai desu ka, good Nom Tag Cop Q (Would be OK, I suppose.)

Ohta, a young male teacher who is neither the moderator nor the person in charge of the topic, volunteers more than a minimal response. The contrast between his explicit verbal approval in line 5 and the other participants' lack of such responses marks Ohta as the one responsible for approval in the name of the group. In the terms relevant to this discussion, Ohta displays his discourse identity as a representative member of the group. Ohta's turn is also remarkable in that it syntactically completes Kadota's prior confirmation (line 4). The expression ... koto de ii n janai desu ka "wouldn't it be OK to do ...?" is a set phrase used in offering one's opinion. Ohta's turn ii n janai desu ka (line 5) latches onto the prior utterance ending with koto de (line 4), providing a natural flow of coconstructed utterances. This syntactic completion frames Kadota's turn in line 4 as a part of Ohta's opinion in line 5. Even though he is not the moderator, whose privilege it is to initiate topic shifts, Ohta ends up being the one who has the last word on this topic. Ohta's utterance is ambivalent: on the one hand, it is a swift, explicit approval of the proffered confirmation request; on the other hand, it is an opinion statement that frames the moderator's confirmation request as part of his own opinion. In any event, Ohta assumes the discursive identity of a marked participant, either as a representative voice or as the one who has the last word. So far we have concluded that Ohta's conversational transgression violates the tacit interactional norm concerning the order of speakership: Ohta offers an explicit approval where it is not necessary, and he ends up completing the chairperson's statement and has the last word. Through this deviation, he exposes himself as a marked participant of the meeting (he stands out in the group). Next I would like to clarify the relation between the content of the tease and the committed deviation. The notion of face is the key connective

108

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

element. Drew (1987) mentions that the deviance ascription of the tease is based on the content of the claim made by the recipient of the tease; hence, teases stay close enough to the factual situation to retain a hostile ingredient. How is the content of the tease (that Ohta teach every day during summer break) related to Ohta's preceding utterance (his explicit approval)? Even though they do not appear to be connected directly, the dynamics of deviance ascription become evident when we consider Ohta's discursive face. By offering an explicit approval where it is not necessary, completing the chairperson's statement, and having the last word, Ohta assumes the role of a group representative. The institutional face associated with this identity conveys competence and willingness as an active core participant of the meeting. The deviant activity the tease ascribes to Ohta is the direct consequence of the competence and willingness Ohta claimed in his prior turn. In other words, the face claimed by Ohta as a competent and willing group member is not straightforwardly confirmed as such by the other members, and triggers a subsequent tease that plays upon the claimed discursive face. Let us turn to excerpt [8], which exhibits a similar mechanism: the presentation of a marked discursive face (as an active and eager participant) triggers subsequent teasing. The topic of talk is tookoobi "going-to-schooklay," a day during summer vacation when students and their homeroom teacher get together in school. It is one of those school events that are not very popular among students or teachers. Prior to the segment, Akiba, a male teacher in his 40s, who is the moderator and head teacher of the group, explains that setting up tookoobi is optional. Teachers who want to may do so, but it is by no means obligatory. Several teachers express their negative feelings about this event. Akiba proceeds to ask if any of the teachers would like to set up tookoobi (lines 1-2): Excerpt [8] 1 Akiba:

jaa kono gakunen no tookoobi o settee (.) zehi settee-shita then this grade Nom day-to-get-together O set-up definitely set-up

2

hoo ga ii tte iu kata (.) irasshaimasu ka? better Qt say person exist Q

3

(Then, is there anyone who thinks it is definitely better to set up tookoobft) (4)

4 Akiba:

inai yoo desu ne, hehe exist-Neg like Cop FP (It seems no one [wants to set up], [laughter])

5 Others: hhehe

TEASING AND HUMOR

109

([laughter]) 6

(2)

7 Suzuki: jaa kore de, then this and (Then, this is it and ...) 8-» Akiba:

hai Suzuki sensee hitsuyoo da tte koto de (.) hehe yes Suzuki teacher necessity Cop Qt thing and (Yes, Mr Suzuki thinks it is necessary, [laughter])

9 Suzuki: hh yaa omottenai yo hhehe no think-Neg FP (Nah, I don't think so. [laughter]) 10 Akiba:

jaa gakunen toshite wa tookoobi tte katachijanakute hagaki ka then grade as T day-to-get-together Qt form-Neg-and postcard or

11

mendan janai kedo dochira ka (.) dochira ka tte iu no mo okashii n meeting Neg but either Q either Q Qt say Nom also funny Nom

12

da kedo (.) soo iu katachi de kontakuto o toru tte iu koto de ii desu ka Cop but so say form by contact O take Qt say it-is-good Cop Q (Then, as a grade, we will not set up tookoobi, but we'll do either post cards or individual meetings, though it may sound funny to say "either post cards or meetings," but, we will contact [our students] with these means. Is it OK?)

13 Others: ha: uh-huh (Uh-huh.) 14 Suzuki: watashi mo mochiron hehe I also of-course (I [think so], too, of course, [laughter]) 15 Others: hhaha ([laughter])

After waiting for an uptake for four seconds, Akiba asks for confirmation that no one wants to set up tookoobi. The laughter that concludes his turn elicits a similar response from the group. The reciprocal exchange of laughter signals shared sentiment or understanding concerning the topic of ongoing talk (Jefferson et al 1987). Lack of an affirmative answer to Akiba's negative rhetorical question indicates clearly that no one wants to

110

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

have tookoobi. At this point, Akiba could wrap up the segment and introduce the next topic. After a two-second pause, however, the one who utters the concluding remark jaa kore de "well then, this is it and ..." is not Akiba but Suzuki, a male teacher in his 20s. In the present data set of faculty meetings, the phrase jaa kore de is used as a closing statement by the moderator or the person in charge of the topic. Similar to Ohta's explicit approval in excerpts [2], this statement exposes Suzuki as a marked group member since his appropriation of the moderator's role does not correspond with his institutionally prescribed status. By articulating the topic-closing statement, Suzuki, who is neither the moderator nor the person in charge of the agenda, commits a minor conversational transgression, which provides a locally occasioned opportunity for a tease. In response to Suzuki's turn, Akiba initiates the tease, pretending to accept Suzuki's offer to set up tookoobi. The content of Akiba's utterance stands in contrast to Suzuki's and hence indicates a teasing frame (Drew 1987). The tease acknowledges the sequential function of Suzuki's utterance (it treats Suzuki's contribution as an answer to Akiba's question asked in lines 1 and 2) without paying attention to its content (as a topicshift initiator), and treats Suzuki's utterance as a positive answer to Akiba's initial question in lines 1 and 2. Upon receipt of the tease, Suzuki denies his willingness to set up tookoobi in plain form with laughter (line 9). Thereafter, Akiba reassumes the moderator's role, summarizing the group's decision one more time (lines 10-12), which Suzuki explicitly confirms in an exaggerated manner, ending in laughter (line 14). As we have seen, Suzuki's concluding remark in line 7 exposes him as a marked member and triggers the subsequent tease. In contrast to the profaced reactions observed in Drew's (1987) study, Suzuki's reaction to the tease in line 9, especially the use of the plain form accompanied by laughter, as well as his continuation of the joking frame in line 14, indicates Suzuki's agency in the tease. As in excerpt [2], it is possible to connect the content of the tease (that Suzuki set up tookoobi) to Suzuki's transgression in the prior turn (his assumption of the moderator's role) by means of the face (i.e. competence and willingness) claimed by Suzuki. The claimed face is not confirmed by the other members. Instead, the actual moderator, Akiba, assigns the unpopular task (i.e. a deviant activity in the sense that only an extremely diligent and willing teacher would set up tookoobi during summer vacation) based on the recipient's claimed face. Moreover, similar to the teasers' display of authority in excerpt [2], Akiba asserts his jovial institutional authority as a moderator by proving that Suzuki's attempt to assume the moderator's role is irrelevant, and by treating Suzuki's utterance as a positive answer to his own initial question. The analysis of teasing sequences in this section suggests that teasing

TEASING AND HUMOR

111

sequences can be seen as instances in which a tacit norm of appropriateness becomes observable in discourse. In the examples detailed above, the tacit norm involves the institution-specific turn-taking organization that is operative in the given community of practice. An investigation of the exact relationship between appropriateness and politeness is beyond the scope of this study. Here it may suffice to say that a relation between politeness and normative behavior does most certainly exist. The description of instances in which tacit norms of a community of practice are contested and therefore become observable in discourse points to a possible path towards a more empirically grounded analysis of politeness. 5.2.3 Displaying lack of responsibility and willingness

In the next data excerpt, the recipient of the tease commits a different type of conversational transgression. The topic of the conversation is a cookout scheduled for an upcoming school trip. Kameda, a young male teacher in his 20s, initiates a question concerning the teachers' meal in line 1. Excerpt [9] 1 Kameda: ano.. jaa ky kyooin bun wa, well then teacher portion T (Well, then, as for the teachers' meal ...) 2 Doi:

hai yes

(Yes.) 3 Kameda: dare ga tsukuru no? who S make FP (Who's gonna make it?) 4 Others: he he ([laughter]) 5->Doi:

hh minNA-de tsukuru no. ((slow tempo)) all-together make FP (We'll make it all together.)

6-»Murao: otoko sannin de tsukuru no. ((laughing tone)) men three by make FP (Three of you men will make it)

112 7->Taki:

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS iya kameda-kun tanomu yo, ((laughing tone)) no Mr. Kameda depend FP (Well, Mr. Kameda, we'll depend on you.)

8 Kameda: iya: haha no (No. [laughter]) 9->Doi:

jaa tonjiru? then pork-miso-soup (Then [will it be] pork miso soup?)

10 Kameda: iya: minnade. no all together (No, [let's make it] all together.) 11 Others: he he he ([laughter]) 12 Muto:

tonjiru de-ii desu yo ne (.) kantan da shi. pork-miso-soup OK Cop FP FP easy Cop because (Pork miso soup will do, right? Because it is easy.)

13 Other:

ii su yo, good Cop FP (Good.)

In contrast to earlier excerpts, Kameda, the recipient of the tease in this segment, assumes neither the role of a moderator nor of a group representative. Why then does his turn in lines 1 and 3, which appears to be a simple question about the details of the cookout, trigger the subsequent tease? Kameda's question ("who will cook the teachers' meal?") reveals his assumption that cooking is the task of a specific group of teachers. This type of question is often used to assign tasks to someone other than the speaker him or herself. Even though I do not claim that Kameda actually "intends" to exclude himself from the cooking assignment, the assumption contained in his simple question becomes relevant in the analysis of the subsequent tease. Kameda's question immediately triggers laughter from other participants in line 4. Their reaction highlights the anomalous quality of Kameda's prior utterance, and frames it as laughable. Following the laughter, Doi, the female teacher in her 80s in charge of the cookout, provides an answer to Kameda's question, slowly, in plain form, with exaggerated intonation, and with a strong emphasis on the word minNA-de "all together." Even though the propositional content of her answer is straightforward and does not include any deviance ascriptions, her

TEASING AND HUMOR

113

manner of speech, reminiscent of a mother talking to her child, indicates her recognition that Kameda's previous question is anomalous. The strong emphasis on the word minNA-de highlights the contrast between the understanding shared by others (that they all cook together) and the assumption behind Kameda's question (that cooking is the task of a specific group of teachers). This contrast exposes Kameda as someone who fails to show willingness to work (i.e. cook) with others. In line 6, Murao, another female teacher in her 30s, adds an unrealistic elaboration, proposing that only the three male teachers (including Kameda) will cook. Assigning cooking to the male teachers, Murao displays a jocular authority over male teachers. Furthermore, Murao's turn singles out Kameda's maleness as something that can be ridiculed and therefore reprimanded. Her teasing, in effect, relates the assumption behind Kameda's question, that cooking is the task of a specific group of people, to his maleness. The deviant activity ascription of this teasing is based on the recipient's failure to display the institutional face of willingness to cook with others, and Murao's turn connects this displayed lack of willingness to Kameda's maleness. Upon hearing Murao assigning the task, Taki, an older male teacher, expresses his reliance on Kameda in line 7. Both Murao and Taki's turns are articulated with a laughing tone of voice and employ plain-form endings, indicating their adherence to the teasing frame. After Kameda's refusal token with laughter in line 8, Doi inquires about the specific menu choices in line 9, treating Kameda as the responsible cook. Kameda refuses again, this time more explicitly with the word minnade "all together," suggesting that he agrees with the group's original decision to cook together. Both Taki's and Doi's turns treat Murao's unrealistic assignment as an already agreed-upon matter (see excerpt [2]), thereby conveying their affiliation with Murao. In response to Kameda's question (who will cook for the teachers?), the participants of the tease jokingly assign this very task to Kameda. Kameda's conversational transgression (of asking a not-so-sensible question) results from his failure to display the expected institutional face (of a responsible teacher willing to share tasks with others). The content of the ensuing tease centers on Kameda's willingness to cook (or lack thereof). In the instances of teasing we have examined so far, the participants who became targets of teasing were always young male teachers. In fact, the data do not include instances in which an older and more experienced teacher or a woman teacher is teased. Even though I have thus far refrained from using preexisting demographic categories as explanatory measure, I will now consider the relationship between teasing and the position of young male teachers in the community of practice in which the data are situated. Although we cannot reach conclusive results from such a limited number of examples, the high incidence of young male teachers getting

114

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

teased may be due to the tendency that different members of a group are assigned different norms as well as different opportunities for social action (or reaction) (cf. Mills 2003). For example, teasing is not triggered when a moderator initiates a topic change.3 Young male teachers' participation in their community of practice can be best described as peripheral participation: typically they are not yet considered core members of the group. Before the onset of teasing in excerpts [2] and [8], they assume the discursive identity of a core member (e.g. a moderator). At the same time, their practice shows that they have not yet mastered the norms of talk operative in faculty meetings (e.g. who is supposed to wrap up a topic and introduce a new one). Equally notable is the fact that they never react to the tease in a pro-faced manner: they join in the common laughter and participate actively in the joking frame. Through these practices, the young male teachers create a jocular "clownlike" self-image in the community of practice. Even though their selfascribed discursive identity as a core member of the group is not confirmed, they nonetheless become central figures in the ensuing teasing sequences, in which they participate actively by showing non-pro-faced reactions. Do these practices affect the interlocutors' participation in their community of practice over time? Is the probability of being teased distributed unevenly across different demographic groups? Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to answer these questions conclusively. 5.2.4 Multiple face and voice manipulation One of the characteristics that help sustain the teasing sequences in the cited examples is their unrealistic content. The outrageous and improbable content of the exchange creates a safe space, in which interactants are able to play the discursive roles of teaser and victim, and to exercise jocular power and disaffiliation. While the practice in the following excerpt conforms to the general definition of tease - "mocking but playful jibes against someone" (Drew 1987: 219) - its content is hardly unrealistic. In fact, it concerns the addressee's past conduct. In another aspect, too, excerpt [10] differs from the examples observed so far. The "tease" is not triggered by a previous utterance of the recipient. In the absence of any sequential prompt, this example may be better categorized as a deviant case of teasing or a humorous accusation (hence my use of "tease" in quotation marks). I will take a look at the facework employed by the participants engaged in this delicate act. The analysis will reveal a different type of facework - a display of the participants' shared stance toward the prescribed institutional face. A related issue I wish to explore here is the relationship between the contextual information and its relevance in discourse. Since the tease in [10] refers to the past conduct of the recipient, it may seem impractical to attempt an analysis without sufficient background information. However,

TEASING AND HUMOR

115

a full reliance on contextual information may compromise the analytical validity, as discussed earlier in this chapter. Therefore, I would like to show that it is possible to glean the missing information from the discourse itself, enabling us to identify the sequence as a deviant form of "teasing." The topic of conversation in excerpt [10] is the ongoing guidance sessions in which teachers discuss higher education and employment opportunities with individual students. Student guidance is highly important since choosing a suitable high school is of primary concern not only for the students themselves, but for parents and school administrators as well. In performing this important duty, teachers are expected to adhere to a number of rules and regulations concerning the materials teachers should or should not use, the amount of information they should divulge to students and parents, and the positive attitude teachers must display during the sessions. Preceding excerpt [10], the teachers discuss the guidance sessions in a casual manner. Ohki, a male homeroom teacher in his 30s, states that he had told one of his students outright that he would not be able to pass the exam for the high school he wished to enter. Excerpt [10] occurs later in the same meeting. Hoshi, the female head teacher in her 40s, "accuses" Ohki of the fact that he did not abide by the local board of education's policies, reminding him of the positive attitude required by the rules and regulations. Excerpt [10] 1

Hoshi:

yappari kichinto kotaete agenai to (.) maa kichinto tte wake as-you-know sincerely answer for-Neg if actually sincerely Qt Nom

2

janai kedomo (.) minna yoku ganbarinasai to ne (.) dame desu Cop-Neg but everyone well do-your-best Qt FP hopeless Cop

3

yo tte iu no wa chotto ima no shinro-shidoo de wa aicchaQ-ikenai FP Qt say Nom T a little now Lk guidance at T mustn't-say

4

kotoni haha nattemasu yo ne::, ooki sensee= Nom has-become FP FP Ohki teacher

((laughing tone))

(As you know, we should answer sincerely, well, actually, not so sincerely, but by saying "you all have to do your best," right? It has been decided that we mustn't say "it's hopeless" to the students at the guidance session now, right, Mr Ohki?) 5 Ohki:

=ha:i [ yes

hai ((laughing tone)) Qganba[roo:: tte2yes do-your-best Qt

(Yes, yes, we should say "do your best".)

116 6

çÓÁõ :

Ç13ëé11äá Ö Ää Å êéõíÖäÖ8 [••.: úÂúÂúÂú 8¯Â ? êê

7->

úÂúÂúÂú 1‡Òú„ ?

§‡Ôö‡„Â

ËÂ ¯

5

[õÒ‡Ò1‡ §‡ ú‡Òú˛Ó] ! 1Ó1Ò ‡ 1«‡„‡. í‡ú‡Ò1 ‡ 5

8õú‡-Ô‡ 1

ç‡Òú˛Ó � Â1Ò . 8‡Û4É

Ô fiÒÁ Ë ÛÓ ÔÂ? úÂúÂ (.)

Ò1Ó-ÛÓË„-ú €81 ñ í Á‡Û ÓÔ! Û äÓ Ú ëÓ� Åê ê ê 8->

8Ó1ÒÓÔ1Ó1Ò Ó ÛÓ„ÓÁúàÒ Ë ÓÔ§‡1[8õÚ‡8Ë . ((1‡Ë§õÔ § ûÔÂ) ) ȯ-�‡Ô õÒÂ-§ÓÓÒ1-Ò‡„  �!‡8  (ä1§ú1 , úÂúÂúÂúÂ å„ ? 1É í‡ö‡Ò1 ‡ 8‡Û8 8ÓÚÂ1õÔ $ 1& ç‡Òú˛Ó]! , ‡!1 \ÛÂ Ò‡Ô 8‡Û 18 "<1Ó ÛÓË „ úÂ81", Ô§ú1? ê1‡8 §Ó ‡!ÓÔ § ^1ú 1ú‡1.)

9-^éõ‡ :

[ú‡::1. ^˛‡ú‡ÔÚ‡‚õ Ë ((1‡Ë§úÚ§ 1ÓÔÂ) ) Û 8 ËÔÒ1„8òÓÒ 1 (ì‚. I ËÔÒ1„81‡ÔÒ1. )

ÇÂÉÓ„  Ä ÓÔÁ ! ÓÉ ã1 8 8Â^ÚÂÔ1 , ‡ ÛÓËÔ § ÉÂÚ‡1  1‡Òú „ ‡Á!ÒÂÒ 1 çÓÁõ • 1‡Òú„ 8 ÁúÓËà §1Û ‡ÈÛıÒ ˛ 8ò(1ÂÔ1 8 ‡úÓË18¯1‡õ Âú1§ú 8ÒúÓÓ1 8 ÈËÔÔ§ §¯Ò!‡ÔÒ 8Â881ÓÔ8 . çÓÁõ' Á 81‡1ÂÚ Ú18 ‡ „ÂÁ�ÓÔÁ  Ë> ú„ ^ËÂ8(^ÓÔ . íõ 8 Âı‡Ú�!  18 8ˆËÂÔȇ11 Û (1ò„ÂÔ1 É„ÓÚ ò  1‡8ë8 Óú‚„ÛÂ È 8Ó É‡„ 1Ô ã‡ 1 éõ‡ , ã  „ÂÒ1�1ÂÔ1 : ÓÉ Ä 1‡8 , fiÓ 8 ÔÓ1 �„ÓÛ!Ò1  ‡ 1Ô§§Â „ ÉÓ„ ã  1‡8 Ô^ú1 úÂÉÓ„Â ã ÂÓÔ8Â1 : ÓÉ ã Â1‡8Ú § 8§ÚÂÚ . Ä8 81‡1Â<1 ‡„à„, 11ÚÂÔ< 1˛ 8úÓ\Û 1ú‡1 È‚�Ë ã1 8 8Â^ËÂÔȇ 1 Ò1ÂÛ1‡ËÓÔ , ã Â�‡è: ÓÉ çÓ8õ 98 81‡1ÂÚÂ Ú 81‡„ÈÔ§ ‡! ã ÂÂÔÒ 1 ÓÉ 11Ô 2 „Â8ÂÚõ 8 ‡Ô Ú81‡ÔÒ Â ÓÉ 1‡8Ú§ . 1Ô 11Ô 1, çÓÁõ ‡Ô8\Û„ 8 ã  �„ÂÒÂ<1Ú § ^ËÂ8^^ÓÔ úÛ 81‡1Ú § ㇠1 ã  1‡Òú„ 8 ÁúÓËà ‡Ô8\Û „ 8òÒ1ÂÔ18' ^ËÂ81^ÓÔ 8 81ÔÒ„Â1Û , ‡È<àÔ § ã  ^ˇ1^ÈÒ‡ËÓ Ô "\ÛÂ!1 , ‡Òò‡11Û, ÔÓ1 8é 81ÔÒ„Â1Û " 1Ô çÔ Â 1-2. Äã„ ‡ 8úÓè : �‡Ë8 ‡1 ã  ÂÔ<1 ÓÉ 11Ô 2 (ã  �Ó1 Ú \Ûú„ I 1ÓÒ‡1  ã  ÓÔ8 1 ÓÉ 1ú "1‡8Ú§ " 8ˆËÂÔÒÂ) , çÓ8õ' 8 ÛÓ!Ò Â ‡Ò9¯„Â8 ‡ (çÁËÔÒÈÛ 1‡Ë§11Ú § ûÔ . Ä Òú‡Ô^ ÓÉ ÛÓ!Ò Â 1Ô �11Ò11 , ÛÓ!ËÚ , „úÛãÚ, 8Ë*Â88, Ó„ 1ÓÔ‡1 ‰Ë‡à1Û 1ÔÒ11Ò‡1 8 ‡ Òú‡Ô^Â Ú ÉÓÓËÔ§ , ‡ÔÒ! ÒÓÔÁˆËÂÔÈ Û ‡ 1‡81Ô § É„‡Ú (1öÓ1‡ÔÒ1 „ 2002). íú  Âı�„Â8810è8 ••••• ••••• "!<: 18 úÓ�Â1Â88 " ‡ÔÒ! ••••• ••••• •••• ••••••• "ˆ ú‡8 öÂÂÔ fiÂÒåÂÒ ! 1ú‡1 \Û ÚË8ò ó 8‡Û" 18 ‰ÂàÛ„ÂÒ ! Ú ‡ ÚÓÒõÔ§ ûÔ , ¯ ã 8�ÂÒ1‡ 1 ÂÚ�ú‡81 8 ÓÔ <1••• "úÓ�Â1Â88, " •• (‡ ÈÔ‡! �‡„ÈÒ!Â) , ‡ÔÒ! •••••• "ÚË8ò'1. " Ä1ãÓ˧ú ã  81‡1ÂÚÂÔ( : 18 ÈÂçÛ„ fi 1Ô ‡ •••••••• 81„ËÒò„Â, 1ÔÒ11Ò‡ÈÔ § 118 Óò‡‡ ! ÓÔ-ãÂ-„ÂÒÓ„Ò ! Ô‡ò„ , ã  Òú‡Ô^ 1Ô ÛÓ!Ò , ã 8<„Â88ÂÒ 1 ‡„ÈÒË1‡ÈÓÔ , ‡Ô‰ã Â1‡Ë§ú1„ ÓÒÒË„ÔÔ § 1è ã Â8ë4ËÂÔÒÂ8˧§Â81 ‡ ú¯ÔÓ„ÓËÁ &‡Ú . íú1 8 ú¯ÔÓ„Ó¯ 81‡1ÂÚÂÔ1 : ‡!8é „ÂÁÂÚõ ‚ 1‡8Ú § Ú ã‡!: 11 ‡È(1„Â88 8‡ 8�ÂÒòÒ „‡�1ÂÔ 1 - ¯ 9ˇ11ÉÛ ‡8 ‡ 1‡8 , ‡ 81‡1ÂÚÂÔ< : ÔÂÂÒ ú û úÂ(à„ÂÒ1ÂÒ 1 ‡1 ‡ 8�ÂÒòÒ ‡È(1„Â88 . íú  é81ÂÔ81Û ‡Òà„Â88  ÓÉ çÓ8õ' 8 ò„ Ô 18 éõ‡ , \ÛÔÓ8Â Ô‡Ú Â18 ÚÂÔËÓÔÂÒ ! Ú 1ú ڄÔ-ÈÔ‡ ! �Ó8111ÓÔ . íú ÂçÔ‡ ! �‡„!1Ò1  ••, 81„Â88ÂÒ 1 ‡Ô<1 ÈÂàÛÂ„Â È 1Ô ‡ ÚÓÒ!‡Ô § ûÔ , 8Ó11Ò Ú ‡^„ÂÂÚ ÚÉ„ÓÚ éõ‡ . íú  ɇÒ1 ㇠1 çÓ8 õ 81Ô§1Â8 ÓË1 éõ ‡ ‡8 ‡Ò1<1„Â88 , ÂÛÂ Ô ãÓ˧ú ã  ÔÎ!Â8 ‡ÔÈ „§Ë!‡11ÓÔ 8 ‡��! Û û ÂÛ„ Û 81Ô§1 ÚÂÚú „ ÓÉ ã  §„ÓË� , 1ÔÒ11Ò‡1: 8 éõ‡' 8 8�ÂÒ1‡ 1 81‡è1 8 1Ô „Â!‡ËÓ Ô ˛ 1ú ¯1Â8. 1Ô Óã„ ^Ó„Ò!8 , úÛÒúÓÓ8Ú §

TEASING AND HUMOR

117

Ohki as the ostensive recipient of his remark, Hoshi singles out Ohki as the one who needs to pay most attention to the rules.4 The incipient "accusation" indicated in this turn becomes more overt in Hoshi's subsequent elaboration (lines 6-7) and request (line 8), in which she refers to a specific deviation and reminds Ohki to abide by the rules and regulations. Hoshi's turn displays her institutional authority over Ohki. We have already observed this relation in earlier examples, but what is different here is the fact that Hoshi's accusation refers to actual events (in contrast to the unrealistic contents in earlier examples), even though the manner of her speech indicates a humorous frame. In line 6, Hoshi starts her turn with the particle ne, laughter, and the address term sensee "teacher". The stressed and elongated particle ne at the turn-initial position solicits attention from Ohki and indicates the continuation of the humorous frame. During her reference to the deviation and her reprimand of Ohki, Hoshi continues to employ a laughing, mocking tone of voice. Despite the absence of a trigger provided by the teased and the realistic content of Hoshi's accusation, the tease-like nature of the sequence is rendered recognizable by suprasegmental features (e.g. the change in voice and the stressed/elongated pronunciation) and the accusatory quality of the utterance. Next I will show that the relevant contextual information (i.e. Ohki's past conduct prompting the tease) can be extracted from the discourse itself. In analyzing jocular identity ascription, Antaki (1998) denies the necessity of reliance on psychological speculation or cultural interpretation, stating that it "can (and ought) properly be grasped in its contemporary 'occasionedness'" (71). Accordingly, I will now attempt to analyze Hoshi's reference to a specific precedent in terms of its occasionedness. The focus of analysis is Hoshi's utterance in lines 6 and 7, where he mentions two names, Takada and Hachiooji, stating that "if Takada says something like Hachiooji, all (we) can say is 'do your best.' right?" Both Takada and Hachiooji are proper nouns whose situated meanings are not provided in discourse. However, their relevant meaning in this sequence can be deduced sequentially. Takada and Hachiooji could be personal names, place names or names of high schools (which are often derived from a place name). From the nominal location in line 6 (that it is a subject of the verb "to say"), we can assume that Takada is a personal name. Since the description follows Hoshi's and Ohki's exchange on the regulation that teachers always have to say "do your best" and should never say "it's hopeless" in guidance sessions discussing high schools, we can further assume that Hoshi is referring to a specific case related to that same regulation and that Hachiooji is probably the name of a high school that Takada had mentioned. The expression ganbare tte in shika nai "there is no other way than saying 'do your best'" indicates that Hoshi herself is not content

118

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

with the range of permissible advice, and that she can imagine a more desirable or suitable guidance. How is this incident related to Ohki, the recipient of the statement? The facts that Hoshi refers to a specific incident in her statement apparently addressed to Ohki, and that she solicits agreement from Ohki by means of the affective particle ne, indicates that this incident is related to some past action of Ohki that Hoshi and Ohki (and maybe others) are familiar with. Even if we do not know the specifics of this action, we can deduce that it concerns Takada and Hachiooji High School, and that it may have been in violation of the rules and regulations. As outlined above, we have arrived at the point where the relevant information concerning Hoshi's statement has become observable and analyzable in discourse, despite the use of proper nouns whose situated meaning is unknown and despite the fact that Ohki's past action is not explicitly stated. Let us now examine the ways in which Hoshi and Ohki manipulate linguistic and paralinguistic resources to simultaneously enact opposition and alignment in this delicate exchange, and how the content of this sequence is related to the prescribed institutional face. Similar to the examples analyzed above, Hoshi displays her authority over Ohki. She articulates a blunt accusation, which exposes Ohki's lack of face as a teacher who abides by the rules. In contrast to prior examples, however, Hoshi's accusation cannot be considered unrealistic or jocular. While formulating opposition, the sequence simultaneously constructs alignment by expressing a shared mutual stance toward the institutionally prescribed face - staying positive no matter what. In lines 1 and 2, Hoshi articulates her ambivalence toward the requirement to maintain a positive attitude in guidance sessions at all times. She states that teachers should answer students' questions (regarding the possibility of getting accepted by high schools) kichinto "sincerely" or "properly." Hoshi then qualifies this statement by adding "actually not so sincerely/properly," since teachers have to say ganbarinasai "do your best" to every student, regardless of his or her actual prospects. Hoshi's two consecutive statements are incongruous: teachers should always answer students' questions sincerely, and teachers should tell students to "do their best," even in cases in which their encouragement is not sincere. The cause of this incongruity is revealed in the subsequent tease, in which Hoshi refers to the rule that teachers are not to dismiss as impossible the wishes of students concerning the high school of their choice. Hoshi's dual stance toward this institutional regulation can be summarized as follows: while it is her duty as head teacher to promote the institutional face, she is well aware of the fact that this demand on the teachers is somewhat unrealistic and that it forces them to be insincere in their student consultations. The humorous frame of the tease allows Hoshi to express this incongruity. The open accusation of Ohki, delivered in her turn, is accompanied by several linguistic and paralinguistic cues, which signify

TEASING AND HUMOR

119

not only a teasing frame but also Hoshi's understanding that the positive attitude prescribed by the institution is not without drawbacks, an understanding shared by the recipient of the tease. For instance, Hoshi uses the particle ne, whose core indexical meaning is a shared affective stance (Cook 1992), three times to solicit agreement from Ohki (lines 4, 6, and 7). In addition, as stated earlier, the expression ganbare tte iu shika nai "there is no other way than saying 'do your best'" implies that there is in fact a more desirable or suitable advice, and thus indicates Hoshi's awareness of the limitations of the institutional face's applicability. Ohki, the recipient of the accusation, assumes a similar dual stance in his turns: while explicitly accepting Hoshi's accusation, he also registers his critical assessment of the institutional face. For instance, in line 5 Ohki articulates his compliance by using the repeated agreement token hai "yes," followed by the phrase the teachers are supposed to use, ganbaroo "do your best," appearing in its polite form ganbarinasai in Hoshi's previous turn. The laughing tone, as well as the repeated use of the same agreement token, especially with an elongated vowel, conveys Ohki's attitude toward the prescribed positive attitude. Prototypically, the repetition of the agreement token indicates the speaker's negative affective stance (he or she has been told the same thing too many times). Children use this type of agreement when parents make a routine command or request (e.g. "do your homework") or reiterate an already shared rule. Ohki's compliance in line 9 contains yet again the agreement marker hai, pronounced with an elongated vowel and a laughing tone. The manner of agreement suggests Ohki's prior knowledge of, and negative affective stance toward, the institutional face. By employing these linguistic and paralinguistic cues, Ohki situates himself within the humorous frame and in alignment with Hoshi's attitude toward the institutional face of encouraging students' ambitions (her recognition that blind adherence to the prescribed face may not always be desirable). Despite a number of similarities to earlier examples (e.g. the institutional authority assumed by the teaser and the use of suprasegmental features), excerpt [10] does not constitute a typical teasing sequence in which the recipient's conversational transgression becomes the base for a subsequent deviance ascription. Furthermore, while the unrealistic content of the earlier teasing sequences foregrounds a "joking" frame beneath which a conversational reprimand exists, the realistic accusation in excerpt [10] displays an explicit reprimand beneath which an affiliation between the accuser and the accused is accomplished. What is ridiculed jointly by Hoshi and Ohki is the prescribed institutional face, which both regard with ambivalence. If it is indeed impossible to recommend this face without qualifications, then Hoshi's command to adhere to it at all times becomes "unrealistic" and "deviant." The atypical teasing segment in excerpt [10] contains tacit linguistic manipulations, which act together to shift the target of the tease.

120

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

The masu-form structure seems to play an important role in the establishment of the participants' dual stance. Let us recall that in other instances of teasing examined in this chapter, the switch from masu to plain form has served as one of the indicators of a joking frame. In this example, however, the teasing sequence is delivered in the masu form, which invests the sequence with an official tone. The accusation sequence is accompanied by other elements of speech, such as the final particle ne, laughter, and a laughing or mocking tone. The use of the masu form in combination with these paralinguistic cues may create a double-voiced discourse in Bakhtinian (Bakhtin 1981) terms, which allows the articulation of two differing attitudes at the same time. Tholander (2002), in his analysis of cross-gender teasing among adolescent boys and girls, illustrates their use of double-voiced discourse to express two different intentions simultaneously. Fukuda (2005) examines Japanese young children's use of the masu and plain forms in play scenes and claims that the plain form indexes the voices of their innate selves, while the masu form indexes the voice of characters that they play. In the current example, the participants (i.e. Hoshi and Ohta) do not take up voices of any particular persons or roles, but they articulate two different imports concurrently. On the one hand, Hoshi portrays herself as rule enforcer and accuser, while Ohki accepts his role as the accused. Within this constellation, the masu form may indicate that this is the speaker's "official" position. On the other hand, the use of the masu form in combination with joking elements suggests that the presentation of this official facade is in itself a joke and that the speakers share the same critical view of the institutionally prescribed face. Plain and masu forms are regarded as one of the primary examples of Japanese discernment politeness, since their use is generally determined by contextual factors such as the formality of the speech setting or the social distance between interlocutors. The action-oriented use of the masu form illustrated in this section suggests a more elaborate notion of discernment, which is possibly related to Bourdieu's (1977) notion of habitus. As discussed in Chapter 2, Bourdieu (1977) defines habitus as a set of durable dispositions that can function as "principles of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively 'regulated' and 'regular' without in any way being the product of obedience to rules" (72). Eelen (2001), in his work connecting Bourdieu's idea to politeness, further claims that habitus can function both as "enabling and constraining forces, defining a set of practical possibilities which actors unconsciously draw upon in structuring their behavior" (221-222). The creative use of the masu form in this example is based on its "regulated" use, and it could be considered an instance of "structured creativity" (222) or "regulated improvisation" (Bourdieu 1977: 78), which is, as Eelen (2001) states, "a halfway house between pure

TEASING AND HUMOR

121

mechanistic collectivist objectivism and pure creative individualist subjectivism" (222). A similar creative use of masu forms is observed in Fukuda's (2005) study of play scenes. These observations indicate that the notion of discernment could encompass such regulated varieties. 5.3 Summary This chapter has examined the discursive practice of teasing in relation to participants' face management. It has illustrated teasing as a resource for displaying jocular authority and affiliation, and for sanctioning unwarranted discursive faces. It has also observed an instance in which a humorous accusation created a shared stance toward the prescribed institutional face. Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism, teasing is considered a context-bound social activity whose interpretation depends on a number of factors. Without relying on contextual variables as explanatory measures, the chapter documents how the two antagonistic forces of affiliation and disaffiliation are intertwined in the act of teasing. According to the findings of the chapter, teasing is initiated when a claimed face is not confirmed by other group members, and the onset of teasing can be read as an interactional marking of a deviation from normative acts. First, the chapter illustrated the teaser's display of jocular authority in teasing. It also explored the mechanism of teasing: teaser and teased establish alignment jointly through a jocular opposition marked by the tease's unrealistic content and the mutual use of the plain form, laughter, and a laughing tone of voice. Second, the chapter noted that the linguistic behavior of the teased right before the onset of a teasing sequence contains deviations (from the institution-specific sequential organization), through which he or she claims a specific discursive face. The claim is not confirmed by others and triggers the subsequent tease, which functions as a minor social reprimand. The final section examined a deviant case in which two participants employ a humorous joking frame to enact the roles of accuser and accused, and to register their shared attitude toward the institutionally prescribed face. The analytical method employed in the chapter suggests that the content of the tease is often connected to the recipients' reality at the level of their claimed face. The notion of face is thus essential in understanding the interpersonal mechanism involved in teasing. The chapter also demonstrated that teasing sequences represent instances in which a tacit norm of appropriateness becomes observable in discourse, and it delineated the action-oriented use of elements of discernment politeness

122

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

(the plain and masu forms of clause-final predicates). Finally, it presented a case in which the marked use of the masu form creates a double-voiced discourse in Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the simultaneous articulation of two differing attitudes. This last finding suggests a more elaborate notion of discernment politeness to include instances of regulated variations.

Chapter 6: Talking about Troubles

6.1 Introduction In grade-level faculty meetings, teachers frequently discuss past and ongoing troubles they encounter in classes and extracurricular activities. Although planning future events and reporting on sub-committee activities constitute the majority of transactions, troubles talk provides teachers with an important opportunity to exchange information about their students. Brown and Levinson mention troubles talk briefly in their introduction to the 1987 reissue. Referring to Jefferson's (1980, 1984a, 1984b) studies, they state that the speaker of troubles talk "may appear to be upset, not in control, not properly maintaining 'face,'" and that both troubles teller and recipient attend to "the face implications of A's [= the tellers] trouble" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 40). Brown and Levinson recognize the face-threatening potential of troubles talk since it may appear that the troubles teller does not maintain his or her face. However, they do not elaborate on these "face implications," and troubles talk appears neither in their list of politeness strategies nor in their discussion of facethreatening acts, possibly because their framework, largely confined to speech-act level analysis, is not a suitable tool to analyze troubles talk, which is usually realized as an extended discursive phenomenon. The discursive framework of the present study, observing various types of face occasioned in talk simultaneously, permits a more thorough examination of this phenomenon. Contrary to Brown and Levinson's (1987) supposition, troubles talk in ordinary conversation is generally considered a solidarity-building activity. Similar to an indirect complaint (an expression of dissatisfaction regarding someone or something absent) among friends, for instance, troubles talk can build intimacy, show equal alignment, and strengthen a friendship when broached and received properly (Boxer 1993, Drew 1998, Jefferson 1988, Tannen 1990). The diverging views of troubles talk (i.e. as face-threatening and faceenhancing) necessitate a closer examination of the ways in which various face-related considerations interplay in troubles talk segments. Troubles talk in faculty meetings involves an additional element: the speaker's institutional face. This chapter focuses on the rhetorical practices employed by troubles tellers. In the course of analysis, we witness how participants display, highlight, and undermine various aspects of the

124

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

trouble in question, and how these discursive practices are related to participants' multiple faces - the interactional self-image they assert as a competent teacher, a team player, or a sensible participant in the meeting. In the following sections, I will first review studies on troubles talk and indirect complaint, which constitute the reference point for my research, and then discuss the characteristics of the analyzed data based on my ethnographic knowledge of the community of Japanese secondary school teachers. These two sources of information help in the subsequent analysis of troubles talk segments. 6.1.1 Troubles talk and indirect complaint 6.1.1.1 Structures and elements Troubles talk has been studied from different perspectives (Barraja-Rohan 2003, Beach 1996, Boxer 1993, Jefferson 1984a, 1984b, 1988, Jefferson and Lee 1992, Tannen 1990, 1994). In a series of studies on troubles talk in ordinary conversation, Jefferson (1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1988) conceptualizes this form of discourse as a sequentially organized package consisting of a series of recurrent, positioned elements. Even though troubles talk does not always follow this consecutive, structured model, Jefferson's (1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1988) investigation yields a series of recurrent components, which, according to her, constitute the rough segmental order of troubles talk: (1) approach (e.g. initiation, trouble premonitor), (2) arrival (e.g. announcement of trouble) (3) delivery (e.g. exposition, affiliation), (4) work-up (e.g. diagnoses, reports of relevant other experiences), (5) close implicature (e.g. optimistic projection), and (6) exit (e.g. transition to other topics) (Jefferson 1988: 420). Jefferson (1988) states that these elements constitute "the standard candidate troubles-telling package" (419) and that no actual case of troubles telling entails all elements in their entirety. Nonetheless, the package is designed to move fluently between two contrasting relevancies - attention to the trouble, and attention to business as usual (1980). According to Jefferson, the underlying feature of troubles talk is the constant tension between these two polar relevancies (1980, 1988). Drew (1998) outlines the general features of indirect complaints (i.e. complaints about the behavior of others): they are clearly bounded sequences, they refer explicitly to the nature of transgressions that another has committed, and they include an element of grievance on the part of the speaker.1 While Jefferson (1988) illustrates the overall progression of troubles-telling sequences without detailing the notion of trouble itself, Drew (1998) enumerates the constituents of a complaint: the actor's (i.e. the one who causes the trouble) transgression and the troubles teller's grievance. These constituents become especially relevant when we discuss the discursive faces involved in troubles talk (see 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 for a further discussion).

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

125

6.1.1.2 Troubles talk as a solidarity-building activity

Troubles talk in ordinary conversation is generally described as a solidarity-building activity. Tannen (1990), for instance, claims that mutual troubles talk is intended to "reinforce rapport by sending the metamessage 'We're the same; you're not alone'" (53). Similarly, Jefferson (1988) observes a shifting of alignment "from distance to intimacy" (428) as troubles teller and troubles recipient progress in the troubles talk package she examines. Boxer (1993) asserts in her study of indirect complaint that it "functions as a welding agent between individuals" (192). While most researchers agree that the troubles talk sequence as a whole serves as a means to enhance or build rapport, some have pointed out that the troubles talk recipient's reaction plays a crucial role as well. Tannen (1990) describes cases in which women feel frustrated when their male partners do not show empathy for their feelings but instead offer advice or solutions for their troubles. Mutual understanding projects symmetrical relationships, contributing to a sense of rapport Giving advice, on the other hand, projects asymmetrical relationships and has a distancing effect since, Tannen writes, "it frames the advice giver as more knowledgeable, more reasonable, more in control - in a word, one-up" (53).2 The metamessages Tannen (1990) detects in her data often concern the speaker's relational (symmetrical or asymmetrical) footing. Even though Tannen does not refer to the concept of face in her analysis of troubles talk, her metamessages include indirect pointers to the interactant's face: the interactional self-image he or she projects in talk (as knowledgeable, understanding, competent, etc.). Jefferson and Lee (1992) compare troubles telling with another convergent activity, service encounters, and state the importance of emotional reciprocity in the troubles-telling environment. Troubles tellers accept emotional reciprocity but recurrently reject prematurely proffered advice, whereas in the context of a service encounter, the advice seeker accepts advice without hesitation and without much elaboration of his or her problem. Jefferson and Lee (1992) observe cases in which "the crossenvironment proffering of reciprocity or advice turn out to be problematic" (546). The failure in getting rapport in troubles talk is depicted as a clash of speech style (Tannen 1990) or activity contamination (Jefferson and Lee 1992). Tannen explains the rejection of male advice by female troubles tellers in terms of gendered speech style and metamessages concerning the interactants' self-image and relational footing. Jefferson and Lee illustrate the problem as an intermixture of two heterogeneous activities premature advice by troubles talk recipients, who are in a troubles-telling environment but act as if they were in a service encounter, is recurrently rejected. Both studies reveal the importance of the troubles recipients' behavior in creating rapport* the display of appropriate emotional

126

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

reciprocity enhances solidarity, while the display of "one-upmanship" does not. The recipient of troubles talk may demonstrate emotional reciprocity by recounting a similar experience, or by offering emphatic agreements. Jefferson (1984b), in her study of laughter in troubles talk, introduces another way to show empathy: by not joining in the teller's laughter. Troubles telling is frequently accompanied by laughter, proving the teller's "trouble resistance" - "although there is this trouble, it is not getting the better of him; he is managing; he is in good spirits and in a position to take the trouble lightly" (351). The recipient of troubles talk rarely joins in the teller's laughter. Instead, he or she tends to take the trouble seriously to exhibit "trouble receptiveness" (351). The studies discussed here demonstrate successfully that troubles talk can build solidarity when acknowledged appropriately by the troubles talk recipient. Yet they focus primarily on the sequential mechanism of the troubles talk segment as a whole or on the effect of the recipients' behavior, without paying attention to the ways in which troubles tellers formulate their talk. The next section introduces another approach in order to trace the formation of troubles talk and indirect complaint. 6.1.2 The formulation of troubles talk Troubles talk and indirect complaint reveal information about the cause of the trouble as well as the troubles teller him or herself. Drew (1998) compares indirect complaints with accounts of the speaker's own conduct. Speakers provide defensive detailing when they describe their own conduct, whereas in indirect complaints they tend to detail quite explicitly how others' conduct is at fault. Drew claims that complaints can be understood as moral work, "providing a basis for evaluating the 'lightness' or "wrongness' of whatever is being reported" (295), and identifies several specific devices through which moral condemnation is expressed: complainers provide circumstantial accounts that invest others' behavior with impropriety; they describe the committed fault as a deliberate and hence not accidental act; and their reports frequently include direct reported speech with particular prosody. Edwards (1995) examines event descriptions in couples' talk relating relationship troubles in counseling sessions. He illustrates how a partner's troublesome conduct is formulated as an instance of a more generalized pattern (i.e. script), and how this formulation is instrumental in attributing certain dispositional features (e.g. jealous or flirty personality) to the partner. These practices portray a situation as a "legitimate complainable" (Pomerantz 1986). Edwards (2005) lists these and other practices as objectification methods, and claims that they are related to the complainer's presentation of subjectivity: Objectification of a complaint is one way (in fact, a variety of ways) of

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

127

handling the subjective side: the more a complaint can be built as a factual description of its object, the less available it is to be heard as stemming from the speaker's disposition to see, feel, or interpret things negatively. (6) The link between objectification and the speaker's subjectivity will play an important role in our analysis of facework in troubles talk later on. Edwards specifies how a complainer's subjectivity is displayed and managed: through announcements of grievance, through laughter expressing the speaker's attitude (cf. Jefferson 1984b), through displacement of the object of complaint (e.g. complaining about the dirty footprints a thief has left instead of the theft itself), and through lexical choices (e.g. moaning) to undermine the complaint's factual grounds or seriousness. Edwards' (2005) exploration of subjectivity work (i.e. the display and management of the speaker's subjectivity) includes mechanisms that can be referred to as facework within the framework of this study. Studies on troubles talk and indirect complaint in general introduce various facerelated observations. The troubles teller presents him or herself as a trouble-resistant individual (Edwards 2005, Jefferson 1984b), as a moral person who condemns others' transgressions (Drew 1998), or as a reasonable individual who can afford to admit his or her own faults (Edwards 1995). Edwards (2005) points out that complaints can exhibit orientations that are specific to their setting (e.g. couples in counseling sessions, or telephone conversations between friends or family members). In complaints in neighborhood mediations, for instance, there is an orientation to the need for mediation or police action (Edwards 2005). Because this study examines troubles talk in institutional discourse, institution-specific requirements and orientations must be taken into consideration. The next section summarizes the general context of the analyzed troubles talk data. 6.1.3 Troubles talk in faculty meetings

The examples of troubles talk extracted from the data set are mostly concerned with students' behavioral problems. They appear at a distinct location within the faculty meetings. Often, the discussion of a major problem listed on the meeting agenda engenders reports about other minor troubles (i.e. in place of "reactive" troubles talk). When no such issue is on the agenda, the moderator routinely asks toward the end of the meeting if anyone "has noticed a change" in the students' behavior. These discourse organizational characteristics facilitate the selection of troubles talk excerpts for analysis: the boundaries of troubles talk tend to be institutionally determined. At the same time, the characteristics affect the sequential organization of the troubles talk itself. For instance, the

128

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

troubles teller rarely makes an explicit "announcement" of the trouble (e.g. "I'm boiling about something"), and a series of troubles talks usually ends with a summary statement offered by the moderator (who is also the head teacher). Another point of concern is the relationship between troubles teller, troubles talk recipients, and trouble source (i.e. troublemaker). When the troubles talk concerns students' behavioral problems, the recipients (i.e. the participants in the faculty meeting) generally have ample knowledge of the trouble source (the students causing the problem), and some may have received information about the trouble prior to the meeting (from the troubles teller or someone else). As mentioned in Chapter 3, all meeting participants are teaching the same grade level and come in daily contact with problem students. The institutional setting requires the trouble to be grave enough to merit discussion within the meeting. At the same time, however, all participants know all too well that even a small behavioral problem can quickly escalate, and that it is crucial for the group to share even the slightest trace of student delinquency at the earliest stage. These institutional preconditions affect the way in which troubles talk is delivered and negotiated. They also help understand the rhetorical manipulations and facework mechanisms operative in the analyzed troubles talk sequences. The ethnographic knowledge of institutional characteristics and the research on troubles talk in the literature provide guidance in the selection and interpretation of the data. In the following sections, I will examine the ways in which troubles tellers display and manage multiple conflicting discursive faces while talking about their troubles. 6.2 Analysis 6.2.1 Showing responsibility and undermining authority

Troubles talk in the community of practice of faculty meetings is similar to troubles talk in ordinary conversation in that it is essentially a description of past and ongoing events, yet it is different in that it rarely includes the expression of grievance (e.g. "I was boiling," "I was aggravated"). Instead, troubles tellers tend to claim that they are fulfilling their responsibility and that they are capable of dealing with ongoing problems. However, the display of a responsible institutional face can challenge other types of face, such as the ability to exercise control over the students. This dilemma or conflict of face is a recurring theme in this and the following sections. The troubles tellers' interactional practices are oriented towards managing various conflicting discursive faces. In this and the following sections, I will focus on one example at a time for the sake of clarity. A synopsis of similar practices across different

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

129

excerpts will follow in later sections to support the arguments of the first analysis. In the first excerpt, a teacher faces an interactional dilemma in reporting her trouble: she has to present the trouble as severe and therefore report-worthy without looking overly incompetent in handling the trouble herself. I will show (1) that troubles tellers employ various rhetorical means to frame the troublemakers' behavior as a transgression; (2) that troubles tellers describe their own involvement in the trouble in rather vague and general terms; and (3) that these rhetorical practices are closely linked to the dilemma of conflicting institutional faces. Nakai, a female home economics teacher in her 40s, complains about an unruly student in her cooking class. She faces an interesting dilemma. Her attempt to rein in the recalcitrant student supports her face as a responsible teacher, yet the fact that she could not stop him calls her authority into question. Another important aspect is the report-worthiness of the trouble. As we have seen, all teachers share the understanding that they must be aware of students' behavioral problems from the very beginning. They are encouraged to report any sign of incipient delinquency. Yet if the trouble they report is a benign and insignificant one, troubles tellers run the risk of being categorized as dispositional complainers or as being overly critical of students (cf. Edwards 2005). A troubles teller must therefore show the report-worthiness of the trouble that it is a serious event worthy of sharing in a faculty meeting. Yet the very severity of the event, while supporting its report-worthiness, carries also the potential of undermining the troubles teller's authority. As this excerpt shows, a speaker's projection of one positive self-image can quickly trigger the loss of another. This type of face conflict seems to occur quite frequently in troubles talk in faculty meetings. The incident reported in excerpt [1] was listed in the meeting agenda, and Nishi, the male moderator in his 30s, prompts the troubles talk in line 1.

Excerpt [1] 1

Nishi:

jaa tsugi goban (..) ii desu ka? then next number-five good Cop Q (1 Then, let's move to number 5 [of the agenda]. Is it OK?)

2 Nakai:

hai (.) ano kateeka no choorijisshuu no kotona n desu kedo yes well home-economics Lk cooking-class Lk thing Nom Cop but ([unintelligible for 2 seconds])

3

ano koshoo o ne moo hoka no hito ni batt batt baaaatt to nagetari well pepper O FP well other Lk person to splash splash Qt threw

130

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

4

heya no naka-ni ne (.) moo hutabin konna ookii no kara-ni shichatta n room Lk inside FP well two this big one empty made Nom

5

desu yo (.) de (.) chuui shita n desu kedomo (.) sore demo yatteru Cop FP and warning did Nom Cop but so even doing

6

no ne (.) sorede jibun shirabakkurete watashi ga miteru noni Nom FP and himself pretend-not-to-notice I S watching though

7

moo shimasen shitemasen nante mottemasen toka ne (.) miteru any-more don't not-doing etc. not-having etc. FP watching

8

noni ne? hoka no ko wa isshookenmee mushi shite yatte n desu kedo though FP other Lk child T do-their-best ignore and do Nom Cop but

9

ne, FP

(2 Yes, well, it is about the cooking period of the home economics class. 3 He sprayed pepper onto other students, 4 in the room, until he emptied two of 5 these big jars. I gave him a warning, but he kept doing it, 6 and he pretended not to do anything, though he knew I was watching, 7 saying that he didn't do it or he didn't have [the pepper jars], even 8 though I was watching him. Other students ignored him and were doing 9 their best, but...)

Upon the moderator's prompt, Nakai reports a male student's unruly behavior in her cooking class. She formulates his conduct explicitly as a transgression. Her description of the student's behavior (spraying pepper in the classroom) in lines 3 to 5 includes several objectification methods methods to formulate a complaint as a factual description of its object (Edwards 2005). For instance, Nakai provides a vivid, graphic description (cf. Potter 1996, Wooffitt 1992) of the student's handling of the pepper bottle. Her use of the onomatopoeia batt bait baaaatt to emphasizes the animated and forceful manner of the student's actions, and she demonstrates the size of the pepper cans (while saying konna ookii no "ones [i.e. cans] this big"), adding a here-and-now relevancy to her report. Moreover, the deliberateness or agency of the complainable conduct (cf. Drew 1998, Edwards 2005) is established by revealing that the student kept committing the transgression after he received a warning from the teacher (lines 5-6) and that he claimed to be innocent in front of the teacher and other students who had witnessed his blatant misbehavior (lines 6-8). Nakai's report includes direct quoted speech of the student (shimasen "I won't do

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

131

anything," shitemasen "I am not doing anything," and mottemasen "I don't have anything," line 7), which contradicts his committed and witnessed misconduct. Verbatim quotation with active voicing is a common objectification method (Edwards 2005, Wooffitt 1992). Drew (1998) states that through direct quotation, "the complained-about behavior is animated in such a way that the recipient can appreciate how rude, unjust, and thoughtless the other was, without the complainant needing to categorize the particular offense that was thereby committed" (321). In this turn, Nakai's vivid description highlights the severity of the misconduct and the troublemaker's agency, and presents the trouble as reportworthy. Contrary to the vivid and detailed description of the student's conduct, Nakai's own involvement in the trouble is mentioned briefly in general terms: she gave a warning (chuui shita "warned," line 5) and witnessed (miteru "watching," lines 6-7) the unruly behavior. The general, backgrounded description of a troubles teller's own involvement in the trouble has been reported elsewhere in the literature. For instance, Edwards (1995) contrasts the generalized and unspecific nature of the complainer's admission to share blame (e.g. "it's me, too") with the more detailed and graphic account of the trouble source's actions. In our example, Nakai's description of her own action (her attempt to stop the misconduct) projects her face - her interactional self-image - as a responsible teacher. At the same time, the general nature of the description shifts the focus of attention away from her and thereby serves to downplay her ineffectiveness in stopping the student's misconduct. By adding a remark about the behavior of the other students (who ignored the troublemaker and participated in the class diligently), she proves that she was able to manage the rest of the class reasonably well. From the viewpoint of face, then, the vivid and rhetorically rich description of student misconduct is an ideal measure to display multiple and often conflicting faces simultaneously. First, a compelling narrative accentuating the severity of the offense and the agency of the troublemaker proves the report-worthiness of the trouble, and in turn enables the speaker to project the interactional face of a reasonable individual (i.e. not a dispositional complainer). Edwards (2005) observes that "the more a complaint can be built as a factual description of its object, the less available it is to be heard as stemming from the speaker's disposition to see, feel, or interpret things negatively" (6). Objectification can function as facework - it allows the troubles teller to present him- or herself as a reasonable individual without negative bias. Second, the vivid description of the student's misconduct is contrasted with the vague description of the troubles teller's conduct. In doing so, the troubles teller displays her interactional self-image as a responsible teacher. Third, by formulating the student's misconduct as a severe transgression, the narrative frames the lack of authority on the part of the teacher as "all too human," rendering

132

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

it understandable and therefore forgivable. Fourth, by stressing the reportworthiness of her trouble, the troubles teller displays her face as being a considerate meeting participant who does not complain about trifles and waste others' time. This section has shown that a teacher's presentation of a trouble case as report-worthy (supporting the self-image of being reasonable and considerate) conflicts with her face as an effective/competent teacher with unchallenged authority, and it has demonstrated how specific rhetorical means of describing events can be deployed to manage these multiple, conflicting faces. 6.2.2 Projecting vulnerability Excerpts [2] and [3] are taken from the same meeting as excerpt [1]. After the home economics teacher's complaint about an unruly student in her cooking class, the teachers discuss this and other behavioral transgressions. Banno, a male teacher in his 50s who is a member of the Student Life Division, discloses the trouble he faces with some of his male students. Sequentially, these excerpts are placed as a "work-up (reports of relevant other experiences)" after the "delivery" of troubles talk (Jefferson 1988). It contains some of the same features we have encountered in the previous section: a graphic description of the misconduct and the projection of the speaker's sense of responsibility. An additional feature of these segments includes expressions asserting the speaker's helplessness and vulnerability (cf. Waring 2001). As we will see, such admissions are connected to the speaker's interactional face of reflectiveness and affiliation with others. At the beginning of excerpt [2], Nishi, the head teacher and moderator of the meeting, presents his view of the current condition of student behavior, stating that the teachers need to talk with the students instead of simply enforcing discipline (lines 1-6). After Nishi's statement, Banno expresses his tormented feelings (lines 7-10) and by way of illustration reports an incident in which he failed to control the students (excerpt [3], lines 12-14). Let us first explore the first segment of this exchange. Excerptsml [2] 1 Nishi:

yappari yurunderu toko ga aru to omou n desu kedo (.) as-expected getting-loose point S exist Qt think Nom Cop but

2

kyuu ni gyaagyaa ittemo kawaranai to omou n de suddenly harshly say-even-if change-Neg Qt think Nom Cop-and

3

ue kara osaetsukeru bakkari janaku (..) kamioka toka ima above from suppress only Cop-neg Kamioka etc. now

4

daibu ( ) hanpatsushite (.) hoka no ko

mo sonnna kanji

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES quite

rebel-and

133

other Lk child also this

feeling

5

ni natteku kanoosee ga aru shi (.) chigau katachi de hanashi o to becoming possibility S exist and other form with talk O

6

shite kangaesasete ikanaitoikenai to (.) ne? ( do make-them-think have-to Qt FP

)

(1 As we expected, I think some of them are getting loose, but 2 I think they wouldn't change if we suddenly scold them harshly, and 3 instead of just suppressing them ... Kamioka and others are 4 getting quite rebellious, and there is a possibility that others can 5 be the same, so we have to talk to them and 6 make them think in a different manner.) 7 Banno:

daa ne (.) donaruno wa kantanna n da kedo hatashite d- dooyuufuuni so FP raising-voice T easy Nom Cop but at-all how

8

shitara ii no ka na tte yuu koto de (.) komatte n da yo ore (.) do-if good Nom Q FP Q say thing and in-trouble Nom Cop FP I

9

ore mo jibunde kurushiku nacchau kara sa (.) de anmari sorede I too on-my-own suffering become so FP and so-much then

10

okotte bakari iruto (.) jibun no jugyoo ga dame-ni nacchau shi. scolding only if own Lk class S bad become and (7 So, well, raising my voice [at students] is easy, but [when I think] what 8 I should do, I am at a loss. 9 I am suffering on my own, too. And then 10 if I'm constantly scolding them, my own class would collapse.)

11 Nishi:

uuun uh-huh (11 Uh-huh.)

In his first turn in lines 7 to 10, Banno laments that he does not know how to respond to students' misbehavior. His admission that he is at a loss even though "raising his voice is easy" (line 7) reflects the moderator's earlier assessment in lines 1 to 6. Nishi, the moderator, indicates that forceful enforcement of discipline is no longer effective and that the teachers should find alternative means to control the students. Banno's use of the verb donaru "raising one's voice" (line 7) is a concrete example of the practice of osaetsukeru "suppress (students)" advanced by Nishi (line 3). By stating that it is easy for him to raise his voice at students (line 7), Banno at first projects his face as a capable teacher with some authority (who is able to handle one measure of student control - raising his voice -

134

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

with ease). Yet in the same turn he explicitly admits his vulnerability by mentioning that he is "at a loss" (line 8), that he is "suffering" (line 9), and that he is aware of the fact that such an approach would eventually ruin his class (line 10). These pronouncements resemble the way in which complainers express how they are affected by the issue that causes their irritation (Drew 1998, Edwards 2005). These statements are usually phrased as first person assessments (e.g. "I am boiling," "I was disgusted"), and they tend to appear before the elaboration of a complaint or at its end. In Drew's (1998) data, they are interpreted as expressions of moral indignation. In contrast, Banno's emotional outburst in lines 8 and 9 speaks not of indignation against student misbehavior, but rather of internal distress concerning his own educational practices. Banno's admission is unequivocal: he does not know what step to take beyond just raising his voice at students (lines 7-8). He characterizes the manner of his suffering asjibunde "on my own," ascribing it to internal causes rather than to the external cause of student behavior. Banno's admission of vulnerability projects several different yet interrelated faces. First, it supports Banno's affiliating stance toward Nishi (the moderator who diagnosed student misbehavior as a growing problem) and Nakai (the home economics teacher whose troubles talk precedes Banno's) by indicating that Banno has similar troubles and concerns. Within the extended troubles talk sequence (starting with Nakai's troubles talk and continuing with Banno's turns as instances of reactive troubles talk), Banno is at first a recipient of Nakai's troubles talk. By showing empathetic reciprocity (Jefferson 1980, 1988, Tannen 1990), Banno acknowledges that Nakai's problem is a common one shared by all teachers, thereby reducing Nakai's potential loss of face as a competent teacher. Second, as stated above, Banno ascribes his vulnerability not to his helplessness as a teacher, but to a distress of a higher order, experienced by a teacher who could easily exercise force and authority. By asserting vulnerability in this manner and at this sequential location, Banno acknowledges the initial troubles teller's face, demonstrates affiliation to others, and projects his standing as a capable yet reflective teacher. In his next turn, Banno reports another trouble he encountered recently (lines 12-14). Excerpt [3] (continuation of excerpt [2]) 11 Nishi:

uuun uh-huh (11 Uh-huh.)

12 Banno: yamada ya satoo ni mo kyoo chuuishita n da kedo (.) ore ga

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES Yamada and Sato to also today scolded Nom Cop but

135 I

13

miteru toki heekide rokkaa no ue o nikai mo watching time indifferently locker Lk on at twice as many as

14

sankai mo tobiagatte three-times as many as jumping

S

abaremakutte n da na acting-rough Nom Cop FP

(12 Today I scolded Yamada and Sato, but while I 13 was watching, they didn't care [that I was watching] at all and 14 jumped on top of the locker as many as two/three times.) 15 Nishi:

16 Abe:

kocchi o mushi-shiteru n da. this-side O ignoring Nom Cop (15 They are ignoring us.) yurunderu ne, getting-loose FP (16 They are getting loose.)

17 Nishi:

maa (.) jikitekini yurumu jiki mo am daroo shi? (.) satoo dake well period-wise get-loose period also exist Cop and Sato onlv

18

to wa kagiranai to omou n da kedo (.) anoo maa ... onaji yoona Qt T limited-Neg Qt think Nom Cop but eh well same like

19

reberu de mada hokani mo iru shi ne, level at still other also exist also FP (17 Well, it is also the period when they get loose, and I think 18 it is not only Sato [who is causing trouble], but, well, there are 19 also others who are as bad as him, right?)

Banno's trouble is similar to Nakai's in excerpt [1] in that the students continued their misconduct in front of the teacher even after being scolded. The facework follows a similar pattern. Banno describes the students' misdeeds in vivid terms, emphasizing their deliberate nature and recurrent performance (nikai mo sankai mo "as many as two or three times"). The repeated use of mo "as many as" in lines 13 and 14 denotes the persistence of the students' offenses as excessive. Banno uses the dispositional term heekide "indifferently" or "without caring" (line 13), indicating the students' agency in their misconduct The outrageous behavior is summed up with the forceful verb abaremakutte (line 14), which can roughly be translated as "acting out as much as one likes." In contrast, Banno's own involvement is encapsulated in the general term chuuishita "gave warning" or "scolded" (line 12) - exactly the same verb Nakai used to relay her disciplinary measures (excerpt [1], line 5). The vivid illustration of the students' misconduct, when contrasted with the general

136

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

description of Banno's reaction, renders Banno's failure to manage those offenses understandable. Upon receiving the troubles talk, Nishi and Abe (a middle-aged male teacher) offer short comments, which confirm the core of the ongoing problem: the students ignore the teachers (line 15), and they are getting loose (line 16). In the following turn (lines 17-19), Nishi stresses the general nature of the problem, "making light of the trouble" (Jefferson 1988). By withholding a solution, Nishi is doing "being a troubles recipient," and not an advice giver. Student misconduct, the topic of the preceding excerpts, is a delicate issue, since it reveals lack of control on the part of the teacher and entails potential face threats. The troubles teller in excerpt [4] voices a different concern. Miki, a young female teacher in her 20s, maintains that she did not receive enough materials from her colleagues. She implies (without explicitly articulating the concern in her turn) that this insufficiency has made it difficult for her to plan for a future event. She prefaces her statement by asserting vulnerability as an inexperienced teacher. Her turn stirs up a series of utterances leading to a collaborative performance of troubles talk, which eventually develops into a joke. The participants end the exchange by complaining about a teacher who keeps all materials and records to herself and does not share them with others. The maligned instructor teaches a different grade and, hence, is not present at the meeting. As she states in line (1), Miki is relatively new to the school. For the first time she is in charge of senior guidance sessions in which teachers consult with students regarding their higher education. The teacher in charge is usually provided with a set of relevant materials and records developed over several years so that no paperwork has to be prepared from scratch. However, as Miki complains in lines 2, 3 and 4, the only material available to her was from the previous year, and she had no access to any other materials. Shortly after the onset of her turn, she states that she is inexperienced (line 1) and uninformed (line 2). Her phrase nanimo wakarimasen "I don't know anything" is an instance of extreme case formulation (Edwards 2000, Pomerantz 1986), an expression using extreme terms to defend or justify a description or assessment. In this case, the fact that she is inexperienced and "doesn't know anything" justifies her difficulties in preparing for the event. Excerpt [4] 1 Miki:

shiryoo wa doo shimashoo (.) ano watashi wa honkoo de jisseki nai(.) material T how should-do well I T this-school at experience no

2

nanimo wakarimasen kedo (.) soreni kyonen no mono shika wakaru no ga not-at-all don't-know but and last-year Lk thing only know one S

íÄúäßå 3

ë ÄÇéßÉÉ íäéßßÇúÖ á

‡„¥Ú‡ÁÂ Ô ú‡„‡ (.) ÁÓÔ Ó Ú‡Â ÔÓß-Âıß8 ß 80 ßú‡ß

4

137

ÔÓ ÁÔ¥„ÛÓ Ó „ÂÔúË ÁúÓÓªÒÛ‡ª ¯ ÁÔ¥¥ ‡ ÔÓ ä ‡

úÂÉÓ„Â ßÄ Ú‡ªÂ„¥‡ ¥ ‡¥¥

(¥¥ÁÒ‡Ô ¥ Ò¥¥Ò ¥ äÓ Úé ,

Ô‡? (.) ¥&Ëú‡ 8‡ÔÓ-‚ÂÔ8  §‡ ßÒ¥ª  ÁÓÔ Ó (.) úÓ^¯ú¥Ò¥ÓÓ ÁË„Ë Ô Ò¥‡Ë‡„ ‡ Éê ‚ÓÚª¥Ú Âå „ 8‡ÔÓ 3 ÒÓÚ Â„ ßÔÒ1¥Û¥Ò1ˇ1£Ë¥Ò1‡ÔÒ Â Ò¥Ó NÓÚ ëÓ�-¥É

•

ßÒÛÓÔÂ Ô ÔÓ Óä‡Áú¥Áú¥Ú‡Á ËÔ Ò¥� Ë ӂÁú‡Ë‡ Ô Ò¥� (.) ( ߇‚Â-Û‡ „ ÓÔ ßÂÔÒ ¥ NÓÚ ëÓ� •• 8‡Û NÓÚ ëÓ�

6

ÓÚÓ¥¥ ‡ Ô Ò¥Â‚ Ë 1ÒÂÒ¥Ó = ãÓË^ú ¥ NÓÚ ëÓ�úË¥

) ßÓ¥Ò ‡ Â¥Ò .

(1 \ìÔ‡ ß ÁúÓËßÒ ¥ ß Ò¥ Ó\Û¥ã ã  ڇªÂ„¥‡¥ ? \ìÂ11, 1 ú‡Û à˥ Âı�„¥ÂÔÒ Â ¥Ô 2 ãß8 ‚ÒÔÓÓ¥ , ‡ÔÒ¥ ß Ò¥ÓÔ ó 1¯Ó\\ „ ‡ÔÛ¥Ô¥Ô‰ , úË¥... ‡ÔÒ¥ úÂÒ‡Ë‚Â ß ú‡Û ÓÔ¥ Û 3 ã¥Ô£8 É„ÓÚ ß‡Á¥ Û‡„ , τª¥, ß \^ÓÔҥ „ ¥É ãÂÛ Ò¥¥ÁÒ‡Ô¥ÂÒ ¥ ßú ڇªÂ„¥‡ª ‚ £„ÓÚ 4 ú£ӄ . 5ÓÚ Âß¥Ú Â‡§Ó, å „ 8‡ÔÓ Ò‡Ú Â˛ Ú ‡ÔÒ¥ 8‡¥<¥ ⥇¥ ú ^ÓËò 5 ßÂÔÒ ¥1‡8ß Û‡„' 8 Ú‡ªÂ„¥‡ ¥ •• Ú ßÉ ß �¥‡ Ô •• Ò¥ Ó¥ÔÒ¥¥Û¥Ò¥Ë‡ ¥ ^Ë¥Ò¥‡ÔÒ Â 6 \ìß(ß ß 8òëß�èß8 , ‡ÔÒ¥ ß ãÓˉúß [ËÔ¥ÔßÂò^¥úß ] ...) 7

íÁ¥ˆ¥:

=¥Òú¥úË ‰Ë„‡ ¥ \Û‡ ˛ËÓªËÚ‡¥ ßÓ ÔÂ, ÓÔÂ

‡úÓËë

í

1ÒÂÂ�-ä § ¥£ Åê

(7 éÔ Â 8ÔÓË1Ò ¥ ßÒ � ‡¥ ߇Á ¥ ÓÔ ÒÓ�Û , „¥^Ô¥? ) 8

äËúÓ߇: ^‡‡ Ô‡Ô¥ ÁÓ„  ҥ‡¥Ò  Áú¥ªÒ ‡ ÔÓ¥ÒÓª¥ÂÔ‡ ¥ ÔÓ? ßúÂÔ \^ú‡ ß ã‡ ¥ ÓÔ¥ Û ÓÔ¥ Û 1Âã-ä£ Éê (8 íúÂ Ô \ÛÔ‡ë? éÔ¥Û ã‡ ¥ ¥Á ßÂã?)

9

奪ҥ:

ËÔ.. \ۇ߇5ú¥ ‡ÔÓ (.2) ڇ Û‡ ú

10

ß

ÔÓ ú‡ßÂÂú‡ ÔÓ ú¥¥Ó §‡ ÁÓÔ Ó ú¥¥Ó

\ì�ß ß ú£ӄ ì Ò úÓÚÂ-ÂÒÓÔÓÚ¥Ò Áúä �„ÂÓ Ô 8 ㇠¥ �„ÂÓ Ô

§‡ ÚÓË„ Ë ßÒ‡Ú Ó[Áú¥„ÂÔ‡ ¥ Ë 5

ú‡Û �„Óú‡úßÛ

^^

(9 ì‡ú , ß ... ã  ÉÓ„Ú „ úÓÚ ÂÒÓÔÓÚ¥Ò Á߇Òú„ , 10 Áú ڥ^úß ú‡Û ¥¥.) 11 äËúÓ߇:

[„ÂÔúË Ô ‡¥¥ Éê (11 Ä11Ó£ãÂÚ.)

12 8‡ÔÓ:

߇úËÔ ßÒÓäÓ ‰ÓÔÂÔ¥Ò‡ Ô ‰Ë„‡ ¥ ÚÓË„ Ë [1Ò‡Ô‡(..) úÛÓËÓÁË„Ë¥ Ó �„Óú‡úßÛ ßúÂ8 âÛÂ-Û‡„ 8 ‡úÓËß ú‡Û¥Ô §

Éê

�Ó88ßú1Û

(12 ê„Óú‡úßÛ8ú ڥ‰ú ß ú‡Û ßú „ÂÒÓ„Ò¥ ‚ £Ó„ ßú ߇‚¥ Åì ë Û‡„‚,�Ó88ßú1Û. )

138

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

13 Honda:

[aa soo oh so (13 Oh, is that so?)

14 Kubota: sennen bun gurai aru n da yo ne thousand-years worth about there-is Nom Cop FP FP (14 She has about a thousand years' worth.) 15 Sano:

juumannen hundred-thousand-years (15 A hundred thousand years.)

16 Others: hhehheh (16 [laughter])

At the end of her turn, Miki mentions that Sano, a male teacher from another grade, has offered to show his materials to her (lines 4-5). Tsuji, a female teacher in her 40s, responds by stating in truncated form that one should keep at least one copy of the materials. Her comment implies that whoever had been in charge of sessions previously should have kept the records and given them to Miki. In the following question (line 8), Kubota, a male teacher in his 30s, expresses surprise that Miki received only a few records from her predecessor. In response, Miki speculates that the home economics teacher may have kept all the records. Upon Miki's insertion, other participants engage in a collaborative construction of indirect complaint. The objections against this particular female teacher continue and escalate into a joke. Kubota quips that she has kept materials for the past thousand years (line 14). Sano elaborates on this joke, exaggerating the number of years to a hundred thousand (line 15). Independent corroboration by other victims or witnesses is considered a method of objectification (Edwards and Potter 1992), giving a speaker license to complain without being considered a dispositional complainer. Miki's contemplation of her own trouble is taken up by the group in the form of a corroborative complaint The use of plain forms along with the exchange of relatively short turns and the presentation of mutually supportive content creates the sense that the griping sequence is the common effort of several participants. Miki's initial assertion that she lacks knowledge and experience serves several functions. First, it gives her the license to initiate the troubles talk, since it is natural for an inexperienced teacher to have difficulties planning an event without the proper materials. Waring's (2001) study of graduate students' behavior in an academic seminar describes similar cases in which new students assert vulnerability (e.g. "I'm new in this class," "I don't know much about this") to ease their way into the discussion. Second, Miki's statement of vulnerability qualifies the content

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

139

of her troubles talk. Note that her inidal turn - consisting of the claim that she has only last year's material, the self-directed question "I wonder if they discarded the materials from before?" and a short account of how she obtained last year's material - includes neither a vivid description of anyone's misconduct, nor an expression of grievance. In other words, up to this point her contribution is formulated as a talk about her own trouble rather than a complaint about someone else. By professing inexperience and by presenting the trouble as her own, Miki reduces the risk of engaging in an unwarranted complaint, which might threaten her own or someone else's face (e.g. if one of the teachers had forgotten to give the materials to her, or if it was customary in the school to keep only the previous year's material). Tsuji and Kubota's turns (lines 7-8) confirm that Miki's not receiving enough material is indeed considered unusual in this community of practice. These confirmations give Miki the license to issue a complaint. Miki formulates a more specific speculation about the possible troublemaker in lines 9 and 10, which the other participants take up and develop into a joint complaint. This section has explored several functions of asserting vulnerability in managing multiple face wants. Teachers assert vulnerability to display empathy and alignment with others, to avoid face threats to others, to project their face as caring, concerned, reflective teachers as well as reasonable troubles tellers, and to gain license to initiate troubles talk.

6.2.3 Claiming sensibility while fulfilling responsibility The troubles teller in the excerpt discussed in this section faces a dilemma. She has been involved in a case in which students used foul language. A detailed account of the event is bound to compromise her interactional self-image as a sensible participant in the meeting. Yet at the same time, all faculty members are encouraged to report any sign of emergent student misconduct. Her dilemma is reflected in the discursive practices she chooses to broach and explicate her trouble: she avoids any explicit description of the troublemaker's conduct and modulates her statement with extensive qualifications. Before the onset of excerpt [5], several teachers are talking about recent incidents with disorderly students. In the first turn of the excerpt, Kanda, a female teacher in her 40s, reports her encounter with a group of unruly male students, inserting multiple self-qualification segments:

Excerpt [5] 1

Kanda:

kyoo yojikanme ni sankumi no > °sankumi chotto konotokoro today fourth-period in class-three Lk class-three a-little recently

140 2

ò8ëé1íä5 ‡„Â1 ¯

Ö Äå ) êé1ãíÖÜ5

fiÂÁúÓ Ó ? °< (.) ÁÓúÓ ÔÓ ú‡Ò1Ó

öÂÒÓÚÂ-„Óˉ ú ëÓ� 3

4

Á¯Û‡„àËÚõ  (.) ^§ÛÓ Ó Û‡‡Â„ Ë ä‡„ ‡ 11ËÔ‡Á‡ 1 Ë 1‡ÂÚ Ó Á1ËÚ‰-‡„ÓËÔÒ 1 Ò1‡85

(1Ó1Ô‰ úÂÒ‡ËÁ  ‰ Ó é * Á‡Û-ÂÛÂÔ-ãÓˉ ú

õúÛ‡ÁÔÚ¯

úÂfiÓ (.) ÁÓÁõ&„‡ ÁÓÔÓ<;Ó1 Ë Ú (.) ‡ÔÓ (.)

Ô Ò!‡

5

„

\ÛÂ!1

5*„‡Ô‰ Â

úÓÓäÓÓ

I

í

„

ÂÛ„ÛÓÔ Â 1Ó 1Â11

° > ÒúÓËÓ Ë„Ë„¯ <

ãË ÁÁÂıˇ ! 51Ó„Û

(.) ˯ú ¯ (.)

1- 1ÂÔ‡ 1

é Ò!Ó-5 Ó

Ô Ò1‡ ú.ÂÒ1Ó >°( ) Ú1(‡¯‡ ( ) àä Â

1Ò‡Ô)1 ÔÓ 1ÒÓ<:Ó Ó ÔÂ? °< (.) (1‡1Ò‡„‡ Ú‡‡ (.) ‚ÓÔÓ Ú‡‡ úÓûÔÈÓ]ÓÓÒ!‡ Ô fi‡ ÁÂÔ‚  ú1Ò ã1Ô§ é Åê

10

51Ó„Û ÔÓ* çÓ Ú

(1‡„ÓÓ 1ÒÂÒ1Ó < ‰ÓË > Ô‡Ô1 ÔÂ, úÓÓ ‚ÂÂÂçÓÔ ‡ ú‡Ô‡Áå Ó 5Ë„Ë\Û‡úÂ(.2)

‡ äÓ1 ú‡„Ò1˜Ó-1Â11 (àòÒË1(-Ë>-(Â1 1 Ò‡ÔÔÓå à çÓ Ú ëÓ� úË1 9

Úi

51„‡Ô§Â (ç„ÂÒÈÓÔ ˛

0

�„Óú‡õÛ úË1 ëÓ˛ 1ã  Éê 8

ㇸÈÚ‡(

1˧õڇˠ(.) \Û‡1‡8õ ^‡ > ° §ÓÔÓ ( ) Ú¯‡Á‡Ô ¯ Áú‡úÂ„Ë ú‡Ô‡Áõ ]‡Ô‡! Ô \^ÂÔ<;-‡ÔÒ1

7

ãÂÔ

5ÓÔÓ1Ó1 Ë (1‡Ô(1‡Ô ú‡Ô‡Áõ ‰ ‡ ÁÓÔ Ó ° úÂÔÔ‡ °(.) úÂÔÔ‡ ã‡Ï1Ú Â§„‡Ò1ˇ11Û õ ú

6

ÔÓ ˛äÓ„ Ó • ÁõÒõÔ ¯

ã„ 1ã Ò ÒÓ„Ô „ úö . �!‡Ò  ‡1 ÁÂÛ Ô

\„ÓË1Ôó-11Á1;Â Ô åÓ Ú ëÓ� ö ¯ •

5

ÁÓ

\ÛÂ!1

„

\^Â!1 ÚÓÁÈ Û ^Óú. ëÓ�

û \Û‡ ÓÚÓ Ë 1ÒÂÒ1ÓÚÓ: : Ú‡‡. ÁÓÔÔ ‡ úıç Ó ÚÓ ‡«‡ ÔÓÈ 0<; í 1õÔ1 Ò úË1

\ÛÂ!1 ã‡1-1ËÔÓ! 1õÔ $ ‡1ÁÓ 1ú„Â-\Û‡Á ÁÓ

(1 íÓfi‡Û, Ú ã ÂÉÓËãú �ÂÔÓfi , ÁòfiÂò Á „„ÓÚ Ò1‡Á Á 3 - Ò1‡Á Á 3 1Á úÂÒÓÚÚ ‰ 2 „Óˉ ú 1‡1Â1Û , 1ÁÔó 11? - ÁÂÛÂ Ô Ó„* ãÂÚ \^„ 51111Ô‰‡„ÓËÔÓ ! ‡1 ㇠1 ÒÓ„Ô„ , 3 ‡Ô<1 ãÓË^ú I ˛ õ ãÂÚ 1Ó‰ Ó [˛ Ò1‡Á5 ] úÂÒ‡ËÁ  11 \Û‡Á fiËÔÔ‰ã  4 Ò1‡Á Á �ÂÔÓfi , ãÂÛ \^ÓË1Ò1Ôó àÁ1ÂÔ. į 1 ãÂÔ, ‡1 ㇠1 ‡'Ú , • ‡„ÓËÔÒ ! ㇠1 òÔ Â ‰„‡<1ˇ11 Û ã  ÒÓÔë ò •>{ ã  õ ä \ÛÂÔ11Ô ‡ 6 Á¯Ú‰  Òà„ÂÒËÓÔ , ‡Ôfi, �„Óú‡õÛ II 1Á ÔÓ(; ã  õÔÒ! ÓÉ ã1Ô§ ˛ 7 1Â11 ÂÛ„ÛÓÔ Â úË1, àö  ëÓ1Ó, ú õ1ÒÂÒ1 ‡úÓË! ÁÂıˇ ! ã1Ô‰Á , 8 1115 Ô‡Ô! Ë> 1Â11 ... Òà„ÇÒË!! 1Ó 1Â11 ... I Ò‡Ôó 1Â11, úË1, ÁÓÚÂãÚ ‰ 9 ò  [ËÚÔ1Âò§1õÂ] . 8Ó, \^Â11, I ãÚú 111Á ÚÓÁÈ Û ‡ ^öÂ, 10 úË1.. . \\^Â!1, ã‡^' Á\^Ô‡1 à‡��ÂÔÂÓ!. )

ä‡ÔÒ1‡ 51‡„18 ú Û(1Â8ÒÔõÔ§ ú„ ÂÔÒÓËò „ Úã ‡ §„ÓË� ÓÉ úÓÛ8 \ÛúÓ \Û„ 1ÒòÔ § ‡„ÓËÔÈ ÓË&õ  ò  Ò!‡88„ÓÓ Ú ÈËÔÔ§ Ò1‡Á 8 �ÂÔÓ È (1Ú 8 1-4). 8ú òåï11îï8 Ëà1 8Üå îãéåãåñ! Ëå Üîóç §î Üàñ1ñ 1î Ëå ñÛçãîîò àïñ! Ëà1 ãÂÛ 1§ÔÓ„ÂÒ 1 ú„. í1 ¯ �Ó„ÈÓ Ô ÓÉ ú„ 1‡11Ò �„ÓÛ!È 8 ú„ Ô§‡!1Û Â ‡88ë88ÚÂÔ1 (1.Â. "„Ó˧ú") ÓÉ ã  Ò!‡88 ˛ \ÛõÒú ã  úÓÛ8 úÂ1ÓÔ§ , ‡ÔÒ !‡ Ò1Â8ÒÔ�ÈÓ Ô ÓÉ ãÂ1„ öÂú‡Û˛„ . íú ÂÈÂÁÒÔ�ÈÓ Ô 1ÔÒ1ËÈ 8 ‡ Û„ ú ㇠1 Ò‡Ô �Û Â ã  1Ú�„Â88˛ Ô ÓÉ ‡§ÂÔÒ Û (êÓË„ 1996): ã  Û„ ú •••••••••• "811 <1Ó\ÛÔ" (••••••••••• • 11Ô 3), Ú ÒÓò„‡81 ˛ ã  ÚÓ„ ÂÒ‡ÔÓ¯Ò‡ ! Û„ ú •••••• "811 <1Ó\ÛÔ," 1ÔÒàÒ‡1: 8 ã  ‡^ÂÔÒ Û ÓÉ ã  ‡Òû„ . 118 ÔÓÚÚ‡ ! ÉÓ„Ú , ••••••••• "‡ 8õÔ " 18 ‡ ÁÛÔÓÔÛ Ú ÓÉ ‡ 81Ì1Ó\ Ú 8òú . 1Ô 11Ô 4, ã  Û„ ú ÂÔÒ!Ú § --••

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

141

shinai in kikyashinai "wouldn't listen" (a truncated form of kiki wa shinai) implies the speaker's frustration (a form of grievance). In sum, this portion encompasses several elements of troubles talk pointed out by Drew (1998) - description of transgression and troubles teller's grievance. However, the first part of Kanda's report is formulated as background information to the subsequent narrative through the clause-final use of kedo "but." Researchers claim that kedo, inserted into the onset of a narrative sequence, frames the preceding clause as a peripheral comment or background to the ensuing narrative (Nakayama and IchihashiNakayama 1997). In this segment, the use of kedo in the middle of line 4 designates the preceding portion of the talk as background information. The core of Kanda's account starts in line 5. Here we find that her mode of narration deviates from canonical troubles talk (i.e. vivid description of the misconduct and expression of grievance). Kanda's first portrayal of the students' misconduct is quite brief and oblique. She alludes to the controversial exchange in general terms in lines 5 and 6: the talk went in a "strange direction," or henna hookoo. The next description in line 7 contains the phrase seetekina hanashi "a sexual talk," with the hesitation marker koo "thus," "this manner," or "this kind of." Her third and most specific attempt to depict what happened contains a direct quote (albeit unintelligible in the data), followed by the mitigation marker mitai "like." The brief quote is delivered in a low tone and more quickly than the surrounding utterance. Moreover, even though the dispreferred features characterizing Kanda's delivery highlight the severity of the transgression, the deliberateness and agency of the misconduct is not highlighted but undermined by a qualification statement toward the end of the turn, with which she registers her impression that one of the students, Goto, was just joking (lines 9-10). In contrast to the paucity of narrative content, we encounter several expressions of speaker subjectivity in Kanda's talk. In lines 6 and 7, she states that the topic of her report is not suitable for a meeting.3 In line 8, expressions such as iizurai "it is hard to tell," iinikui "it is difficult to tell," and ienai "I cannot tell" indicate the degree to which the speaker is affected by the transgression. In view of the improper nature of the students' misconduct, the troubles teller's reluctance to provide a detailed description, as well as her repeated declarations of embarrassment, project the teller's face as a decent and considerate meeting participant. Yet these rhetorical practices fulfill a double function - they also function to stress the severity of the committed offense (it was so improper that one cannot even dare to mention it). Kanda's assessment that Goto was just joking could be further indication that his misconduct was indeed a serious one (it was so improper that one cannot even think he was serious). In other words, treating the misconduct as a joke displays the troubles teller's stance toward the

142

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

misconduct as beyond her wildest imagination, thereby accentuating her face as decent, sensible, and far above vulgarity. In her report, Kanda relies on an important linguistic device - the contrastive particle kedo "but," or its variant kedomo.4 Her expressions of embarrassment (lines 6-8) as well as the qualification "I think it is mostly a joke" (lines 9-10) end with this contrastive particle. In other words, her reservation toward the content of the initiated troubles talk was delivered in the form of a kedo clause (a clause ending with kedo). The particle kedo frames the preceding clause as a peripheral comment in a narrative (Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama 1997) and introduces qualification segments in oppositional discourse (Mori 1999). A kedo clause is syntactically subordinate and therefore backgrounded, and it prepares the addressee for an upcoming main clause. In Kanda's turn, the statements of embarrassment and hesitation are delivered in kedo clauses, while the descriptions of the students' troublesome behavior (even though only touched upon in a brief and implicit manner) are syntactically placed as the main clause. Through this practice, she presents her declarations of embarrassment as background information and foregrounds her description of the students' offenses. This structural feature allows Kanda to repeatedly display her face as a sensible participant of the meeting without digressing from the main issue of the troubles talk (i.e. student misconduct), thereby preventing the potential loss of a concurrent face - that of a responsible teacher who does not fail to report noteworthy student misbehavior. The analysis of excerpt [5] provides a starting point for a discussion of the discursive construction of politeness and appropriateness. Drew (1998) claims that indirect complaints (and reports in general) perform moral work - they provide a basis for evaluating something as right, wrong, appropriate, and so forth. Any troubles talk, regardless of whether it contains explicit moral evaluations or not, points toward a tacit norm, which the troubles teller seeks to share with other interactants by depicting the behavior of a third party as a transgression. This mechanism of norm construction resembles the way politeness and appropriateness are conceptualized as a discursively constructed normative predisposition (Eelen 2001). The impropriety in excerpt [5] concerns the verbal behavior of a group of students. Kanda's troubles talk, her depiction of this impropriety, discursively constructs the impoliteness/inappropriateness in her community of practice - or better communities of practice, for there are two different communities involved in this evaluative practice: the school community (including teachers and students) and the community of meeting participants. By making the students' foul language the focus of her troubles talk, Kanda discursively constructs their misconduct as clearly inappropriate within the school community. On the other hand, the qualified and oblique presentation of her troubles talk discursively

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

143

constructs her own manner of reporting the impropriety as borderline inappropriate within the community of meeting participants. Even though it is beyond the scope of this book to pursue it in more detail, I believe that this line of analysis points toward the possibility of a more empirically grounded analysis of politeness and appropriateness. This section has examined a case in which the display of one face - that of a responsible teacher, who is obliged to report student problems conflicts with another face - that of a sensible and considerate meeting participant, familiar with the code of appropriate language use in the meeting. The troubles teller manages this conflict by avoiding any direct reference to the offense, by resorting repeatedly to features of dispreferred turns, and by employing the rhetorical practice of foregrounding the report component of her troubles talk. 6.2.4 Self-defensive quasi troubles talk

This section explores a deviant case. It is sequentially located within the overall troubles talk segment of the faculty meeting from which it is extracted, but it exhibits practices considerably different from other troubles talk examples. These deviations, I will try to prove, are related to the ambivalent faces projected in discourse. In excerpt [6], Ono, a female teacher in her 20s, reports that a broken mop was found in her class. In the preceding segment, the teachers had addressed small behavioral problems observed in their classes. In lines 1, 3 and 5, Hieda, a male teacher in his 20s, asks Ono about a broken mop found in her class. After they exchange several turns, the head teacher in his 30s, Ando, who is also the chair of the meeting, interrupts the interaction and prompts them to explain the incident to the whole group (lines 6-7). Hieda's initial question (line 1) occurs within a segment of the meeting in which issues of student behavior are discussed. This sequential location suggests that Hieda assumes that his question is related to a potential behavioral problem. As mentioned, teachers are encouraged to notice and share any traces of incipient delinquency. Abuse of school equipment (e.g. graffiti, broken chairs) is considered an early warning sign. Seen in this context, it is not unreasonable to interpret the broken mop as evidence of some abusive behavior. On the other hand, a mop, as one of the more basic school supplies, can be just as easily ruined from normal use, in which case a different interpretation of the incident would apply (i.e. one that would not hold student misbehavior responsible). Ono's report in lines 8 to 17 vacillates between these two interpretations.

144

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Excerpt [6] 1

Hieda:

ano kyoo sa mo- moppu no sa well today FP mop Nom FP (1 Well, today, the mop ...)

2

Ono:

saishoni= first (2 At first...)

3

Hieda:

=are wa= thatT (3 That was ...)

4

Ono:

=°saishoni oreme ga haitteta no wa sore wa watashi mo mitete0 first crack S hold Nom T that T I also see-and (4 At first there was a crack that I saw and ...)

5

Hieda:

° nande oreta no?c why broke Nom (5 Why did it break?)

6 Ando:

ano sooiu toko chanto minna ni wakaru yooni (.) well that-kind point properly everyone to understand so-that

7

suimasen kedo excuse-me but (6 Well, about that point, [could you state it] properly, so that 7 everyone would understand?)

8

Ono:

eeto (.) kyoo kaeri no gakkatsu no chotto mae ni kyooshitsu ni haitte well today end Lk assembly Lk little before at classroom in enter

9

soojidoogubako o mita toki kigatsuita n desu kedomo (.) rookayoo box-of-cleaning-tools O look time noticed Nom Cop but hallway

10

no moppu ga moo bokkiri-orechattete (.) de (.) mae kara chotto oreme ga Lk mop S well broken-into-two-pieces and before from a-littie crack S

11

haitteta-no wa sore wa ano inserted T that T well

12

kyoo wa asagakkatsu no mae-ni dotabata-shitete (.) sono toki today T morning-assembly Lk before play-around-and that time

13

orechatta n da to omou n desu kedo (.) de kono ga shitteru mitaina broke Nom Cop Qt think Nom Cop but and Kono S know look

14

n de ja seebiiin dakara chanto jijyoo o itte Nom Cop then in-charge-of-tools so adequately circumstances O say-and

moo daibu maena n desu kedomo de already long ago Nom Cop but and

íÄúäò 15

ë ÄÇ011í íäé11ÇúÖ

ÁÓ„ Â Ó ÁÂÂõ-ÔÓ-ÁÂÔÁÂ Â

8

ÔÓ ˛ú Ó ¯ ËÒÂöıÎ Ë ç (.) 8Ó„ÂÒ1 Â

㇠Òé ‡Òú„-Ú-Òú‡„‰Â-ÓÉ-1ÓÓ1 Á úú . �!‡Ò  ë Ó‰ Ó 16

àÒ‡ÁÂÒ‡„ ‡

ú‡ÂëëÂàÒ Â (.)

0,ë Á‡Û - ‡Ô<1 ‡ÔÈ

Ú‡„Ë <1‡„ &‡ ÁõÒ‡ ú‡ ^V‡1Ò‡„‡Ô‡ ^ ë Ó(1‡ÚÂ<1 ‡ ëë  ¯‡ÚÂÌÂ

\ÛúÂÔ-Ú‡!ÒÂ-§ Ó È„ÁÒ 17

145

\\„ú Ó 8 Òò é , 1˲\Û-õ & 1É ÔÓ-$ÓÓ< 1 é Ò \Û‡Á-ÒÓ1Ò1-‡Ô( 1

(1 (.) ‡ÁõÒ‡ Û‡„Ó Ó ë Ó ÓÚÓÒÒ ¯ Ô ‰ÂÁ Ë 1ÒÂÒ1ÓÚÓ .

ÒÓÚÂ-ú‡Ò1Ò-‡ÔÒ 1 ‡ÔÒ1 ëÓÚÓÔ˜¯ <1Ó 0,ë ÒúÚ!ËÔ # NÓÚ ëÓ� öË Ò (8 òÂ11 , I „‡à„ÂÒ ! 1Ò ‡ ç‡1  úÂÉÓ„Â ã  ÂÔÒ1-ÓÉ-111Â-<1‡ Û ‡ÁÁÂÚõ Û \\„úÂ Ô I ÂÚ„ fi 9 ã  Ò!‡8Á„ÓÓ Ú ‡ÔÒ! Á‡\Û 1ú Ò1‡Ô1Ô § 1ÓÓ1úÓı. éÔ Â ÓÉ ã  ÚÓ� Á 10 \^‡Á ö„ÓúÂÔ Ú˛

ë^ Ó �!ÂÒÂÁ . 11¯Â\ Û ã‡ Â 11 ú‡Ò1 ‡ Ò„‡<±,

11 ã‡ Ò ú‡��ÂÔÂÒ ! ‡ \••§ ËÚ‡§Ó, ‡Ôfi 12 ëÔÂÛ\Û„ ڇ!‡Ô § ‡ „‡Ò^ ÒúÂÉÓ„Â ã ÂÚÓÚ1Ô § ‡ÁÁÂÚõ Û‡ÔÒ!11õÔ1 Ò11 ^‡Á‡1 ㇠1 ÔÚ Â

13 ㇠„ ñ ú„ÓäÂ. äÓÔÓ [‡ Á¯ÈÂÔÒ ] 1ÓÓäÂ<1 ç1Ò ú  1¯Â^ 14 ÁÓÚÂÂõÔ‰ , ÁÓ I ¯ ç õ Ú û §Ó û ã  1‡Òú „ Ú Òú‡„^ ÓÉ ûÓ1 Á 15 ‡ÔÒ1 ÈÂÁÒÔú  ã  Ò1„ÒËÚÁÒ‡ÔÒÂÁ , \ÛÂ!1, ÁÚÒ Â äÓÔÓ 1Á 1Ô Òú‡„^ ÓÉ ã  Ò1‡Ô1Ô ‰1ÓÓ1 Á ÓÉ ÓË„ Ò1‡ÁÁ , ‡Ôfi 16 \ÛúÂÔ I Á ÚõÚ , úÂ\Û‡Á ˛ õ [ú Û1ú ë‡Òú„] 1ú‡1 \Û ú‡Ò! ˛ ÈÔÒ! ÓËÂ\ÛÔÓ'<1 ‰ÓÔ Â 11, 17 ÁÓ úÂ Ò‡Ú Âú‡Ò1Ò, ‡Ô<1 ÉÚ�1‡ÔÔ1Ô § ÒÓ Ò1Ó ÁÓÚÂÒúÚ ‰‡úÓËë 1Ò ÒÓÚÓ„„Ó\Û. )

íú  „úÂòÔÒ‡! �„‡ÒËÒ ÁÓúÁ„ÛÂÒ ! 1Ô 1õ 8 ÁÂ^Ú ò ‡„ ^Ë^^ <•$•••• {„Ó Ú ã ÂÓÔ Á1Ô Óã„ 1„ÓËõ§ 1‡11Ò8 Âı‡ÚıÔÂÒ ! 1Ô ã1 8 Òú‡�1:„ . è„81,1 1 âÓÂ8 ÔÓ1 ÚÒ!ËÒ1  ‡ Û!Û1Ò 1 ÈÂÁÒÔ�ËÓ Ô ÓÉ ã  Ú!8ÒÓÔÒ1ËÒ1: . íú  8òÒ1ÂÔ18' úÂú‡Û1Ó „ 18 ÚÂÔÈÓÔÂ< 1 ÓÔ! Û ÓÔÒ Â ‡8 <1•1•••1•-$••1•1• "(ãÂÛ \Û„ ) „ÓÚ�!Ô § ‡úÓË!'' Ó„ "Ú‡!‡Ô ^ ‡ „‡Ò1ÒÂ1: " (çÔ Â 12), ‡ ^ÂÔ„‡ ! 1„ÚÉÓ„ ö¯ Û ‡ÔÒ!ÔÓ18Û ÒÓÔ<1ËÒ1: . 1Ô É‡Ò1, éÔ Ó Âı�çÒ111Û ‡ÛÓ1<18 ÚÂÔËÓÔ!Ô ^ ȯ 8ÓÚÂÓÔ ÂÒÓË!< 1 ú‡Û <1Âçö„‡1Â!Û ‡öË8ÂÒ1 ã  ÚÓ� . 1Ô81‡<1, 8ö ÂË8ë 8 1Ú„‡Ô81ËÛ Â Û„úÁ Ú Ò!Â8ëÔö 115 ÒÓÔÒàÈÓÔ : ••••• "(‚ÓÚÂãÚ^ ) ö„‡1Ò8" 1Ô •••••••1• (çÔ Â10) ‡ÔÒ! •••••••• (1Ú 13), ‡Ô<1 ••••• •• ••••• "(ÁÓÚÂÄÚ^ ) §Â18 ‡ Ò„‡Ò!Ò " Ú ••••• •• ••••1• "11 §Ó1 ‡ Ò„‡Òú " (1Ú 8 10-11). ç„ Ë8 ÓÉ Ú^„‡¯òÛ Â Û„úÁ Óú8ÒË„Â 8 Ä ‡^ÂÔÒ Û ÓÉ ã  ‡Òû „ (ÓÔÂÓÉ ã  8òÒ1ÂÔ18) ‡ÔÒ! �Óè:„‡Û8 1ú 8ˡ1˛ Ô Ú ‡ ÚÓ„  ÔÂË1„‡ ! à§Ô1 . Ä1 ã  8‡Ú ËÚ , 8Ô Ò!Ó 8 „ÂÒÓ‰Ô1„  ã  8ò(1ÂÔ18 ' ËÔ8ÂË1Ú § úÂú‡Û„Ó„ 1Ô ã ÂÚÓ„Ô!Ô § (1Ú 12) ‡ÔÒ! 81‡1Â8 ú„ \ÛòÚ§ÔÂ88 û „Â8Ó1Û Â ã  188Ë 1Ô ÉÓ11Ó\Û1Ô § <1‡Û (1Ú 17). II1 8 ÔÓ1 1ú 8òÒ1ÂÔ18' öÂÔ‡Û˛„, öË Â ã  ÒÓÔÒàËÓ Ô ÓÉ ã  ÚÓ� , ㇠Â18 Ò!Â8ÒÔúÂÒ 1 Ú <1Â1‡11.1Ô çÔÂ8 8 ˛ 10, éÔ Ó „Â�Ó„ È 1˛\ Û 8Ô ÉÓËÔÒ ! '• ú„ÓäÂÔ Ú \•• (ú„ Û1Û1Ò 1 ‡ÒÒÓË Ú ÒÓÔõÔ8 ã  ÓÔÓÚ‡Ú�ÓÂ! ‡ ••••, Ò!ÂÔÓËÔ ö„‡1Ò‡§Â Ú˛ õ § ÒúËÔú). 8ú ‡<1<18 ã‡11 1 ú‡Ò! Ò!ÂÛÂ1Ó�ÂÒ 1 ‡ Ò„‡Ò! Ò ‡ 1ÓÔ§ ‡Ú ‡§Ó (1Ú 8 10-11) ‡Ô<1 8�ÂÒË1‡1 8 ã‡ Â Ë Ú‡Û ú‡Û Ò1181Ô1§„‡1ÂÒ 1 úÂÉÓ„Â ã  ÚÓ„¯Ô§ ‡88ÂÚõÛ (çÔÂ8 12-13). äúÂûÔÒ‡çÛ , ãÂÔ, ã Â

146

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

incident is portrayed not as a case of student misconduct, but as a case of equipment failure. These rhetorical practices are congruent with the corrective measures Ono took when she encountered the problem: she sent the student in charge of equipment (each Japanese school class has one or two students who are responsible for classroom supplies) to make a report to the teacher managing the school's equipment (lines 13-16). Ono's step is a reasonable one, if she is indeed just dealing with the case of a broken mop. Her framing of the incident in her report at the meeting is congruent with her handling of the case at the time it occurred, and serves to justify it. In other words, the troubles teller's rhetorical practices project her face as a competent teacher who took appropriate measures to solve a problem. However, Hieda's question and Ando's invitation to share the story, coming as they do within a larger review of student misconduct, seem to imply that Ono's case does in fact involve disciplinary issues. Ono risks appearing incompetent if she chooses to ignore the version of events hinted of by Hieda and Ando. Her need to display conflicting faces creates a paradoxical situation: the equipment-failure scenario allows her to present her face as a competent teacher who handled the problem properly, yet it also poses a threat to that very face, rendering her incompetent for having overlooked an early warning sign of student misbehavior; if she, on the other hand, admits the possibility that the problem was indeed a behavioral one (e.g. that the mop had been broken by a student intentionally and that nobody, including the culprit, had told the teachers about it), then Ono's corrective measures look suddenly less than adequate (having done nothing to identify the culprit). Ono conveys her ambivalent stance through the way she reports the incident As we have seen, she treats it mainly as a case of equipment failure, yet her report contains several hints supporting the alternative view. In lines 12 and 13, Ono mentions the students' unsettling behavior and connects it to the time when the mop broke in two. She relates the advice of the school's equipment administrator (to find the culprit) and states her plan "to do something about it tomorrow." By acknowledging the possibility that she is faced with a case of student misconduct and by showing her willingness to treat it as such, Ono projects her face as a flexible and competent teacher. The time references in Ono's report further indicate her as yet limited involvement in the incident, justifying her (lack of) response. Ono opens her turn by pointing out that she had noticed the broken mop right before the endof-the-day class assembly (lines 8-9), and closes it by stating that she plans to do more about the problem tomorrow (line 17). Framed this way, Ono's account conveys that she has not had time enough yet to resolve the issue and that she will try to do so the following day. By conveying her ambivalent stance, Ono is able to justify her handling of the incident, while simultaneously proving her intent to take the

TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES

147

necessary disciplinary steps. Overall she is able to maintain her face as a competent and flexible teacher. 6.3 Summary This chapter has examined several troubles talk sequences in faculty meetings, and the various interactional faces presented by the participants. Throughout their talk, troubles tellers attempt to display an interactional self-image (as responsible teachers, as competent problem solvers, and so on). However, the display of one type of institutional face can quickly challenge another type of face. In one example, a participant's presentation of a problem case as report-worthy (in so doing displaying her self-image as a reasonable and considerate teacher) threatens her face as an effective and competent teacher who is exerting authority. In another case, a teacher's display of face as a responsible teacher, obliged to report student problems, conflicts with the concomitant face as a sensible individual and a considerate meeting participant. This dilemma or face conflict experienced by troubles tellers is the recurring theme of this chapter. We have observed how troubles tellers' interactional practices orient toward managing various discursive faces, including sensibility, authority, and affiliation with others. Rhetorical practices examined in this chapter include different types of objectification, formulation of actor agency, expression of grievance and vulnerability, and explicit or implicit formulation of speaker's involvement in the trouble. The rhetorical practices of meeting participants often revolve around the question: what is considered "trouble" within the context of a meeting? Teachers are encouraged to report the smallest signs of deviant student behavior in order to detect potential trouble sources early on, before they escalate. On the other hand, to maintain their face, troubles tellers have to evaluate the report-worthiness of a trouble. By engaging the question "what is trouble?" and by formulating transgression and deviation, troubles tellers and troubles recipients discursively construct the limit of normative behavior and of politeness/appropriateness within their communities of practice. Despite the risks it entails, or perhaps in part because of them, troubles talk constitutes an essential component of facework in faculty meetings.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 7: The Meeting: Facework in Description and Discourse Organization

7.1 Introduction The preceding chapters described how face is displayed in distinct discursive actions: Chapter 4 illustrated a range of facework performed in the co-construction of collaborative disagreement; Chapter 5 looked at teasing segments in which a claimed face is not acknowledged by others; and Chapter 6 described how participants manage conflicting faces while talking about their troubles. The examination of these discursive actions brought to light several important principles: (1) one linguistic practice can accomplish several and sometimes conflicting - types of facework; (2) what is considered a positive self-image is negotiated discursively (and may not be shared by other participants); (3) the participation framework of interlocutors plays a crucial role in the study of facework in multiparty discourse. During the review of the recorded data it became increasingly clear that an analysis focused solely on discrete segments of discourse could not capture the whole range of facework occurring in Japanese faculty meetings. All of the discursive actions investigated in this study are embedded in the larger discourse of the faculty meeting, which in turn is embedded in the discursive history of the pertinent community of practice. Under these circumstances, it seemed advisable to expand the scope of examined discourse to an entire faculty meeting.1 Instead of examining one type of activity across several meetings, then, this chapter maps the enactment of varied and at times conflicting facework in the course of a single faculty meeting. The meeting in question was scheduled to address a specific incidentseveral students' unruly behavior had caused a commotion at school. Because of the overall objective of the meeting (to share information about the incident and decide on the next step), many of the sequences examined in this chapter take the form of an event description. As a result, the types of facework accomplished in event description will be one of the main topics discussed in this chapter. In Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework, description is included neither as a politeness strategy nor as a face-threatening act. Chapter 7 examines how several participants tell their version of the incident and how they manage their face while engaged in this seemingly face-neutral (neither face-threatening nor face-enhancing)

150

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

act Section 7.1.1 outlines the relevant research on event description, which informs the analysis conducted in this chapter. 7.1.1 Description and its action orientation Brown and Levinson's (1987) list of face-threatening acts does not include event description, but the authors mention "raising a safe topic" as a positive politeness strategy to seek agreement (112). They state that this type of talk can be introduced before the face-threatening act of making a request, as a way of assuring that the speaker has a general interest in a relationship with the hearer (apart from just making the request). Elsewhere in their study they present examples from India, in which descriptions (e.g. of expenses that must be met) substitute for requests (e.g. for a massive loan). These entries indicate the authors' awareness of the action orientation of narratives and descriptions. In his comprehensive work on description, Potter (1996) illustrates the procedures for fact construction and for fitting descriptions to activities. He states that description is a practical and rhetorical accomplishment that plays a role in activities. Several exemplary ways of executing an action through description include ontological gerrymandering (categorizing in a way that includes certain issues while excluding other potentially relevant considerations), extrematization and minimization (the practice of building description to emphasize and de-emphasize), and normalization and abnormalization (a scheme to present something as normal and commonplace or, conversely, as strange or deviant). We have encountered some of these practices in our discussion of troubles talk sequences in Chapter 6. Edwards (1995) discusses normalization through script formation in troubles talk sequences. Drew (1998) demonstrates how complainers' formulate others' conduct as deviant. There is a fine line separating the rhetorical practice of description (with its action orientation) from other actions (e.g. complaint, troubles talk, account, request). In fact, data from a relational counseling session discussed as description by Potter (1996) are examined as relational troubles talk by Edwards (1995). The speaker's subjective involvement (e.g. stake, footing) needs to be minimized or managed to create the facticity of the description (Potter 1996). The more subjectivity is observable, the less a segment tends to be categorized as factual description. Most descriptions are more or less action oriented (cf. Potter 1996) and it is beyond the scope of this study to draw a clear distinction between description and other actions. The action-oriented nature of description points to the possibility that some kind of facework can be achieved through this rhetorical practice. With this possibility in mind, we will examine several versions of an event as described by different participants (in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2). Before turning to the analysis of the facework enacted by the meeting participants, I will give a short outline of the incident (section 7.1.2),

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

151

introduce the participants (7.1.3), and provide a content summary of the meeting (7.1.4) to clarify its context At this stage, a word of caution is in order: I am aware of the subjective nature of my "descriptions" of the incident, of the participants, and of the segments of discourse (and indeed the act of segmentation itself): they are selective, and they reflect my view of the data and their analysis. Since it is not feasible to reproduce the entire, extensive data set, I decided to provide these preliminary accounts which, I believe, will aid in the understanding of the analysis. However, the reader may go directly to the analysis section 7.2 and return to the introductory sections 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 at a later point whenever necessary. 7.1.2 The incident The meeting recorded in the data was held after an incident in which several students' unruly behavior escalated to such a degree that a male student and his homeroom teacher almost came to blows. In the morning of the day of the incident, Kato, a troubled ninth-grader in Aoki's class, did not appear in his classroom. Instead, he "visited" the school with two other unruly students from a nearby school. They rode bicycles in the hallway and yelled from the veranda and schoolyard at other students participating in class. Several teachers confronted the troublemakers and managed to remove them from the premises. In the meantime Seki, the head teacher of the ninth grade, asked the principal to contact the local police, a request with which the principal did not comply." In the early afternoon, the trio returned. Several teachers tried to remove them again, and Seki still could not persuade the principal to call the police. Later, the students came back a third time and entered Kato's classroom.3 Aoki, the homeroom teacher, confronted Kato in front of other students. The altercation threatened to escalate into a physical fight. Both opponents were pulling each other by the collar when other teachers stepped in to separate them. Upon being informed of the incident, teachers from the nearby school arrived to apprehend the two students accompanying Kato. Aoki and another teacher had a talk with Kato shortly after the incident. 7.1.3 The meeting participants Six teachers were present at the meeting. This section gives a short personal profile of each participant and details their involvement in the incident based on the recorded data, a biographical questionnaire, and an interview. Aoki is a male teacher in his 40s who has been at the school for about ten years. Kato has been in his homeroom for approximately three months. During the incident, Aoki confronted the students each time they

152

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

appeared on the school premises. As we have seen, he came close to exchanging blows with Kato. Seki is a female teacher in her late 40s. An experienced instructor, she has been active in the school for more than eight years. As head teacher of the ninth grade, she chairs the grade-level faculty meetings. Seki also confronted the group of troublemakers each time they appeared. Her requests to contact the police were ignored by the principal. Baba is a male teacher in his 30s who has served at the school for six years. He is the homeroom teacher of another troubled student (not involved in the incident), whose behavior has improved under his supervision. He was one of the teachers confronting the students. Miki is a female teacher in her late 30s. She came to the school only three months ago, though she has been a teacher for more than ten years. She is a member of the Student Life Division, which is in charge of student discipline. She witnessed the third confrontation between Aoki and Kato. Nakai, a female teacher in her early 40s, has been part of the staff for about three years. She did not witness any part of the incident. Sato is a male teacher in his 20s with three years of work experience, who is also a member of the Student Life Division. He witnessed the third confrontation between Aoki and Kato. 7.1.4 The content of the meeting The analyzed segment can be divided into six discernable sub-segments: the head teacher introduces and summarizes the incident (segment 1); Aoki talks about Kato, the main culprit (segment 2); Seki argues that it is necessary to seek police assistance (segment 3); the teachers debate how to deal with Kato's parents (segment 4); the discussion turns to problems with other students (segment 5); official closure of the meeting (segment 6). Here is a short outline of the segments. Segment 1 Seki, the head teacher and meeting chair, takes the floor to open the session. She states that she would like to talk about students' behavioral problems in the manner of zatsudan "an informal chat without any specific topics or objectives." In her following brief description of that day's incident, Seki lays out the sequence of events, describing the three different altercations that took place, and listing the names of the teachers involved. Seki adds that all teachers should work together and share the same level of understanding regarding student behavior. In any given group of teachers, she asserts, there has to be one with a firm hand, and she is just the one to play such a role. She finishes her turn with another appeal to begin with zatsudan.

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

153

Segment 2 After Baba and Miki state their opinion about the incident, Seki asks Aoki about Kato, the troublemaker. Aoki asserts that he was able to communicate with Kato to some degree after the incident, and that Aoki is willing to continue the dialog despite all difficulties and despite the risk that his efforts may be in vain. When Miki wants to know if Kato has calmed down, Baba and Aoki describe Kato's condition after the incident, concluding that they do not expect him to return to normal behavior any time soon. Segment 3 The second and third confrontation could have been avoided completely, Seki argues, if the teachers had treated the first confrontation, in her words, "mechanically." Had they called the police immediately when the first altercation occurred, the students would have simply run away, never to return. It is important that teachers tackle a problem together, Seki stresses, but it is equally important to know when to depend on outside help. Aoki agrees that the second and third confrontation with Kato could have been avoided. Baba contends that incidents of this nature, especially when they occur repeatedly, have a detrimental influence on other students. Baba states that he had asked Kato several times to leave the school, only to make him more irate and uncontrollable. Seki, Baba, Miki, and Nakai next air their view that some of the staff involved, including the principal and the teachers from the other school, had not succeeded in restraining the students. Seki asks Sato and Miki, both members of the Student Life Division, if the division would take responsibility for contacting the police in the future. When Sato and Miki hesitate, stating the need to consult with the division and the principal, Baba complains about the principal's lack of commitment. Segment 4

Miki describes Kato's character: he is extremely rude and cannot control his temper. She thinks that it would be a good idea to get Kato's family involved and that he should stay home until he is ready to participate in school life in an appropriate manner. Yet, Miki admits, it might be unrealistic to suggest such a course of action. Seki seconds the idea of contacting the parents. After Aoki issues an account of the physical confrontation between himself and Kato, Seki suggests that they meet Kato's father, known to be very strict. Aoki expresses his reservations about such a meeting, but after a renewed discussion concerning the best way to improve Kato's behavior, he agrees to contact the student's parents. Segment 5 The teachers turn to behavioral problems involving other students and the role of group dynamics in student behavior. They agree that Kato is the leading figure at the moment. Miki mentions Yamada, the second in line

154

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

in the student hierarchy, and tells the story of his mother's unsuccessful consultation with a counselor. The teachers laugh and comment on the poor quality of the counseling. Seki inquires about another problem student, Kikutani. Baba, Kikutani's homeroom teacher, says that he became interested in an extra-curricular activity and subsequently was able to extricate himself from the group of undisciplined students. Segment 6

In the last segment, Seki reiterates the need to maintain control over the student body and to rely on police help in severe cases of misbehavior. She then covers some minor transactional items, and after all relevant information has been passed around she announces the closure of the meeting. We can now begin our investigation into the participants' facework: to display competence, show alliance, and manage potential face threats by employing linguistic and sequential practices. The first section (7.2.1) examines Aoki's efforts to display and manage his face - the positive institutional self-image of a teacher who is responsible, motivated, knowledgeable, and fair. The second section (7.2.2) charts the discursive establishment of alliances among teachers. The third section presents a case in which participants' conflicting face ascriptions create tension in discourse (7.2.3). 7.2 Analysis 7.2.1 Displaying competence and motivation while expressing

difficulty

As described in the overview above, the participants of the faculty meeting discuss first the incident itself and then possible corrective measures to prevent similar cases in the future. Among the six participants, Aoki is the one who was directly engaged in a physical confrontation with the student A standoff between teacher and student is a rare event that can threaten the teacher's positive self-image as a competent professional. As the meeting develops, the prospect of a potentially grave face threat ignites various interactional moves intricately related to the participants' stance towards the incident. While it is possible to view the whole debate as a talk about Aoki's trouble (his altercation with Kato), it differs in several aspects from the troubles talks examined in Chapter 6. First, although Aoki was most directly involved, some other participants also witnessed the incident firsthand. Second, the main narrator of the incident is not Aoki, but Seki, the head teacher. Despite these differences, Aoki's retelling of the challenging affair contains facework similar to that of the troubles tellers in the previous chapter. In excerpt [1] (from meeting segment 2) Seki solicits Aoki's view on the

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

155

incident. Aoki replies by admitting that it is difficult for him to deal with the troublemaker, Kato. In the following, I will focus on three different aspects of the segment: (1) how the membership categorization of tannin "homeroom teacher" is occasioned and how it affects the subsequent description; (2) how the ascribed membership category affects facework; and (3) the linguistic practice of subordination and its function in description.

Excerpt [I] (part of meeting segment 2) 1

Seki:

tannin toshite tatoeba kondo no baai wa [doo ( ) homeroom-teacher as for-example this-time Lk situation T how (How, for example, [ ] this situation as a homeroom teacher?)

2 Aoki:

[uu::n nee let's-see FP

3

(.) muzukashii tokoro da to wa omou n da keredomo (.) moosukoshi difficult situation Cop Qt T think Nom Cop but a-little-more

4

ne (.) mada boku mo kato-kun to sonnani ne, koo kimochi ga FP not-yet I also Kato with not-so FP like feeling S

5

tsuujiru tte koto wa sonnani nai n de (.2) tada (.) ano(.)ano ko connected Qt Nom T not-so exist-Neg Nom Cop only er that child

6

mo kattonatta ato sono sukoshi ochitsukeba ne, hanashi o suru yochi also got-angry after er a-little calm-down-if FP talk O do room

7

mo aru (.2) dakara (.2) maa sore itsu made donna katachini naruka tte also exist so well that when until what form become Qt

8

no wa wakaranai n desu kedo nee Nom T know-Neg Nom Cop but FP (2 Well, 3 I think it is very difficult, but [I will do] a little more, 4 my feelings and Kato's aren't 5 connected so well yet, but, 6 after getting angry, if he calms down, then there's room for 7 talking to him, so, well, I don't know when and how 8 I can talk to him, but...)

9

(.5)

10 Seki:

uu::n uh-huh (Uh-huh.)

11

(1)

156 12 ÄÓ1‡:

Ç15ëéò5

Ö Ää Ç êé1ãíÖÜ8

ÚÓÓÁËúÓÁ õ Û‡ÈÂÔË õ Ô‡ ˛

¯ 1ËÚÓÒ õ \Û‡ ‡ÔÚ‡Á Ë Ô (.5) ‡ÔÚ‡ Ô ÁÓÔ Ó

‡-òâÂ-ÚÓ„  \Û‡ÔåÓ-<1 Ó Éê é * Á‡Û ÉÂÂ1Ú ‰ í 13

8ÔÛ1

Öê

‡â‡‚ 1 1õ 8 í

(

) ä‡Ô ‡ Ë ¯ -

(

) êê

ú‡Ò1

ÔÓ1 8é „ Ò!‡

ú„ÂÒúÚ Ó (.)

é* ; Ò‡ÁÂ-õ § NÓÚ ëÓ� ö ¯

(1ÂÚ Ó 1ÒõÓÓ úÓ„Â ^ Ú‡ÚË ! Ô ^‡Ô‡^ 1Ò‡ ËÂ 1Ë úË1

15

Âı181

¯ 8ÓÔÓÚ‡ÔÚ ‡ $õ(‡§‡ Ë é  \Û‡úÂ]‡Ô‡1 Ô

1Ô81„ËÒ1˛Ô ¯ ‡ÚÓÚ‡ËÒ‡11 Û ÓúÂÛ 14

5

ÔÓ

äÓ Úí‡ ‰^ ^^ 8‡Û äÓ Úí

\V‡ 8Ó1Ò Ó \Û‡

ò„  í

018‡Û

(12 I ú‡Û ã  Ú1ÂÔÈÓ Ô 1Ó Ò!Ó ‡ 11Ë1 ÚÓ„Â . II ¯! 1 ÔÓ1 ö  ã  ҇‚ 13 ㇠1 Ô \Û!11 ÓúÂÛÓË„ 1Ô81ÚËÒÈÓÔ 8 ‡ËûÚ‡ËÒ‡èÛ, 14 úË1 ‡11‡81; \\„ú‡1 ; 18 ‰ÓÓ fi ‡ÔÒ1 ú‡Ò1..., 15 I [ ] Ú 11¯ \Û‡Û.) 16 8Â1Ë:

ËÔ ËÔ

Ëú-úË ú (ò 17

úËú. )

(5)

?? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ? ??? ?????? ??? \ÛÂ!1 8Ú‡11 1õÔ§ 8 „É Ú‡Ô Û Â˛Á! NÓÚ ëÓ� úË Åê (òÂ11,1É I 1‡11Ò ‡úÓË1 8Ú‡111õÔ§8, ㄇ„Â Ú‡Ô Û úË1... ) 19

20 ÄÓ1Ë:

(3)

‰Ó Ó fiÂÁ Ë 1Ò‡? úú ú úé\ ì ëÓ� é (çé\ ì 18 11?)

1Ô àÔ Â 1, \ÛúÂÔ 8Âõ 8Ó11‡18 ÄÓ1‡'8 Û!Â\Û ÓÉ ã  ÂÛÂò, Áú ‡ÁÒÔö Á 1ú ÚÂÚú„Áõ � Ò‡1§ӄ Û •••• "úÓÚ„ÓÓ Ú 1‡Òú„" . íõ ‚ Ò‡1§ÓÔ2‡11Ó Ô õ§õ1§ö1 8 ÓÔ ‡11ÔúË1ÂÓÉ ÄÓà' § 1Ò1ÂÔË1Û : ö Â15 ä‡1Ó'8 úÓÚ„ÓÓ Ú1‡Òú„ . ÄÁ ÚÂÔÈÓÔÂ È Ú ëú‡�1„ 3, ÓÔ ÓÉ ã  ڇıÔ „ÂÁ�ÓÔÁòòÈÂÁ ‡ÁÁÓ‡‡^ÂÒ ! ¯ ã ã  ÚÂÚú„Áõ � Ò‡1§ӄ Û "úÓÚ„ÓÓ Ú 1‡Òú„ " 18 �„ÓÛ1Ò11Ô § ÂÈËÒ‡ ËÓÔ‡! ‡ÔÈ �8ÛÒúÓ!Ó§1Ò‡ 1 ÒÓËÔ8Â11Ô § • 81ËÈÂÔ18 . ìÂ1 È„‡¯Ô§ ‡ËÂÔ^Ó Ô˛ 1õ 8 ‡11ÔúË1 (1.Â. ã ÂÚÂÚú„Áúı �Ò‡1§ӄ ÛÓÉ úÓÚ„ÓÓ Ú1‡Òú„ ) (11ÛÂè8 ‡ËÂÔÈÓ Ô É„ÓÚ‡ÔÓã„ ÓÔ , Ô‡ÚÂ!Û , ã ÂɇÒ1 ㇠1 ÄÓõ \Û‡8 ÂÔ§‡§ÂÒ 1Ú ã  �úÛ81Ò‡ 1 ÒÓÔÉ„Óò‡ÈÓÔ ¯ ã 1ú Á¯Ò!ÂÔ1 . 1Ô „ÂÁ�ÓÔÁ  û 8Â1‡'8 8Ó11‡1‡11Ó Ô „ÂÉ„ÂÔÒ!Ô § õ Á ÚÂÚú„Áõ � ÂÔÈâÂÚÂò, ÄÓõ' 8 ÈÂÁÒÔ�ÈÓ Ô ÓÉ 1ú 81ò‡ÈÓ Ô „ÂÛÓ!Û 8 ‡„ÓËÔÒ ! ò  Á¯fiÂÚ' Á 81‡1 ÓÉ Ú!Ô( 1 ‡ÔÈ ã  �„Ó8�ÂÒ1 8 ÓÉ ÄÓõ' Á ÉËò„  ÒÓÚÚËÔ1Ò‡11Ó Ô ¯ ã õÚ . 1Ô ÂÁÁÂÔÒ , ÄÓõ ÒÓÔÛÂÛ Á ã„Óˉ ú õ 8 „Â�Ó è 1ú‡1 úÂ18 ú‡Ô(111Ô§ ã Â�„ÓõÂÚ8ò(1ÂÔ ( Ú õ ÁÒ1‡Á81 Ô‡ Ú‡ÔÔ „ Âı�ÂÒ1Â È É„ÓÚ ‡ ÒÓÚ�Â1ÂÔ1 : úÓÚ„ÓÓ Ú1‡Òú„ . ħ ÚÂÔÈÓÔÂÈ ,‡ 81‡ÔÒ1ÓâÉ úÂ^ÛÂÂ Ô 1‡Òú „ ‡ÔÒ ! 8òÒ1ÂÔ118 ‡ „‡„ ڇË „ 1ÔÛÓõÔ§ ‡ 8ÂÔÓË 8 ɇÒ 1ú„‡1. çÓ\ÛÂÛ„ , ã  �úÛ81Ò‡ ! ÒÓÔÉ„Óò‡ÈÓÔ (Â.§. úÓ\Û 11 81‡„1ÂÒ 1 ‡ÔÈ

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

157

evolved) is not brought up in an explicit manner. This practice recalls Potter's (1996) observation that "one realm of entities is constituted in the description while another is avoided" (184). Aoki's description of the situation includes several terms of emotion. His and Kato's feelings "aren't connected so well yet" (lines 4—5), the standoff was caused by the student's outburst (kattonatta "got angry" in line 6), and Aoki will be able to talk with the student "if he calms down" (ochitsukebain line 6). The focus on emotional matters is especially notable since it stands in contrast to the physical nature of the confrontation between teacher and student. The occasioned membership categorization and the description of the student's state of mind project Aoki's face as a homeroom teacher who is willing to cope with the student's emotional issues. The teacher who came close to trading blows with his student is at least for now not the focus of attention. Aoki's turns (lines 2-8, 12-15, and 18) include a number of expressions of difficulty and uncertainty. While most of Aoki's talk details the adversity7 of the situation, his intention to persist is articulated vaguely in a truncated form. Through the repeated use of subordinate constructions he backgrounds the trouble and foregrounds his good intentions. By doing so, he conveys his intention to continue the dialogue despite the challenges involved. Aoki's statement also shows persistence as well as the willingness and ability (or at least claimed ability) to take on difficult problems. This practice is similar to the troubles talk sequence examined in Chapter 6, excerpt [5], in which a female teacher qualifies her report including inappropriate language with several subordinate clauses. Waring (2002), in her study of graduate students' expressions of noncomprehension, observes a similar practice: students take pains to provide accounts of their attempts at understanding. In line 3, Aoki asserts that the situation is very difficult. This evaluation is followed by keredomo, a variant of kedo "although" or "but," which turns this unit of speech into a subordinate clause. As mentioned in Chapter 6, a clause ending with kedo is considered a subordinate clause preceding the main clause of an utterance, and kedo expresses a contrastive relationship between the proposition expressed in the kedo clause and the one in the successive main clause. The following adverbial phrase, moosukoski "a little more," implies the existence of a verb phrase that would complete the main clause. At this point, however, the adverbial phrase is actually followed by another qualifying clause, elaborating on the predicament introduced in line 3: the situation is difficult since, as Aoki states in lines 4 and 5, his and the student's feelings are not connected yet After this assessment, Aoki names one condition that would enable him to talk with the student, namely that the student calm down (lines 5-7). At this stage, the main clause that began with moosukoshi has still not been completed. Dakara "so" in line 7 is a causative connective reintroducing the main point of an argument. In this case, the use of dakara creates the

158

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Table 7.1 Development of Aoki's turns in lines 2 to 20 Line

Gist of the segment

Translation of the segment

line 2-3

statement of difficulty

well, I think it is very difficult

line 3-4 line 4-7

(potential main clause) elaboration on difficulty

line 7

(attempts to issue a main clause) uncertainty of time frame and result (main clause)

a little more, I really don't understand Kato's feelings so well yet, but if he calms down after getting angry, I will be able to talk to him, so ...

kedo,

line 7-8

I don't know when and how it will be kedo. I have the intention to do a line 12 little more. it will not be the case that he line 12-13 limitation of the potential will obey our instructions result automatically keredomo, line 14-15 clarification of the potential but at least I ( ) what is good and bad . . . result well, if I talk about small statement of difficulty line 18 things, there are many kedo.

anticipation that Aoki will reintroduce his main idea (moosukoshi "a little" from line 3) and specify what he is going to do. However, after the marker, another qualification clause with kedo implies that he does not know "when and how" he will talk to Kato (lines 7-8). By the end of his first turn, Aoki has presented two qualification clauses: the situation is difficult (line 3), and he does not yet know how to resolve it (lines 7-8). He has indicated that he wants to take some form of corrective action by using the adverb moosukoshi "a little more" (line 3) and the connective dakara "so" (line 7), without actually proposing specific steps. In line 12, Aoki repeats the word moosukoshi "a little more" and completes the main clause of the proffered qualifications by indicating his intention to do "a little more." This statement is followed by another qualification embedded in a kedo clause, maintaining that it cannot be taken for granted that the student will obey the teachers' orders (line 13). After this qualification, Aoki spells out a concrete corrective measure - he may be able to make the student understand "what is good and bad" (lines 14-15) - in a mitigated sentence containing hedging expressions such as ichioo "at least," kana "I wonder," and an unfinished ending with the quotation marker tte iu.

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

159

In line 18, Aoki returns one more time to the difficulties he has to face ("small things, there are many"). His statement is encoded in a kedo clause. After another long pause with no uptake from anyone else, he invites others to take a turn. The phrasing of his question, doo desu ka "how is it?" (line 20), is ambiguous in this location. Semantically ambiguous as it is, his conversational intention to yield the turn to others is clear and unmistakable. The development of Aoki's turns is schematized in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 shows that Aoki's intention "to do a little more" is introduced only once in a mitigated manner (in line 12). Beyond that he supplies hints only in the adverbial phrase "a little" (line 3) and in a connective "so" (line 7). On the other hand, before and after the proclamation of the speaker's intention in line 12, kedo clauses and their elaborations are placed as qualification segments, calling attention to the difficult situation (lines 2-3), the uncertain time frame (lines 7-8), and the limited results one has to expect (lines 12-13). The sequential structure outlined above allows the speaker to highlight the adverse circumstances that make a swift solution of the problem next to impossible, while at the same time maintaining his self-image as a teacher who is concerned, motivated, and able to take on challenges. Even though the speaker displays his face in a vague and truncated manner, it is foregrounded through its structural placement within a main clause. In contrast, the statements of difficulty, limitation and uncertainty are embedded in subordinate kedo clauses and are thereby structurally divested of strong emphasis, despite the speaker's lengthy and detailed enumeration of such qualifications. By framing the negative qualifications in a subordinate clause, which typically presents background information, and placing his initiative and motivation in a main clause, the speaker's face is structurally enhanced. 7.2.2 Displaying alignment by creating opposition

The previous section outlined how Aoki, the main teacher involved in the incident, presents his face as a teacher who is concerned, motivated, and able to take on challenges while admitting adversity. This section turns to the other participants of the meeting. It demonstrates how they use collaborative facework to display alignment with each other and Aoki. In general, the formation of alignment among group members presupposes a shared common ground, which acquires more defined contours when it is perceived in contrast to an outside entity. In the following example, we examine how participants establish alliance among themselves discursively by creating a sense of "us versus them". Participants display a shared discursive face, by referring to others who are different and by emphasizing that difference. The first discursive face relates to a person's physical presence at the site of the incident. When a problem occurs, some teachers hurry to the scene

160

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

to take part in a joint effort to resolve it, while others hesitate to take action and prefer to stay in their offices. From the onset of her report in excerpt [2], extracted from meeting segment 1, Sato employs a curious rhetorical scheme: she takes pains to name all teachers present at the locations where the various stages of the incident took place. In the following transcripts (excerpts [2] and [3]), teachers' names are italicized to highlight the frequency of their occurrence. Excerpt [2] (part of meeting segment 1) l-> Seki:

kyoo chotto taihen datta no wa mazu ookawa sensee ga itte kureta today a-little troublesome Cop Nom T first Ohkawa teacher S went for-us

2-»

n desu kedo (.) sono ikkai ni... de (.) nikaime ga shimizu sensee ga Nom Cop but well first-floor to and second-time S Shimizu teacher S

3

watashi o yobi ni korarete (.) sangai ni sono takoo no seetotachi I O call to come-and third-floor to well other-school Lk students

4->

ga iru to iu koto de itta n desu ne (.) eeto ooki sensee to S exist Qt say Nom and went Nom Cop FP well Ohki teacher and

5->

isobe sensee to sannin-de itta no kana? ... watashi wa shita Isobe teacher with three-of-us went Nom FP I T downstairs to

6

orite-kite (.) hokano sensee yonde yo tte itta n desu ne (.) go-down-and other teacher call FP Qt said Nom Cop FP

ni

(1 What was troublesome today was, first, Mr Ohkawa went 2 to the first floor ... And at the second time, Ms Shimizu came to 3 tell me that there were students from another school on the 4 third floor, so I went, with Mr Ohki and 5 Mr. Isobe, were there three of us? ... I went downstairs 6 and asked to call other teachers.)

In lines 1, 2, 4 and 5, Seki lists the names of the teachers who were actively involved in the incident and describes their roles. When making a description, Potter (1996) maintains that it is common practice to "pick out a particular range of phenomena as relevant and ignore other potential ones" (184). Seki presents the names of the teachers taking initiative as a relevant piece of information. The treatment of this evident priority stands in marked contrast to the lack of detailed description of the students' misbehavior. Moreover, at the end of her report Seki states that she "asked to call other teachers" (line 6), indicating that she thought other instructors' help was necessary. Elsewhere during the meeting, she stresses that teachers should co-operate and confront troubles collectively: minna de kyooryoku shite ikanai to "all teachers should cooperate," and minna ichido wa deteiku tte koto de "everyone should go out at least once"

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

161

when a problem occurs. In the case in question, Aoki clearly played a major role. Yet Seki also presents herself as a main actor who has witnessed first-hand all three stages of the incident. By naming the teachers taking action, Seki discursively creates an opposition between those who became active and those who remained passive during the incident. Within this classification, Aoki and Seki belong to the same "team" - they share the positive self-image of a supportive, courageous and co-operative teacher. In the next two excerpts, several other participants also claim that they were present at the incident. In excerpt [3], Seki continues her report (begun in excerpt [2]). She lists the names of the teachers who were present at the third stage of the incident (lines 1-2). Baba adds another teacher to Seki's list in lines 3 and 5.

Excerpt [3] (part of meeting segment 1) 1 Seki:

... de (.) sankaime iyoiyo hehe anoo mata ue ni agatteta n desu and third-time at-last hehe well again upstairs to went-up Nom Cop

2

yo ne (.) sorede kamada sensee to (.) eeto miyaji sensee to. FP FP then Kamada teacher and well Miyaji teacher and (... and at last, [they came] the third time, well, again, they went upstairs, and Mr Kamada and Ms Miyaji and ...)

3-* Baba:

oka sensee nanka mo ita kanaa, Oka teacher such-as also there-were FP (Mr Oka was also there, it seems)

4 Seki:

oka sensee mo, Oka teacher also (Also Mr. Oka...)

5-^ Baba:

ita to omou yo, there-were Qt think FP (I think he was there, too.)

By providing information that he acquired as a direct witness of the incident (lines 3 and 5), Baba draws attention to the fact that he was present at the trouble site, thereby projecting his face as an active, committed member of the school's faculty. In segment [4], Miki states explicitly that she went to the site of the incident when it took place and reports what she saw there (lines 1-2). Her vivid description of Kato's behavior also serves as a reminder that she was one of the teachers present in the last phase of the altercation.

162 ••••••• 1 -*å11Ë :

é18ëé11ä5

[4] (•••1 •/••••••^

á

••^•••11)

1Ò‡(ı>Ó \Û‡ ÓÒõ&ËË 1Ò‡Âç‡ Ô ÈÂÁ Ë 1Ò‡ ‡ÔÓ \Û‡&õ ‰ ‡ 1ˇ ˛! Ë ¯ Ú ‡ ä‡ û

2

Ö Ää Å êé1ãíÖÜá

í Ò‡1Ú-Ò1Ó\ Ú „Âò„ÔÂÈ äÓ Ú ëÓ�(^ \ÛÂ!1 I

5 ^Âò ÈÚ‡1 í

çÒ‡„Ú‡‰‡„ ‡ �‡‡ ç Ó 15Ëö‡ú‡11  1ÁËË $˧‡(‡ ÁúèÒ‡ ÚçÂÔ‡! Ô Ú-‡Ô‰Â „ 8�1‡Á ú

0,1 5�11

ÈÂÁ Ë úÂÒ1Ó .

(^1 ˉËÚ Â ÓÔ! Û 1ÓÓú-õ§ õÓ ÚëÓ� ö Ú

(&{•. ä‡ ˛ Ò‡! ÚÒ1Ó\Û Ô \^úÂÔ ú  τÂÚ ÈÓÚ ? \ìúÂ Ô I \ÛÂÔ1,1 ÓÔ! Û §‡\Û õ Ú§ò 1 ‡Ô‰„11 Û 8�1ËÚ ‰‡„ÓËÔÈ , úËë ...) 3

ÄÓõ :

Ú‡‡ §Ó^Ó \Û‡ Ô (.)

Ô‡1Ò‡Ô‡!Ò ‡ ÚËÚËä‡Áú Ô 1Óõ„ Ó ÚÓ Ô (.)

^Â! 1 ã‡1-�Ó1Ô1 í Éê ˆ¯1  (àòÒË1 1 4

<1‡

‡„Ë Ô

1õÔ$ 8 ‡!Á Ó Éê ã„Â-‡„ NÓÚ

1ÒÂÒ1Ó .

ëÓ� úË1

(å^Â1 1 ‡úÓË1 ã‡1 , ㄇ„ ˆ¯1  (òçÒË1 ( 1õÔ§5 , úË1... ) •-+ LJö‡ :

fiÂÚ Ó ‡ÔÓ ^ÓÓ1ÒÛÓ Ó ]‡‡

ú‡1 Ë> \Û‡ 1\Û‡Ô‡1 Ò!Â5 Ë ÛÓ ÔÂ, ‡ÁÓ!Ò Ó Ò!Â. =

úË1 1ú‡1 Ò1„ÒËÔ151‡ÔÒ Â ëÓ� Û § Ù í 5‡Û-õ‰ëÓ� ê ê Éê ã„ ‡1 (ÇË1 ËÔÒ1 „ ãÓ‚  ‡„ÒËÔ¯‡ÔÒÂÁ , úÂ Ï˛Ë!(1Ô ó §‡Û Û‚, Ô§1Ë ã„Â, Ô§ú1?) 6-> ÄÓ1‡:

=§Ó„Û‡‡ ÚÓ Ó Ô ‡ÔÔ‡ „ÂÔÒúË Ë ÔÓ 1„Ë 1ú‡1-15

1Ú ê ê

㇠ ÉÓ1ú

8

(ÓäÓ„Ó Ò1Â \Û‡ ÔÂÂ .

²ÁÒ �!‡Ò  ‡1 í

Åê

(íú‡Â' Á ÓÔ . [ç  \ÛÓË!(1Ô ó Á‡Û Û‚] \^úÂÔ õ ‚ �‡!Á‡„ ‡„ÓËÔfi. )

1Ô 11ÔÂ8 5 ‡ÔÒ! 6, LJö ‡ ‡ÔÒ!ÄÓõ ÂıÒú‡Ô^ ãÂ1„ Ó�1Ô!ÓÔ 8 „§‡„<11Ô § 䇲' Á 51‡1 ÓÉ Ú!ÔÒ ! ÈËÔÔ§ ã  ÒÓÔÉ„ÓÔ1‡1˛Ô . ÇÓã LJú‡ ‡ÔÈ ÄÓõ ÂÚ�!Ó Û §ÂÛ„‡ ! (1Â1Ò11 Ò Âı�„ÂÁÁıÓÔÁ : LJú‡ ¯ÂÁ •• • "ã‡1, " ‡ÔÒ ! ••••• "1Ô„ " 1Ô àÔ Â 5; ÄÓõ ¯Â‚ •••• "㇠1 ÁÓè: ÓÉ' Ú çÔ Â 6. íú  ÚËò‡ ! Ë‚  ÓÉ fiÂ1Ò11 Ò Âı�„Â8810è8 \ì11 ú ã  �„ÂÅ ı "‡" (Â.§. •••, •••, ••••••, •••••) 1ÔÒñÒ‡1 8 Ä 9 1Ô(„1ÓÒË(Ó„8 Áú‡„ÂÒ ! 1¯Ó\Û1ÂÒ1§  ‡ÔÒ1/Ó „ �‡81 Âı�ÂÔÂÔÒ Â ÒÓÔÒ„Ô!Ô § Ä „Â&„ÂÔÒ 8 ÓÉ ã‚  Âı�„Â88ûè8 . ÇÛ1ÔÒ1Ë<1Ú § ã‚  Âı�„Â88ûè 8 Ú ãÂ1„ ÂıÒú‡Ô§Â , ò  8�‡ö„ 8 ÒÓÔÛÂ Û ã‡ 1 ãÂÛ Áú‡„ ÈÚ-Ô‡Ô fi ÚÉÓ„Ú‡ÈÓÔ , ‡Ò^Ë^^ÂÒ ^ (à„ÂÒÈÛ ‡1 ã  811 ÓÉ ã  ÒÓÚÚÓÈÓÔ . Ä5 \Û ú‡Û 8ÂÂÔ , 5Âõ' 8 „Â�‡1ÂÒ 1 Ô‡Ú!Ô� ; ÓÉ ã  1‡Òú„ 8 �„ÂÁ ò ‡! Ä 1Ô‡Ò1ÂÔ 1 fi¯<1Â8 ã Â1‡Òú„ 8 1ò Ó É^Ó §„ÓË� 8 (‡ÒÈÛ Â ‡ÔÈ �‡881ìÂ). å^1ò1 Ô ã1 8 8ÒúÂÚ , ÄÓõ , 8Âõ , ‡ÔÈ Óã„ 1‡Òú„ 8 ^ú Ó ÚÒàÒ‡1  ãÂ1„ �‡„ȇ�‡ ÈÓÔ 1Ô ã  8«1ÂÚ ò ÓÉ ã  (òÓ„fi„ ‡88„! ãÂ1„ �!‡Ò Â Ú ã  "‡ÒËÛ " §ãîè àïé 118 à88îàà!:åñ1 ïó!1å§ å - Ëå ò1åãàñ1 ïà1 Ãàñå îà à 8è îãéó å ‡ÔÒ1 ÒÓË„‡§ÂÓË 8 1‡Òú„ . íõ81Ú‰Ë18ÈÒ�„‡Ò11Ò Â‡ÒõÂÛ 8 É^Ó É‡Ò²ÔÂòÂÈ Óú]ÂÒâÛ 8 8Ú¯11‡ÔÂÓË81Û : ÓÔ ã  ÓÔ ú‡ÔÈ 11 8Ë��Óã 8 ã  �‡ò‡�‡òÁ ' �Ó8111Û Â 8Âñ-1Ú‡§Â ; ÓÔ ã  Óã„ ú‡ÔÈ 11 ö¯1<1 Á ‡111‡ÔÒ Â ‡ÚÓÔ § 1‡Ò11„ 8 ÓÉ ã  8‡Ú "1‡Ú. " Ä ÔËÚú „ ÓÉ ÚÂÂËÔ § �‡„11Ò1�‡Ô1 8 1‡ú ‡Ô Ó��ÓÁòÓÔ‡ ! 81‡ÔÒ Â ‡§‡!Ô81 ‡ÔÓã„ ÂÔÈ1Û - ã  8ÒúÓÓ 1 „Â�„ÂÁÂò‡ËÛ Á (1.Â. ã  �ÔÔ‡�‡ ! ‡ÔÒ ! Û!Ò Â

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

163

principal).4 As recorded in excerpt [5], Seki mentions in her report that she asked the principal to call the police after the first stage of the incident Excerpt [5] (part of meeting segment 1) 1 Seki:

watashi wa kooyatte koochoosensee ni keesatsu ni renrakushite kudasai I T this-way principal to police to contact please

2

tte itta n desu ne, (.) takoo no seeto ga kitemasu n de tte Qt said Nom Cop FP other-school Lk students S are-here Nom Cop

Qt 3

ittara maa maa koohunshinaide toka iwarete moochotto yoosu said-when well well don't-get-upset etc. was-told little-more state

4

mite tte yuu kotoni nachatte ... look-and Qt say Nom became (1 I asked the principal to call the 2 police, saying that students from another school were here, 3 and I was told "well, well, don't get so upset," and it was decided that 4 we should wait and see how things turn out a little longer, and ...)

By advancing the need to call the police, Seki displays her positive selfimage as judicious problem-solver who knows exactly what to do in emergency situations. However, the principal, Seki relates, told her to calm down (line 3), and it was decided that they should wait and see how things develop (lines 3-4). Seki uses a verb in the passive form, which often indicates the speaker's negative, suffering sentiment toward an action, and the auxiliary chau, conveying regret. The passive verb iwarete "was told" (line 3) signals Seki's adverse reaction to the principal's request to calm down. The auxiliary chau (in its gerund form chatte) in ... tte yuu koto ni nacchatte "it was decided that..." (line 4) expresses her reservations about the decision to wait and see without taking action. In Seki's opinion, the lack of response by the school representatives aggravated the situation. In excerpt [6], she openly criticizes their indecision. Excerpt [6] (part of meeting segment 3) 1 Seki:

chotto ne kyoo no jookyoo wa (.) arasowanakutemo ii bamen ga nikai a-little FP today Lk situation T confront-Neg-if good scene S twice

164 2

Ç15ëé1íä5 ‡Ó‡

Ô

ÈÂÁËÛ Ó Ô (.) ò¯„Â& ¯

Âı181ÂÒ 1 çÓ Ú ëÓ� Éê Éê 3

\Û‡ 1ÒõÚÓ1¯8‡Ô¯ í

Ö Ää Å êé1ãíÖÜ8

5

Á˯úÓ˛

ÓÁÚóÂÒ‡„‡‡Ô Ó úÓ1‡Òõ

ÚÂÒÔ‡ÚÒ‡ã Û (1Ó ãÚ‰é <1Ó4É

¯‰Â1 ‡

<1‡„ÓÓ 8õ

ÂúÓÁ Â Òõç„Â Ô

‡ë‡Áõ„ ‡ §‡ ÁÓÔ Ó öÂ<ÁËÚ

ÉÓ„óÔÂõıÉ Â ¯Ô-‡\Û‡Û Ôˉú Ò ‡Ô<1 \ÛÂ

8 ^Â! 1 ÔÓ1-�‡„ÈÒË1‡„1 Û

? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? Ô‰-ÔÓ1-Âı18 1 ‡ÔÒ ! 1Ú�„Â\1ÓË5-�ú‡8  ú1Ò �„ÓõÂÚ ëÓ�Éê (1 íÓ<1‡Û, ã„Â\Û„ É^Ó 81ò‡(1ÓÔ 8 \Ûú„ ¯  ÒÓË à ú‡Û ‡ÛÓ!Ò1ÂÒ 1 2 ÒÓÔ&ÓÔ¯˛Ô [¯ ã 1ú 8òÒ1ÂÔ(5], Ô§ú1? 1É [ãÂÛ] ÒàÈ \^ú‡( : [ãÂÛ] ‡„ 8Ë��Ó8ÂÒ11 Ó õ Ó „ÓË(1ÔÂ1Û , È˛‚  1‡‰ 8 3 �„Óú‡õÛ ^ÓË!(1 ú‡Û „ËÔ ÉÓ„ â1Â1„ 11ÉÂ, ‡ÔÒ1 ^Â^ÓËàÔó ú‡Û ÔÂÂÈÂÒ !˛ 4‰ Ó ‡^1„ ãÂÚ8é Ú‡Ô Û ¯ÔÂÁ, ‡ÔÒ ! \^ú‡1' 8 ÚÓ„Â , ^Â^ÓË!Ò¯ó ú‡Û ú‡‰80 ÚËÒ ú 1„ÓËõ Â\ì1â11úÂÚ . • íú  �„ÓõÂÚ^‡Á 1ú �„ÂÛ˛¯ �ú‡ÁÂ. ) 6

ÄÓ1‡:

‡‡

„ÂÔÒ1‡ Ô

ÔÓ ÚÓÔÒ õ <1‡

ÔÂ.

Û‡ ú �„ÂÛ1ÓË8-�ú‡8  úú . �„ÓõÂÚ ëÓ� Éê (ì‡ú , ã Â�„ÓõÂÚ^Û‡Á ã Â�„ÂÛ!ÓË 8 �ú‡‚Â.) 7

8Â1Ë:

˛ ÓÚÓ Ë Ô ‰ÂÁ Ë ÛÓ ÔÂ,

é Â 1õÔ ä çÓ Ú ëÓ� Éê Éê (íú‡1' 8 \Ûú‡11 ãÚä. )

áÂõ ‡„‰Ë Á È1‡1 1ú 8ÂÒÓÔÒ 1 ‡ÔÒ1 1õ„Ò1 81‡§Â8 ÓÉ Ä 1ÔÒ1Ò1ÂÔ1 : ÒÓË à ú‡Û úÂÂÔ ‡ÛÓ!(1 fi 1É ò  8ÒúÓÓ 1 „Â�„Â8ÂÔ1‡<1Û 8 ö‡< 1 ‰ÓÔ Â "\Ûú‡1: ÄÂÛ \Û„ 8Ë��Ó8Â< 1 ¯ Ò!Ó, " Ô‡ÚÂ!Û , ÒÓÚ‡Ò ! ã Â�ÓàÒ ^úÂÔ ã Â1„ÓËõÂÚ‡1Ò„ 8 ÈÚ ‡��‡„ fi ÓÔ 1ú 8ÒúÓÓ 1 �„Âԯ Á (1Ú 8 1~5). \\^1‡ 1 8Â1‡ ÉÓ„ÚË1‡1 8 ‡8 ã  ڇ! Ô �„ÓõÂÚ18 ÔÓ1 ã ÂÒÓÔÉ„Óò‡ÈÓÔ öÂ1ÎÛÂÂ Ô ÄÓ1‡ ‡ÔÒ1 ã Â8ò<1ÂÔ1 , úË Ëö  „Â�„Â8ÂÔ1‡ÈÛÂ8 ' ıÔ‡ÒÈÓÔ ‡É „ ÄÂÈÚ81‡§ÂÓÉÄÂ1ÔÒ1(1ÂÔ1 , \ÛõÒú 8Â1‡ Ò‡!1 8 •••••• "ã Â�„ÂÛ!ÓË 8 �ú‡‡Â " 1è 11Ô 5. ÇÛ ‡Ò1Ó�ÈÔ § ‡Ô Ó��Ó81âÓÔ‡ 1 81‡ÔÒ ‡§‡!Ô81 ã  �ÔÔ‡�‡ ! ‡ÔÒ ! Û!ÒÂ-�ÔÔ‡�‡1 , 8Â1‡'8 ‡„§ËÚÂÔ 1 É„‡Ú ‚ ÄÓõ ‡8 ÓÔ ÓÉ ã Â(:‡Òú„ 8 \ÛúÓ ÁËÈfi„Â È („ÓÚ ãÂı „ 1‡Ò1Ò ÓÉ „Â8�Óԧ , ‡ÔÈ ãË 8 Ú1Ô1Ú12 8 ÄÓõ' 8 „Â8�ÓÔ81úòÒÛ . à ‡úÓ ÒÓÔÛÂÛ Á ã‡( : 8ú 1¯Ó\ì 8 \Ûú‡1 ÔÂÂÒ! 8 ˛ ú ÈÓÔ 1Ô â11 8 (Û�  ÓÉ 811ˇËÓÔ . 1Ô 11Ô 6, ÄÓõ ‡ÒÒÂ� È 8Â1‡'8 ‡„§ËÚ ò ú Û„Â�‡ÈÔ ‰ ㇠1 1ú �„ÓõÂÚ ÓÔ§1Ô‡1Â< 1 Ú Ä "�„ÂÛ!ÓË 8 �ú‡ÁÂ. " éÔÒ Ä Ó��ÓÁòÓÔ‡ ! 81‡ÔÒ Â ‡§‡!Ô81 Ä „Â�„Â8ÂÔ(‡ÈÛ 8 18 Â8ë‡õ18úÂÒ1 ÓÄ „ Ò‡Òú„ Á 1Ô Ä ÚÂÂËÔ § ]Ó!Ô Ú Ä ‡ÒÒ¯‡ÈÓÔ , ‡Á ÂÛ!(1ÂÔÒÂ< 1 1Ô ÂıÒ„� 1 [7]. 1Ô àÔÂ8 1 ‡ÔÒ! 3, LJö ‡ „ÂÒ‡ ò 81Ú11‡„ Ò‡8ë8 É„ÓÚ Ä �„ÂÛ!ÓË 8 Û‡„ , ‡!1§1Ô § ㇠1 Ä18 ^‡8 ÔÓ1 Ä ÇÚÈÚÂć1 Ä „Â�„Â8ÂÔ1‡ÈÛ 8 ɇèÂfi ¯ ÒÓ� ÂÚÄ ‡ �„ÓõÂÚ Ú ‡ âÚÂ1Û Ú‡ÔÔ„ .

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

165

Excerpt [7] (part of meeting segment 3) 1 Baba:

kyonen mo hora itsumo gotegoteni itsumo [mawacchau deshoo? last-year too Int always reactor always become Cop (Last year was the same. [They/we] are always just reacting, right?)

2 Seki:

[un soo soo. uh-huh right right (Uh-huh, that's right)

3 Baba:

de saigo nee kocchi ga okorarechau kara nee (.) mada sooiu and at-last FP we S scolded since FP yet that-kind-of

4

koto wakattenai n da yo nee sugu denwana n da thing understand-Neg Nom Cop FP FP immediately telephone Nom Cop

5

yo (.) hontoni dame da yo nee, FP really no-good Cop FP FP (And, in the end, it is us who get scolded. They don't understand that sort of thing yet, right? [What they have to do is to] make a phone call immediately. Really, they are no good!)

6 Miki:

kondo wa tte itta noni nee, next-time T Qt said although FP (Even though they said [they'd do it] next time, right?)

Baba's comment includes the expression itsumo "always" in line 1. It formulates the representatives' hesitation as one recognizable instance of a repeating pattern or routine (as "scripted") (Edwards 1994, 1995). His turn can also be viewed as an example of extreme case formation (Edwards 2000, Pomerantz 1986), the use of extreme terms to defend or justify a description or assessment, or to make a complaint. Baba's accusation is reinforced through his use of the extreme case- and scriptformulating term itsumo. In line 3, Baba's statement "in the end, it is us who get scolded," includes the expression kocchi "us" or "this side," assuming an opposition between school representatives and ordinary teachers. Upon receipt of Baba's accusation, Miki aligns herself with Baba by voicing a truncated clause elaborating the accusation. Even though Miki does not quote the principal's statement in its entirety (the predicate that is supposed to follow kondo wa "this time" is missing), the use of the contrastive topic marker wa indicates that the principal had promised to act differently the next time. In addition, the contrastive connective particle noni in the same utterance conveys the speakers' disappointment or frustration. Towards the end of the meeting, Seki reiterates the main results of the discussion and the preferred course of action should problems occur.

166

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Returning to the principal's remark "well, well, don't get so upset" (excerpt [5], line 3), she registers her discontent Excerpt [8] (part of meeting segment 6) 1 Seki:

maamaa tte iu no dake wa yamete hoshii hehe tte iu calm-down Qt say Nom only T stop want Qt say

2

ki-ga-shite (.) maa sonnani hhehe koohun shinaide toka tte iu have-a-feeling-and hush so-much excite don't etc. Qt say

3

no wa (.) koohun shite-iin desu. hehh ne::. Nom T excite can-do Cop FP (What I want them to stop saying is "calm down," that's how I feel, saying something like "calm down, don't get so excited." It is OK to get excited, right? [laughter])

4 Aoki:

soona n desu yo. ne:. hheh so Nom Cop FPFP (That's right, right? [laughter])

5 Seki:

ne:. hheh (..) demo ninensee no-hoo mo taihen rashikute FP but second-year Lk also troublesome seems-and (Right [laughter] But the second year teachers also seem to have a lot of trouble and ...)

Seki specifies another difference between herself and the school representatives: while the principal had told her to "calm down" and to not '"get excited," she feels that there is nothing wrong with getting emotional. Elsewhere in the meeting, Seki had mentioned that she gets angry with unruly students and that teachers have to be extra-strict at times. The eyewitness accounts delivered in the meeting suggest that Aoki had almost lost his temper in his confrontation with Kato. In her statement in excerpt [8], Seki approves such conduct and aligns herself with Aoki by admitting that she, too, gets emotionally charged in difficult situations. In line 4, Aoki agrees emphatically, as evidenced by the final particle yo, indicating the speaker's assertive stance, the elongated affective final particle ne, signifying a shared affective stance, and laughter. Seki and Aoki's strong alliance is bolstered by shared laughter and their use of the final particle ne with falling intonation and germinated vowel, which indicates strong co-solicitation and granting of agreement (Fujita 2001), and can be compared to a tag question with falling intonation in English. In excerpts [5] to [8], the teachers build alliance by framing the school representatives as the common target of their complaint. This practice achieves dual orientations in terms of facework. First, the opposition

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

167

against a clearly defined party strengthens the alliance among teachers. Especially by stressing the representatives' responsibilities in maintaining student discipline, the active teachers bond through the shared understanding that they have been hampered in their efforts by the principal's indecisive attitude. Second, the teachers prove that they have the ability to cope with emergency situations in a judicious manner. Joint complaint or griping about others builds solidarity among interlocutors (Boxer 1993). The next example, in which the teachers complain about an outside counselor, gives us another look at this phenomenon. Excerpt [9] is taken from segment 5, where the focus of the meeting shifts from the incident involving Kato to problems with other students. Before the onset of the excerpt, Miki recounted her experience with the mother of a troubled student in her class who had sought advice from a counselor. The mother had left the counseling session discouraged and relayed to Miki what she had been told there. Miki conveys in line 1 how surprised she was when she heard the mother's story, spurring a series of emphatic agreements from other teachers. Excerpt [9] (part of meeting segment 5) 1 Miki:

... sonna koto o iwareta tte iu no ne (.) de HEEE? tte omotte that-kind thing O be-told Qt say Nom FP and what? Qt think-and (The mother said she was told that kind of thing, and I thought "whaaat?" and ...)

2 Seki:

mattaku [ne::. completely FP (It's completely ..., right?)

3 Nakai:

[okaasan komacchau janai ne::. mother be-in-trouble Tag FP (The mother must be in trouble, right?)

4 Aoki:

kyooikusoodanni nattenai yo ne:.= educational-counseling become-Neg FP FP (You can't call it educational counseling, right?)

5 Miki:

=soko itte sooiuhuuni iwaretanja nanna no tte ne::. there go-and that-way be-told-if what Nom Qt FP (When she goes there and is told that sort of thing, she would think "what is it?," right?)

6 Seki:

sekkaku itta noni ne::. with-trouble went though FP (Even though she took the trouble to go there, right?)

168 7 Miki:

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS [ne::. FP (Right)

8 Aoki:

[jikan no muda da yo ne:. time Lk waste Cop FP FP (It is a waste of time, right?)

9

Miki:

10

kekkyoku mukoo mo soodan sum hoo mo yoku wakattenai after-all they also counseling do side also well understand-Neg n janai ka tteNom Tag Q Qt (I wonder if, after all, they, the counselors, also don't understand very well.)

11 Seki:

hakkiri itte ne:. frankly say-and FP (Frankly speaking, right?)

12 Aoki:

mukoo mo ne:. that-side also FP (They also, right?)

13 Miki:

un wakattenai desu yo ne, uh-huh understanding-Neg Cop FP FP (Yeah, they don't understand, do they?)

Miki expresses her opinion three times (lines 1, 5, 9 and 10). The corresponding aligning turns are proffered as an elaboration, a paraphrase, or a supplementary remark. Miki expresses her surprise in line 1 by using the interjectoiy expression HEEE "whaaat?" with rising intonation. Seki's agreement in line 2 consists of the intensifier mattaku "completely" and the final particle ne. The subsequent two turns (lines 34) by Nakai and Aoki explicate the reason for Miki's surprise. After Miki rephrases her opinion the second time (line 5), taking the viewpoint of the mother, the other two teachers jointly elaborate her statement: Seki emphasizes the effort it takes to visit a counselor (line 6), while Aoki hints that these sessions are a waste of time (line 8). Miki's third opinion statement in lines 9 and 10 speculates on the reason for the counselor's incompetence, surmising that he or she lacks proper understanding of the problems students face. The following three turns, including Miki's own in line 13, rephrase Miki's speculation from lines 9 and 10 in a forceful manner with the intensifier haKkiri itte "frankly speaking" and the final particle 310, marking the speaker's resolution.

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

169

The tightly structured co-construction of this sequence indicates a strong alliance among participants, including Aoki. Each speaker contributes a relatively short turn, accompanied by an emphatic ne, to jointly manifest the social action of indirect complaint. The choice of ne, the final particle of involvement and mutual alignment, in its emphatic variant is well suited for this purpose. This section has illustrated the role of collaborative facework in creating alignment among interlocutors. In the observed meeting, the participants build alliance by discursively positioning themselves in opposition to other entities (passive teachers, school representatives, and counselors). We observed cases in which their face is displayed in event descriptions and in question-and-answer sequences, none of which have been treated as facethreatening or face-saving actions in previous studies. In addition, we have seen how facework is achieved in dispersed sequences over different stages of one faculty meeting. This observation reminds us that the selection of data excerpts by the researcher is a willful act, separating text (the excerpts) from context (including the unselected portion of the data). When we expand the scope of analysis to a larger stretch of discourse, we redraw the lines of what is external or internal to the analyzed data set and what is occasioned in discourse. 7.2.3 Displaying sensibility and undermining competence

The episode we review in this section involves a series of speech actions: a suggestion, a statement registering non-compliance with the suggestion, and a move supportive of the partially rejected suggestion. The last of these actions functions to support the speaker's own face as the one who issues a sensible suggestion, but since its content implicitly puts the hearer at fault, it results in a threat to the hearer's face. The excerpt is taken from segment 4, in which the teachers discuss how to respond to the incident. In line 1, Seki suggests that they should invite the student's parents to school to discuss the matter. Excerpt [10] (part of meeting segment 4) 1

Seki:

nandattara oyagosan ni kiteitadaitemo ii desu kedo ne, if-necessary parents to come-for-us-if good Cop but FP (If necessary, we can ask the parents to come to school.)

2

(3)

3 Aoki:

sore dakara dooiu huuni that so how way

4

maa sayoosureba ii n da kedomo (.) gyaku no hookoo ni ne well affect-if good Nom Cop but opposite Lk direction to FP

honnin ga ne, (.) ii hookoo ni chichioya ga he-himselfS FP good direction to father S

170

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

5

natta baaini \va mata chigau tenkaini nacchau (2) daa sono hen become case T again different development become so that around

6

ga ore mo yoku wakaranai n de. S I also well understand-Neg Nom Cop (3 About that, I don't know how the student himself... It would be good if the father has 4 a positive effect, but in case he has the opposite effect, it will 5 be different, and how it will turn out, 6 I don't know, either, so ...)

7

Seki:

uuun. ano ko jishin wa hh bookoo sum yoona ko janai to omou uh-huh that child himself T violence do like child Cop-Neg Qt think

8

n desu kedo ne, (..) dakara tte maa kyoo wa tsuyoku deta kamoshirenai Nom Cop but FP so Q well today T strong act probably

9

kedomo (.) kochira ga uwamawatteireba hhh ( ) ko janai tte but this-side S exceeding-if child Cop-Neg Qt

10

handanshiteru n desu kedo ne (..) kocchi ga amakusureba sore ni judging Nom Cop but FP this-side S spoil-if that of

11

nokkacchatte ookiku deteshimau no kana tte hhe iu ban dan o take-advantage-and big act Nom FP Qt say judgment O

12

shiteru n desu kedo ne, doing Nom Cop but FP (7 Uh-huh, I don't think that he himself is the type to be violent, 8 but, well, today he might have acted strongly. 9 but if we are better he would not do [unintelligible], 10 that's my judgment If we spoil him, he would 11 take advantage of us and act strong, that's 12 my judgment)

In Seki's initial suggestion, the placement of the adverbial expression nandattara "if necessary" in the utterance-initial position qualifies the illocutionary force of the statement Among the structural choices reserved for issuing a suggestion, the one employed here, -temo ii (equivalent to English "may" or "can"), is not as forceful as other possible options would be, for instance, -ta hoo ga ii "it is better," or -tara doo "why don't you." Taken together, the linguistic means employed bv Seki turn her suggestion into a mitigated one. After a long pause, Aoki registers non-compliance. His reluctance to accept Seki's suggestion is formulated as an account in lines 3 to 6 (cf. Waring 2005). Providing an account is associated with dispreferred seconds (Pomerantz 1984). Aoki states the reason for non-compliance unpredictability of the outcome. He qualifies his epistemic stance by

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

171

stating are mo yoku wakaranai "I don't know, either," and by adding the insertion particle n^as an emotional checkpoint (Maynard 1993). Upon receiving Aoki's reply, Seki evaluates Kato's temperament in lines 7 and 8. The interactional function of the statement is to provide support for her own suggestion: if the student is not the violent type, as Seki seems to indicate, the problem can be resolved by following her advice to call in his parents. However, given that a physical confrontation between Aoki and Kato had taken place, Seki's assessment that Kato is not the violent type can put the blame on the other party of the conflict - Aoki. The double nature of face - saving the speaker's face (as the one who has made a sensible suggestion) while implying a threat to the hearer's face - becomes increasingly evident as Seki continues her speech. In line 8, she turns to the physical confrontation and describes the student's behavior with the relatively vague expression tsuyoku deta, equivalent to "acted strong" in English. In lines 9 to 12, Seki suggests that Kato would not be as unmanageable if the teachers were "better (literally 'above' him)," and that he would "act strong" if they "spoil" him. These arguments are potentially facethreatening, for they cast doubt on the teachers' (and especially Aoki's) ability7 to discipline the students. Several linguistic practices attenuate the assertive edge of her potential blame, however: the placement of the contrastive particle kedo and the interpersonal final particle ne at the end of the argument units in lines 10 and 12, and the use of place deixis kochira ("this side" or "here") and kocchi (an informal variant of kochira) in lines 9 and 10. In Japanese, place deixis is conventionally used to substitute for a personal pronoun. In this case, kochira stands in for the first-person pronoun "we." Referring to the group of teachers as kochira, the speaker signals her alignment with them, including Aoki. 7.2.4 Facework and overall structure of the meeting The previous sections examined the role of various types of facework in the unfolding procedure of the meeting. Taking a wider viewpoint, I will now consider die sequential order of the instances of face display within the meeting as a whole. By doing so, I hope to demonstrate that the order of events may in itself function as a broader type of facework, weaving, in our case, face-threatening actions into the overall frame of strong alliance and solidarity. Below, I will review segments 1 to 6 in the order of their occurrence (with references to the analyzed excerpts). At the onset of the meeting, Seki, the head teacher, defines its conversational style as zatsudan "an informal chat without any specific topics or objectives." The choice of zatsudan emphasizes the off-record nature of the talk and makes it easier for the participants to share their candid opinions. In segment 1, Seki recounts the incident, reporting that her request to call the police was rejected by the school principal (excerpt

172

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

[5]). Seki and other participants (namely Aoki, Baba and Miki) build alliance by claiming that they belong to the group of teachers who took an active role in the incident (excerpts [2], [3] and [4]). In segment 2, after the basic alliance is established, Seki and other teachers ask Aoki questions about the incident and the ensuing altercation between him and Kato. Aoki asserts his positive self-image as a responsible, dedicated teacher while acknowledging the difficulties he has to face (excerpt [1]). In segment 3, Seki takes an oppositional stance against the school representatives. She frames the incident with Kato as a consequence of the principal's reluctance to contact the police (excerpt [6]). Other participants second her indictment of the school representatives (excerpts [6] and [7]), strengthening the alliance among teachers. In segment 4, the teachers discuss if they should contact Kato's parents. When Aoki expresses reservations about contacting Kato's father, Seki's attempt to convince Aoki turns into a face threat (excerpt [10]). In the end, they agree to contact Kato's parents. In segment 5, the participants exchange information about other disciplinary problems. Aoki gives repeated proof of his intimate knowledge of the hierarchy and the relationships among troubled students. When Miki mentions a recent meeting between the mother of one of her students and a counselor, revealing the latter's apparent incompetence, other teachers elaborate on her story and engage in collaborative griping (excerpt [9]). In segment 6, Seki summarizes the discussion and reaffirms the need to maintain control and to rely on police help when necessary. She also covers some minor transactional items and announces the closure of the meeting. This summary highlights the following points: (1) the alliance between participants is established at the onset of the meeting; (2) potential face threats to Aoki (segments 2 and 4) are frequently followed by a strong display of alliance (segment 3) or by talk about subjects that are not facethreatening (segment 5); and (3) the meeting ends with a conversation about minor problems with little direct connection to the main incident involving Aoki (segments 5 and 6). The latter practice distracts attention from the face-threatening incident and simultaneously allows Aoki to display his knowledge regarding the student body. It is important to consider that the recorded meeting was held a short time after that incident and that it could therefore be highly face-threatening to Aoki, who was directly involved in the confrontation. The order of events outlined above is well suited to achieve dual facework objectives: to maintain Aoki's face, and to build alignment among participants. This is not to claim that the course the meeting takes is consciously regulated by any one participant. Nevertheless, the sequence of data segments does indicate that facework is accomplished not only through local manipula-

FACEWORK IN THE MEETING

173

tion of linguistic elements but also on a larger scale, for instance through the order of segments. 7.3 Summary This chapter took a more detailed look at one single meeting, with the objective of investigating types of facework accomplished in description and in an extended stretch of discourse. After providing contextual information, it showed how Aoki displays his interactional self-image as a responsible, motivated and knowledgeable teacher, how teachers build alliance and solidarity, and how the display of face by various participants can lead to conflicts. Regarding description, we have observed how a speaker's invoked membership categorization, as well as the foregrounding of certain aspects of an event can be instrumental in displaying his or her interactional face. The observation of facework throughout the meeting shows the participating teachers' conception of face within their community of practice. The discursive practice of event description reveals what kind of teacher behavior and attitude receive positive evaluation in the case of a school emergency. This evaluation is linked closely to the discursive construction of face. For instance, the teachers' "rushing to the scene" is discursively formulated as desirable by several participants, along with the display of their face as courageous and supportive. To this chapter's results we may add the findings that facework can be dispersed over different segments of a unit of discourse, that the participants' face can be displayed in speech actions such as reports or question-and-answer sequences, which have not been treated as facethreatening or face-saving in previous studies, and that the order of segments itself can be considered as a type of facework.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 8: Conclusion

8.1 Introduction Brown and Levinson's (1987) influential study on linguistic politeness has spurred great interest in the sociopsychological phenomenon of politeness and its language-specific realization. Their seminal theory was later criticized as static and categorical, failing to account for the varied and dynamic enactment of politeness. Eelen (2001) points out that earlier politeness researchers (including Brown and Levinson) blur the distinction between their own and the participant's evaluation of politeness, and that such analytical practices carry the risk that "politeness theory becomes largely based on the very common-sense commonplaces it sets out to examine, and thus fails to provide any original insights beyond those already available on the intuitive level" (246). Even when it observed politeness in continuous stretches of discourse, the dominant strain of politeness research simply assigned linguistic behavior into categories such as face-threatening acts and negative and positive politeness strategies, focusing primarily on a handful of obvious face-threatening acts (e.g. requests, apologies, or disagreements). The present study charts a different path: it revises the notion of face and employs conversation and discourse analytic approaches (as used in discursive psychology) and ethnographic information in its analytical practice. Revisiting the Goffmanian concept of face, it analyzes discursivel constructed facework in Japanese institutional multiparty interaction. Through this respecification of face and facework it becomes possible to tease out nuanced aspects of face in delicate interactions such as collaborative disagreement, teasing, and troubles talk, all of which have rarely been discussed in relation to politeness or face. The linguistic behaviors mentioned above seem to be simultaneously face-threatening and face-enhancing, and therefore pose rather complex interactional challenges. The interplay of these apparently conflicting notions is the topic of this study. Adopting a conversation/discourse analytic framework, it focuses on details of talk that facilitate the simultaneous construction and display of distinct discursive faces. It also captures a variety of facework in a seemingly face-neutral action (i.e. event description) and in the course of an entire meeting, expanding the unit of observed discourse to a larger organization of talk. In addition to its focus on face and facework, the study explores the relationship between facework and politeness. Previous research

176

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

considered these concepts as either identical or distinct, rarely clarifying their correlation. The present study contends that the evaluation of politeness encompasses assessments of face and appropriateness. In other words, these two interrelated types of assessment are at the core of politeness evaluation. The study also records evaluative moments of politeness/appropriateness in teasing and troubles talk sequences, which could be the subject of future politeness research. Furthermore, the study contributes to the research on Japanese linguistic resources (lexical, grammatical and discursive) and their function in facework. In contrast to previous studies, in which they were enlisted as politeness markers or strategies, this study treats them as resources of action accomplishment, and investigates the connection between their lexical and grammatical characteristics and their sequential and pragmatic functions. This concluding chapter reviews briefly the main findings, which are then synthesized and situated within the framework of past and current research on politeness and facework. 8.2 Major Findings 8.2.1 Collaborative disagreement Collaborative disagreement, in which two or more participants form a dissenting "team," occurs frequently in multiparty discourse. By applying a simple classification scheme limited to the dual opposites of facethreatening and face-enhancing, we can dissect this practice into two components: disagreement (face-threatening to the one who is being opposed) and agreement (face-enhancing to the members of the dissenting team). A closer look at second dissenter turns reveals, however, that the facework involved in collaborative disagreement is not always that simple. Examples in Chapter 4 illustrate how a second dissenter's turn can present a short and truncated, yet rather strong, opposition to an offered proposal. In this type of sequence, the first dissenter's turn lacks explicit oppositional elements; it is only through the second dissenter's turn that both first and second dissenters' turns are framed as a continuous disagreement. Reminiscent of agreements in a second-position assessment presenting epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond 2005), second dissenting turns of this kind convey that the speaker holds him or herself accountable for the ongoing disagreement, even though his or her disagreement follows sequentially the first dissenter's turn. The first dissenter continues to co-construct the disagreement by incorporating elements of the second dissenter's opposition into his or her subsequent turns. In another case examined in the chapter, the second dissenter's turn frames the

CONCLUSION

177

corroboratively constructed disagreement as a side comment by using the plain form (i.e. the informal register). The examination of collaborative disagreements concludes with an extended excerpt, the first half of which deviates from the pattern observed in the earlier examples. The first dissenter's turn triggers several question-and-answer sequences, in which the first dissenter elicits relevant information in support of her opposition, which she articulates in a final statement. Despite the proffered agreement and the release of information supportive of the dissenting position, the speaker who answers the first dissenter's questions assumes a neutral stance by offering relevant information at sequentially disjunctive positions, and by providing no notable elaboration. As a result, little alignment is displayed between the two speakers. Equally significant is the lack of linguistic contribution by the opposed party throughout the long exchange. This observation may indicate that the overall participation framework within a stretch of discourse can operate as a type of facework: rather than engaging in direct oppositional talk, thereby increasing the face threat, disaffiliation is demonstrated through non-participation and exclusion. Positioned in this way, the opposed party is able to listen to the dissenting voices as a bystander, and to reformulate his proposal accordingly towards the end of the exchange. Several linguistic resources are at work in accomplishing this course of action. First, the second dissenter's short yet "pronounced" opposition is articulated by a combination of truncated forms (e.g. adverbs, die first half of an "if-then" construction) and the final particle ne. The latter, a marker of "affective common ground" (Cook 1992), sequentially marks a turntransition relevant place, sets the stage for relinquishing the turn, and solicits others' agreement (cf. Tanaka 2000). The combination of these two linguistic devices allows the speaker to present a statement that is suggestive yet forceful. Another linguistic resource examined in Chapter 4 is the plain form, used in a disagreement framed as a side comment. The masu and plain forms are Japanese addressee honorifics, generally considered a typical example of discernment politeness (their socially appropriate use is defined by contextual features such as formality of the setting and social status of the interlocutors). In the analyzed faculty meetings, the masu form predominates. The switch from the normative masu to the plain form denotes an action-oriented variation and indicates a more elaborate notion of discernment. 8.2.2 Teasing and humor In theoretical terms, teasing has been interpreted as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism - in other words, as a means to attend to positive face wants (in Brown and Levinson's [1987] terms) and to a simultaneous face threat. Teasing has also been described as a context-

178

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

dependent relational activity, placed on a continuum ranging from bonding to nipping to biting (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997). Instead of relying upon contextual features as explanatory measures, the analysis performed in Chapter 5 traces the workings of affiliation and disaffiliation displayed in talk, and calls attention to the discrepancy between selfclaimed and other-ascribed face in the course of teasing. The first teasing sequence we encounter in the data introduces the mechanisms of teasing: teaser and teased establish alignment through jovial opposition. In the analyzed examples, the onset of a teasing sequence is frequently marked by a sudden change in tone of voice and a switch from the masu to the plain form; its subsequent construction is achieved by the mutual use of the plain form, laughter, and a laughing tone. The deployment of linguistic and other resources frames the achieved polarization as jocular. The shared use of the same resources affirms the co-constructed nature of this special frame. Following Drew's (1987) observation that teasing is often triggered by a deviant action of the one who is teased, Chapter 5 examines the linguistic behavior of the teased immediately before the onset of a teasing sequence. In several excerpts, the conversational transgressions recorded in the transcripts constitute deviations from the institution-specific sequential organization. In one case, the teased discursively assumes the moderator's role by offering a concluding remark; in another, the teased offers a clearly audible, explicit response when it is not necessary in the underlying turn-taking structure of the faculty meeting. Their attempts to claim the discursive identity of a moderator or of a representative speaking for the group, linked to the discursive face of competence, are not confirmed by the other participants. Instead, they trigger teasing sequences that function as a minor social reprimand (i.e. a coercive measure). The discrepancy between the face claimed by the teased and the face ascribed by the teasers allows us a glimpse of the evaluative and argumentative nature of facework. In the examples reviewed in Chapter 5, the content of a tease is connected to its recipient's reality at the level of his or her claimed face. For instance, the discursive identity of meeting moderator, assumed by a teased participant, is associated with the institutional face of competence and willingness. The content of the ensuing tease (e.g. that the teased teach one class daily during the entire summer break) often proceeds from the displayed face category. In these cases, the notion of face is essential in understanding the interpersonal mechanisms involved in the practice of teasing. The last section of the chapter presents a different scenario, in which we encounter utterances of an accusatory nature, delivered in a jocular manner. In contrast to earlier examples, this deviant sequence is not triggered by a conversational transgression on the part of the tease recipient. Instead, it hints at an event in the recipient's past, which is not

CONCLUSION

179

explicitly named but which, as I have attempted to show, can be inferred directly from the discourse. "Accuser" and "accused" employ a humorous, joking frame to enact these roles in order to register their shared attitude towards accepted conventions. The findings of this chapter suggest that teasing sequences represent instances in which a tacit norm of appropriateness becomes observable in discourse. By examining the practices that trigger teasing, the analysis elucidates the underlying institutional normative turn-taking organization. Even though a recipient's transgression may be too trivial to be assessed as "impolite" by participants, the fact that it is followed by a subtle discursive reprimand indicates that participants did perceive a transgression. This observation points toward the possibility of a more empirically grounded observation of appropriateness and politeness. Equally relevant in terms of politeness research is the chapter's discussion of the two Japanese registers - the masu and plain forms - in teasing sequences. While the masu form predominates in the general proceedings of the recorded meetings, we frequently encounter switches to the plain form at the onset of teasing sequences (marked at the end by a switch back to the masu form). These instances represent yet another example of the action-oriented use of the elements of discernment politeness. Lastly, Chapter 5 presents a case in which the marked use of the masu form in combination with other paralinguistic cues creates a doublevoiced discourse in Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the simultaneous articulation of two differing attitudes. If we consider this case a prominent example of "structured creativity" (Eelen 2001: 222) or "regulated improvisation" (Bourdieu 1977: 78), it may lead to the integration of action-oriented and creative applications into an expanded concept of discernment politeness. 8.2.3 Talking about troubles Within the context of ordinary conversation, successfully received troubles talk is considered a solidarity-building activity. In the setting of a faculty meeting, however, a speaker who discloses troublesome experiences may run the risk of threatening his or her institutional face. Chapter 6 examines the rhetorical practices involved in describing troubles, paying special attention to the ways in which speakers relate their own and other participants' involvement in reported incidents, and exploring the conflicting faces displayed in such rhetorical operations. Most of the troubles talk recorded in the data is concerned with students' behavioral problems. In their reports, the teachers usually include a vivid description of the problem in question and an account of their own attempts to resolve it. Not infrequently, these projections create an intriguing dilemma: they reinforce the speaker's face as a responsible and caring teacher who addresses student misconduct and who brings

180

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

report-worthy cases to other meeting participants' attention, while at the same time disclosing the fact that the speaker him or herself had not been able to control the situation, calling his or her authority into question. Projecting one positive self-image can easily endanger another type of face. The chapter explores how rhetorical practices such as objectification, formulation of actor agency, and expression of grievance contribute to the simultaneous display of multiple and at times conflicting faces. Occasionally, teachers assert vulnerability in reactive troubles talk. As observed in the context of ordinary talk, the recipient of troubles talk can show alignment and understanding vis-a-vis the troubles teller by relating his or her own trouble. One example in the chapter illustrates how a speaker asserts vulnerability at this sequential location. Utilizing various rhetorical practices, the speaker acknowledges the initial troubles teller's face, demonstrates affiliation with others and, simultaneously, displays his face as an experienced and reflective teacher. In another example, a female teacher registers her inexperience and presents a trouble as her own problem, thereby reducing the risk of engaging in an unwarranted complaint. In an excerpt later in the chapter, a female teacher has to report an incident involving a group of unruly students who had used improper language. She repeatedly qualifies her statement by making clear that she is well aware of the inappropriate nature of its content, that she is not willing to spell out certain words, and that she cannot elaborate in detail. Through these qualifications, she presents herself as a sensible meeting participant familiar with the limits of appropriateness, which she is forced to transgress against her will. By formulating the students' language use as transgression, the teacher discursively constructs (in) appropriateness. This case, in which the impropriety of the used language is explicitly stated, hints at a possible direction for future research in the discursive analysis of politeness and appropriateness. In another excerpt in the same chapter, a teacher presents a challenging situation in two competing frames (as a minor case of equipment replacement and as a more serious behavioral problem) in order to justify her past handling of the problem (as a minor one), and to affirm her willingness to tighten discipline. Chapter 6 demonstrates that not only specific markers, but also rhetorical devices, can function as facework. By foregrounding and backgrounding certain aspects of troubles (e.g. the use of intransitive verbs in describing a broken equipment to distract from the possibility that behavioral problems exist among students), these devices contribute to the projection of the speaker's positive self-image. As evidenced in the analysis, different and at times contradictory faces are displayed during the disclosure of troubles. Teachers engaging in troubles talk risk their face as a competent educator able to exercise control over the students. At the same time, sharing troubles is an

CONCLUSION

181

important initial step toward joint problem-solving. To this end, openness to trouble-sharing may be a more valued aspect of face within this community of practice than other qualities such as competence or authority. The findings suggest furthermore that the formulation of others' conduct as transgression can elucidate a tacit norm of appropriateness. It is possible to view troubles talk as a discursive practice of norm construction (cf. "moral work" in Drew's [1998] terms). One example in the chapter, in which a speaker refers to the inappropriateness of language use, may provide a starting point for a more data-based study of politeness and appropriateness. 8.2.4 The meeting The final analysis chapter examines facework sequences situated within an entire meeting and illustrates facework in event description, a practice usually considered face-neutral. While recent discursive politeness studies expanded their object of study from isolated and decontextualized sentences to the discourse level, they rarely explored a discourse event in its entirety (with the exception of Locher [2004]). The meeting's single agenda - to discuss a confrontation between an unruly student and his homeroom teacher - makes the meeting itself a face-threatening event to the homeroom teacher. The chapter illustrates the rhetorical practices of the participants as they co-construct versions of the incident, accomplishing varied facework in the process. In the first excerpt, the homeroom teacher describes his relationship with the disorderly student. The membership categorization invoked in discourse (homeroom teacher) and the speaker's focus on the student's psychological state present the speaker as a homeroom teacher willing to deal with the student's emotional issues. The fact that the same teacher was engaged in a physical confrontation with the troublemaker remains unmentioned. A series of truncated phrases further affirms the speaker's face as a competent, motivated, open-minded teacher, while at the same time stressing the extremely difficult and uncertain circumstances surrounding the incident. The linguistic resource that enables the speaker to perform such pragmatic gymnastics is the contrastive connective particle kedo, which grammatically frames the preceding elements as a subordinate clause and as background information. In quantitative terms, the teacher's turns consist mainly of statements emphasizing the severe nature of the altercation. These lengthy statements are always followed by the connective particle kedo, subordinating the preceding utterance grammatically under a main idea. The teacher's remarks claiming positive qualities (e.g. initiative and motivation), on the other hand, are delivered in a brief and vague manner without the subordinate particle kedo, elevating them to the grammatical status of a main clause. Through the interplay of sequence length, manner of presentation and particle usage,

182

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

the speaker's turns present a positive self-image while painting a vivid picture of the encountered difficulties. In the subsequent segment, the meeting participants, especially the head teacher, build alignment with the homeroom teacher by presenting their view of the incident. In doing so, they employ a curious rhetorical practice: they take pains to name all the teachers, including themselves, present at the locations where the various stages of the incident took place. This operation divides the teachers into two groups - those who were present and those who were absent during the altercation. Most of the participants of the meeting, including the homeroom teacher, belong to the first group. Later in the meeting, the head teacher stresses the importance of dealing with disturbances as a team, communicating her appreciation of those teachers who took an active role in the confrontation, even at the risk of becoming directly involved. In sum, the rhetorical practice of name-listing, as well as other discursive means to convey one's active participation, frames most meeting participants as members of the preferred group (of teachers rushing to aid in joint problem-solving). The head teacher's report draws yet another dividing line, separating regular teachers from "the (school) representatives" (principal and viceprincipal) . The teachers' involvement at various stages of the incident is contrasted rhetorically with the lack of initiative on the part of the principals, and with their unwillingness to take necessary action. This new polarity is reinforced by the claim that it was precisely the principals' inertia at the early stages of the incident that allowed it to escalate. In this way, the weight of responsibility is shifted from the teachers to the school representatives. Later in the meeting, a comment by the head teacher issued to support her own proposal turns into a threat to the homeroom teacher's face. To her suggestion that teachers should contact the troubled student's family, she adds a characterization of the student's temperament (he is, in her estimation, not the violent type). Given that a physical confrontation between the student and his homeroom teacher had taken place, the head teacher's assessment implicitly puts the blame on the other party of the confrontation - the homeroom teacher. The chapter tries to exemplify that facework can be accomplished through the overall progression of a meeting. Even though both facethreatening and face-enhancing sequences appear at several stages of the proceedings, these are sequenced in such a manner that they protect the homeroom teacher's face against threats originating from the deliberated event. The meeting starts with a report of the incident, in which alignment is established by separating first active and inactive teachers, and later regular teachers and school representatives, into opposing camps. The representatives are blamed for letting the situation get out of control. After strong alignment is established, the homeroom teacher suffers face threats, which are frequently followed by displays of alliance - small talk

CONCLUSION

183

about other students and griping concerning the school counselor, in which the homeroom teacher, now no longer the focus of attention, finds opportunity to assume the role of an experienced teacher knowledgeable of student affairs. By expanding the analytical scope to include the entire meeting, the chapter is able to observe at several different levels how certain linguistic resources accomplish facework. We have already mentioned the roles played by the connective particle hedo and by the overall organization of the meeting in the realization of facework. Similarly, alignment can be achieved through apparently face-neutral rhetorical practices (e.g. name listing) and sequences (e.g. event description). The exploration of extended stretches of discourse provides the opportunity to reconsider the distinction between text and context. Elements that, within the narrowed focus of a short excerpt, appear contextual and external to the talk may resurface in references made by participants at other points of the discourse. To assess these elements, I expanded the scope of analysis to include longer stretches of speech. In the meeting discussed here, the head teacher's report of the incident appears much earlier in the meeting than her appreciation of the teachers who took an active role in the confrontation. If we were to analyze her report as an isolated excerpt, the interpretation of the rhetorical practice of name-listing would have to rely solely on the researcher's contextual knowledge of the particular community of practice. Since the praising sequence appears within the same extended data segment, I was able to present it as supporting evidence. What would happen if we expanded the scope of analysis further, to include a longer history of communication within this group or of each individual participant? The division between text and context is, ultimately, an artificial one, created by the researcher's act of data selection; the two categories gradually blend into each other as we extend the length of examined discourse. 8.3 Facework in Interaction Although this study takes a different approach to facework than earlier politeness studies, considering it as a discursive and evaluative entity, it intends to continue the discussion within the established framework instead of creating an analytical disjunction. After summarizing the major findings chapter by chapter, I will now try to integrate them into a more complete picture, paying special attention to the question of how they contribute to issues of facework and politeness discussed in the literature. 8.3.1 Politenessl and politeness2 This study shares a number of premises with recent discursive approaches to politeness (e.g. Eelen 2001, Watts 2003), which stress the importance of

184

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

politenessl, the layperson's conceptualization of politeness. It views politeness as an evaluative and argumentative construct that is created and displayed in discourse, yet keeps a cautious stance when it comes to identifying politenessl directly in speech. Recognizing that politeness evaluation is a complex phenomenon that requires at least two interrelated evaluations concerning face and appropriateness, the study turns its attention to face evaluations and sets out to detail its workings in continuous segments of discourse. Through the ensuing analysis, we gain a better understanding of the constituents of politeness evaluation and of the relationship between politeness and facework. The analysis of facework pursued in this study relies not only on a detailed examination of talk, but also on the researcher's knowledge of the community of practice and on the discussion of politeness-related subjects in the literature. It vacillates between these sources to deliver its ultimate objective - a reasonable and shareable interpretation of facework as a discursive practice. The analytical practice, then, reflects back on our conception of face and facework, altering it and preparing the ground for subsequent research. In this sense, the methodological framework captures the argumentative and vacillating quality of both the interactional construction of face, and its academic and theoretical conception. 8.3.2 Contextual variables and argumentative face

Researchers have identified a range of contextual variables affecting the enactment of politeness. This study departs from the view that context can be employed as an explanatory measure and that it can be considered stable and pre-determined in any straightforward way. Instead, it focuses on participant orientation to particular contextual information. Information about the institutional and interactional setting was taken into account when it was made relevant by participants, or when it seemed integral to the interpretation of segments of talk or to the description of a particular discursive face. Linguistic practices are not explained by drawing unreflexively on information about the speaker (e.g. gender, age), but by working with categories such as "inexperienced teacher" or ''moderator" when they were oriented to by participants. From this perspective, it is possible to view facework as an argumentative process in which an interlocutor's face ascription can be contested and altered. For instance, when a young male teacher discursively assumes the role of a moderator or a group representative, the claim is refuted by means of a teasing sequence. Even though demographic characteristics are not used as explanatory measures in the analysis of teasing sequences, Chapter 5 does mention the observation that young male teachers served invariably as targets of the tease. This may be due to the facts that different norms are assigned to different members of a group, and that different opportunities for certain

CONCLUSION

185

social actions (or reactions) are attached to different group members (cf. Mills 2003). However, it is not possible to generalize from such a limited number of examples. Before the onset of the tease, these young male teachers, who are not yet considered core group members, assume the discursive identity of a core member (e.g. a moderator). Their behavior reveals that they are not yet fully versed in the norms of practice. Even though their self-ascribed discursive identity as a core member of the group is not confirmed and triggers the subsequent tease, they nonetheless become central figures in the ensuing teasing sequence. What is more, they participate actively in the tease by reacting in a non-pro-faced manner. How these practices affect the young teachers' participation in their community of practice over time, and whether the probability of being teased is distributed unevenly across different demographic groups - these questions require larger, longitudinal studies. The analysis of an entire meeting outlined in Chapter 7 draws attention to the fact that a researcher can manipulate the distinction between context and text, and questions the transparency of the context-text dichotomy. While the study is not directly concerned with contextual "variables," it shows how one's own view of text and context may affect the description of facework. 8.3.3 Japanese linguistic resources: discernment and regulated creativity

One major purpose of this study is to illustrate how a range of Japanese linguistic resources accomplish facework in interactionally delicate social actions. It observes linguistic resources at different levels, including some not yet discussed in politeness literature: lexical or phrasal resources (e.g. adverbial expressions in collective disagreement), discourse markers (e.g. the final particle ne), rhetorical practices (e.g. name-listing in reporting), and discourse organization (e.g. topic progression within a meeting). Among these, three discourse markers the final particle ne, the contrastive particle kedo, and the plain and masu forms of the clause-final ending - are of particular interest. As for the two particles ne and kedo, the study delineates their role in accomplishing particular facework, and examines the connection between their linguistic/sequential functions and action-specific facework mechanisms. Another important topic is the operation of plain and masu forms in facework, since these forms are considered primary examples of discernment politeness. In the literature, the marker n^is treated both as an interpersonal affect marker (to indicate a shared affect and/or a speaker's friendly attitude) (e.g. Cook 1992) and as an informational state marker (to indicate that the hearer has more access to the content of speech than the speaker) (e.g. Maynard 1989). It is often used in utterance-final or intrasentential positions to solicit and/or grant agreements. As observed in the research

186

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

data in Chapter 4, the combination of a short adverbial phrase and the final particle ne can voice a brief yet strong second disagreement. The particle's sequential function to mark a turn-transition relevant place, the study argues, puts the speaker in the position to relinquish the turn even after a brief contribution. In some cases, the strong opposition articulated in a second dissenter's turn can retroactively frame the prior turn, too, as a disagreement sequence, designating the second dissenter as the accountable agent of the opposition. Within this practice, the final particle serves a dual purpose: it allows the second dissenter to make a brief contribution, and to show alignment to the first dissenter. The contrastive connective particle kedo is attached to a verb, an adjective, or a copula in a clause-final position. Traditionally, a clause ending with kedo ("kedo clause") is considered a subordinate clause preceding the main clause of an utterance, and kedo expresses a contrastive relationship between the propositions expressed in the two clauses. The study illustrates the workings of kedo in the process of presenting two or more conflicting faces. In Chapter 6 a female teacher qualifies her report, which contains indecent language, by explicitly stating her reluctance to discuss the delicate matter in the public setting of the meeting. Her numerous qualifications are offered as kedo clauses, subordinate to the main clauses constituting the report. Through the placement of kedo9 the speaker frames the qualifications as a backgrounded concern. With this qualification measure in place, she can now tackle the sensitive issue without endangering her self-image. In addition to proving her familiarity with the implicit code of decency governing faculty meetings, her rhetorical practice has also managed to convey the speaker's compliance with the principle that teachers share observations openly with their colleagues. Chapter 7 discusses another case in which a teacher uses kedo clauses to display his face as a motivated and open-minded teacher, and to simultaneously emphasize the difficult nature of the situation he has encountered. His turn consists of lengthy statements elaborating on the extreme challenges he had to face, all offered in kedo clauses, while his affirmations of initiative and motivation are presented as main clauses, albeit in a truncated and vague manner. The teacher succeeds in maintaining his positive self-image while at the same time highlighting the severity of the situation, by exploiting subtle nuances in the interplay of sequence length, manner of presentation, and particle usage. Plain and masu forms - morphological markings in the clause-final position that indicate informal and formal registers - are of particular importance since they are regarded as among the primary examples of discernment politeness. Previous research has treated them as different registers or styles, whose use is determined by contextual factors such as the formality of the speech setting or the social distance between

CONCLUSION

187

interlocutors. The dominant use of the masu form in the current data set corresponds with the formality of the speech setting (faculty meeting). There are, however, instances in which speakers switch from the normative masu to the plain form, which can be interpreted as an action-oriented variation and point toward a more elaborate notion of discernment. In one of the examples of collaborative disagreement discussed in Chapter 4, speakers frame their utterances as a side comment through the use of the plain form. In Chapter 5, the onset of a teasing sequence is marked by a switch to the plain form, and its end by a switch back to the masu form. In another case in Chapter 5, interlocutors use the masu form in combination with other paralinguistic cues such as affective particles or animated tone of voice. Such marked usage is reminiscent of a double-voiced discourse in Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the articulation of two differing attitudes at the same time. The action-oriented use of the plain and masu forms, the study argues, can be considered prominent instances of "structured creativity" (Eelen 2001: 222) or "regulated improvisation" (Bourdieu 1977: 78). The present analysis of the plain and masu forms supports the possibility that the notion of discernment includes such regulated varieties. Taking this view, the distinction between social index (discernment) and volitional politeness may be dispersed, since the tacit rules of discernment politeness form a part of habitus that allows and encourages regulated improvisation. 8.3.4 Ambivalent face This study is primarily concerned with multiple facework in interaction. Aiming for a data-driven analysis of face and facework, it adopts a conversation/discourse analytic approach. The notion of face is respectified as the participant's interactional self-image, constructed and displayed in discourse and closely tied to various aspects of interlocutors' discursive identity. Through the implementation of this framework, multiple face ascriptions become analyzable in discourse. The study treats the notion of face not as "universal human wants," but as a discursively created, and hence argumentative construct. This respectified notion of face, as well as the analysis in which it is applied, offers an alternative view of issues associated with Brown and Levinson's (1987) notion of face (i.e. the universality of the notion of face and the relationship between positive and negative face). As we have seen, the tension between context-specific and collective (i.e. universal) characteristics of politeness is a pressing issue. Christie (2004) states: It is also worth noting that this pull away from a single, general notion of politeness is an indication of an increasing tension between, on the one hand, the recognition ... that the social and linguistic phenomena under investigation are actively and disparately constructed as politeness

188

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

within specific contexts of use, and, on the other, the recognition that in order to be described as politeness, there must be some quality that these phenomena share if they are all to be categorized as manifestations of politeness. (10) My study makes no claim to either the universality or the cultural specificity of face, but touches upon both. It aims to present a reasonable and shareable interpretation of discursive practices, achieved through a vacillation between details of talk, the researcher's knowledge of the community of practice, and the review of politeness-related concepts in the literature. While the need for a detailed knowledge of the community of practice seems to presuppose a culture-specific notion of face, the search for reasonable and shareable interpretations hinges on the assumption that there is indeed a common ground for the evaluation of face. The study, then, considers universality and cultural specificity not as contrasting but as complementary characteristics of face, both of which are indispensable in the analysis of face in interaction. In more concrete terms, which new insights does my analysis offer, beyond the initial understanding of the institutional face in this specific community of practice provided at the end of Chapter 3? In preparation for this study, my personal familiarity with and general knowledge of the community of practice in question (i.e. teachers at Japanese secondary schools) enabled me to set up a list of face categories (e.g. competence, cooperation, motivation) which, as it turns out, corresponds by and large with the Japanese government's own description of what constitutes a "good teacher." In the course of analysis, it became possible to specify a concrete set of behaviors that invokes these face categories in the respective community of practice (e.g. in Chapter 7 "co-operation" is described in terms of rushing to the scene in the case of an emergency). In other words, the linguistic inquiry connects abstract face categories to concrete sets of behaviors that are described and negotiated in talk. Furthermore, the analysis illustrates how facework is performed in settings where not every face ascription remains unchallenged (e.g. in Chapter 5 a self-ascribed face is not confirmed and triggers a subsequence tease). A related issue, which emerged during the analysis, concerns the questions how institutional norms are created and negotiated through various actions, and how these norms are tied to participants' institutional face. Institutional norms of this type concern, for instance, the turn-worthiness of a second disagreement (Chapter 4), the institutional order of speakership (Chapter 5), and the reportworthiness of troubles (Chapter 6). The analysis provided in these chapters illustrates a strong linkage between institutional norms and participants' face ascriptions. This study's conceptualization of face departs significantly from the notion of positive and negative face in Brown and Levinson's (1987)

CONCLUSION

189

terms. Brown and Levinson present a parsimonious socio-cognitive model of interpersonal communication, in which the dichotomous notions of positive and negative face as universal human wants play a central role. Oftentimes positive and negative face wants are considered opposite orientations to solidarity and independence. In order to connect this study's conceptualization of face with the positive/negative dichotomy, I would like to go back to Durkheim's (1995) remarks on the relationship between positive and negative cults. He maintains that these two types of cults are not mutually exclusive: One might think that the negative cult is more clearly separated from the positive cult, yet we have seen that the negative cult can nonetheless bring about positive effects identical to those of the positive cult. ... Thus, the practices no more fall into two separate genera than the beliefs do. (417) According to Durkheim (1995), negative and positive religious rituals bring about similar effects. What is more, the inner essence of religious life is simple and "one and the same" despite its complex manifestations. Its object is "to lift man above himself and to make him live a higher life than he would if he obeyed only his individual impulses" (417). If the ritual practice of human communication is derived from religious practices, as has been claimed, one might infer that, despite its complex and diverse manifestations, the inner essence of human interaction is "one and same." In everyday conversation, the force "to lift man above himself' takes the shape of a force to bring about a better image of oneself and others. Talk is a ritualistic practice through which participants can lift themselves "above themselves." In this sense, the Goffmanian respectification of face as "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself (Goffman 1967: 5) may be regarded as the essence of human interaction. Thus, without directly addressing the positive/negative dichotomy, this study's conceptualization subsumes both the positive and the negative aspects of human interaction (i.e. solidarity and independence). In contrast to Brown and Levinson's (1987) parsimonious orientation, this study aims to depict the subtlety and richness of interpersonal communication. It details the simultaneous display of interactional faces and the moment-by-moment progression of facework as the conversation unfolds. In the course of analysis, we have uncovered the delicate mechanisms of talk involved in collaborative disagreement, teasing, troubles talk, and event description; we have encountered cases in which various, sometimes conflicting, faces co-exist, in which one type of face entails another, and in which displays of face by multiple speakers interact and influence one another; and we have found that institutional norms and presentations of face are closely related and continually

190

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

negotiated in talk. By observing how diverse manifestations of face are constructed and manipulated in talk, this study offers a complex view of facework and underscores the importance of the notion of face as a link between various approaches to discourse and politeness.

Notes

Chapter 1 1

Studies of politeness in relation to the use of honorifics, address terms and so on are not restricted to such speech acts.

Chapter 2 1

2

3 4

5 6

7

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), these two types of "mixture" are motivated by the need to establish a satisfactory interactional balance, or by the speaker's momentary mood change (at times the speaker feels close to other interactants, at other times alienated). Later adaptations of Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory seem to highlight the distance scale as well, employing such terms as "solidarity politeness" or "involvement" for positive politeness equivalents, and "deference politeness" or "independence" for negative politeness equivalents (Scollon and Scollon 1981, 1995). The philosophical notion of "speech act" was introduced by Austin (1962) and elaborated by Searle (1969, 1971, 1975, 1976). This review does not include a discussion of critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis and politeness are linked through the observation that power, historicity, and norm creation are involved in the evaluation of politeness. See Mills (2003) for a further discussion. For instance, disagreements in legal discourse are sequentially preferred yet face threatening nonetheless. Discursive psychology also utilizes a type of discourse analysis developed in the social study of science (Gilbert and Mulkay 1984) and in social psychology (Potter and Wetherell 1987). See Chapter 3 for the comparison between conversation analysis and discourse analysis. The distinction between politic and polite all but dissolves if we incorporate these considerations into the category of appropriateness evaluation. However, the focus of this study is not to weigh the practicability of the politic/polite distinction, but to explicate the nature and role of face evaluations.

192

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Chapter 3 1

2

Conversation analysis does not assume that any interaction occurring in an institutional setting is "institutional talk." Conversation analysts attempt to link details of interaction with the institutional setting in which they occur. I have worked as a teacher in two Japanese secondary schools for nine years in total, serving both as homeroom and non-homeroom teacher. During that time, I participated in numerous grade-level faculty groups and divisional groups.

Chapter 4 1

Ne is a final and intrasentential particle that most frequently appears in verbal interactions. Since the particle ne as well as most of the other sentential particles in Japanese do not contribute to the referential meaning of an utterance, the linguistic property of the interactional particle ne may reside in its non-referential meanings. More specifically, it can be either a type of information state marker or an affect marker. A number of studies have found that the particle ne is used to indicate the speaker's agreement with the addressee or to solicit the addressee's agreement with the speaker on particular information (Kamio 1979,1990, Kuno 1973, Tanaka 1971, Tsuchihashi 1983, Ueno 1971). Researchers claim that the final particle ne asks for compliance and creates rapport (Ueno 1971), solicits confirmatory responses, and indicates the speaker's lack of confidence in his or her information (Tsuchihashi 1983). Kamio (1979) states that ne marks the information that the speaker assumes is shared with the addressee (speaker and addressee's shared territory of information), or that is held only by the addressee (addressee's territory of information); ne is not used when the information is held only by the speaker (speaker's territory of information). Similarly, Maynard (1993) states that ne is used when the speaker feels that he or she has relatively low access to the given information. Another frequently discussed characteristic of ne is marking the speaker's positive affect or friendly attitude toward the addressee. Researchers have found that ne can function to create rapport between interlocutors (McGloin 1984, Ueno 1971), and to mark a speaker's friendly or co-responding attitude (Kamio 1990), positive affect (Clancy 1986) and social role (McGloin 1990, Ueno 1971), and the "affective common ground" between speaker and addressee (Cook 1992).

NOTES

2

3

193

From the conversation analytic perspective, Tanaka (2000) explores the turn management function of the particle ne. Strictly speaking, the disagreement would not directly challenge Seki personally since she is not the author of this statement in the Goffmanian sense. Seki is merely reporting the decision made by the committee she belongs to. The plain and masu forms in Japanese are morphological markings on the noun, adjective, and verb stem appearing in the clause-final position. In speaking and writing Japanese, one must almost always choose one of these two forms. The term "masu form" includes both present and past tense endings of verbs (-masu and -mashita), and the copular present and past tense forms (desu and deshita), as well as their negative endings. The plain form is the clause-final form without these endings. Traditionally, grammarians refer to the masu form as the addressee honorific and formal style ending, and to the plain form as abrupt and informal. These references reflect the general belief that the masu form is used in formal and polite social settings, that the plain form is used in informal and intimate settings, and that the non-reciprocal use of the two forms indicates status difference. Analogous to the European T-V system, researchers also argue that the masu form is a marker of social distance between interlocutors (Hinds 1978, Ikuta 1983, Shibatani 1990). Recent studies of these two forms in socially situated speech events have pointed out that speakers use both forms even while addressing the same hearer in a single speech event (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998, 2002, Maynard 1993, Okamoto 1998, 1999). Cook claims that the masu form indexes public self-presentation and addressee deference and that the interpretation of the plain form depends on the presence and absence of co-occurring affect keys and other social variables. Other researchers associate the masu form with speech to others, and the plain form with speech addressed to oneself (Kindaichi 1982, Makino 1983, 2002, Maynard 1993).

Chapter 5 1

2

Brown and Yule (1983) distinguish between transactional and interpersonal languages, stressing that they mirror other functional dichotomies such as "ideational vs interpersonal" (Halliday and Hasan 1976), and "descriptive vs social-expressive" (Lyons 1977). We do not know whether the participants give non-verbal approvals (e.g. nodding) since the data were audiotaped. However, observation of similar

194

3

4

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

faculty meetings reveals frequent occurrences of non-verbal approvals and agreement tokens (un "u-huh"). It would be interesting to see if a similar conversational practice (e.g. to initiate a topic shift) by an experienced teacher or a female teacher would trigger a subsequent tease. However, my data do not include such instances. Even though Ohki is chosen as the ostensive addressee, Hoshi's comment is heard by other meeting participants, who might share the same sentiment toward the prescriptive guidelines.

Chapter 6 1

2

3

4

Even though Drew (1998) points out the difference between troubles talk and indirect complaint (troubles talks end in a gradual stepwise manner, indirect complaints in a topically disjunctive fashion), other researchers (e.g. Boxer 1993, Edwards 2005) acknowledge that it is difficult to make a clear distinction. Since the face considerations involved in troubles talk and indirect complaint appear to be similar, I use a wider definition of the term "troubles talk," which includes troubles talk as such as well as indirect complaint. According to Tannen (1990), women tend to expect symmetrical responses when they talk about troubles, whereas men tend to exchange asymmetrical turns to achieve a symmetrical footing. In other words, men achieve solidarity by taking turns in projecting both superior and inferior positions. Tannen's portrayal of gendered conversation styles has been expanded by other critical approaches to language and gender (e.g. Cameron 1997, 1998). In other words, Kanda admits the imposition and indicates reluctance to perform the act, modes of conduct which, according to Brown and Levinson (1987: 188), can be categorized as negative politeness strategies. Kedo is a contrastive subordinate connective particle, which can be translated as "although" or "but" into English. Kedo has three variants, keredo, kedomo, and heredomo, which function similarly in conversation. (This study treats kedo and its variants in the same manner.) Japanese has two structurally different types of connective expressions: setsuzoku-shi (independent "connectives") and setsuzoku-joshi (attached "connective particles"). Japanese connectives function in the same manner as those in English. They are free forms usually used in the initial position of a clause or utterance. The other type (to which kedo belongs) are the connective particles. These are attached to a verb, an adjective, or a copula in the clause-final position. Traditionally, a clause

NOTES

195

ending with one of these particles is considered a subordinate clause preceding the main clause of an utterance. The contrastive connective particle kedo expresses a contrastive relationship between two propositions, one in the preceding subordinate clause (kedo clause), the other one in the succeeding main clause. The linguistic properties of kedo are readily deducible from its grammatical and semantic characteristics. In this study, subordination and the contrastive meaning of the particle are regarded as its core linguistic properties. Recent studies on the particle kedo have observed that in spontaneous spoken discourse kedo clauses appear after the corresponding main clause, despite its canonical position preceding the main clause. This type of kedo clause is interactionally motivated (Mori 1999) and has been characterized as an afterthought (Clancy 1982, Hinds 1982). In addition, a kedo clause and its main clause may be produced by different speakers in ongoing discourse. Researchers have also observed instances where the kedo clause appears independently without a corresponding main clause. Other studies assert that kedo can frame preceding elements as a background situation in narratives (Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama 1997), and that kedo in utterance-final position exerts a mitigating effect (Maynard 1989, Mori 1999, Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama 1997, Ohori 1995). Chapter 7 1

2

3

4

It is not within the scope of this study to explore the extensive discursive history of the community of practice of teachers at Japanese secondary schools. The implications of contacting the police merit a short explanation. On the one hand, the severity and frequency of school violence and student delinquency were generally considered excessive around the time the data were collected; cooperation between schools and local police was encouraged. On the other hand, calling the police turns the incident into a public affair, with potentially adverse consequences for the school's reputation. In Japanese secondary schools, a group of about 40 students forms a "homeroom" unit. Students of that unit take the same classes, they are supervised by the homeroom teacher in charge, and they have an assigned classroom where they take most of their classes. Elsewhere in the data, several teachers, including Seki, call the principal and vice-principal kanrishoku "(school) managers" or "(school) representatives" when commenting on their lack of response.

Bibliography

Antaki, C. (1998), "Identity ascriptions in their time and place: 'fagin' and 'the terminally dim'," in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 71-86. Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998), Identities in Talk. London: Sage. Arundale, R. B. (1999), "An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory," Pragmatics, 9 (1), 119-153. Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979), Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan. Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (1984), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Attardo, S. (1994), Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Austin, J. L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bakhtin, M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. S. (1993), "Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic change," Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, (3), 279-304. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003), "Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts)," Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10-11), 1453-1469. Barraja-Rohan, A-M. (2003), "Past troubles-talk in nonnative-native interviews,"/0wraaZ of Pragmatics, 35 (4), 615-629. Beach, W. A. (1996), Conversations about Illness: Family Preoccupations with Bulimia. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Beebe, L. and Cummings, M. (1996), "Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance", in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65-86. Beebe, L. and Takahashi, T. (1989), "Do you have a bag?: social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition," in S. M. Gass (ed.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 103-125. Beebe, L., Takahashi, T. and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990), "Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals," in R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen and S. D. Krashen (eds), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury House, pp. 55-73. Bergman, M. L. and Rasper, G. (1993), "Perception and performance in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

native and nonnative apology," in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 82-107. Bilmes, J. (1996), "Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai conversation for English language readers," Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (2), 171-188. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982), "Learning to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language," Applied Linguistics, 3 (1), 29-59. Blum-Kulka, S. (1983), "Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: a cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English," in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 36-55. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987), "Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?," Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 131-146. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989), "Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirect requests," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37-70. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990), "You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: parental politeness in family discourse," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 259-288. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992), "The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society," in R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255-280. Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. (1989), "Cross-cultural and situational variation in requestive behavior," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 123-154. Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984), "Requests and apologies: a crosscultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)," Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. and Gerson, R. (1985), "The language of requesting in Israeli society," in J. P. Forgas (ed.), Language and Social Situations. New York: Springer, pp. 113-141. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Boggs, S. T. (1978), "The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children," Language in Society, 7 (3), 325-344. Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boxer, D. (1993), "Social distance and speech behavior: the case of indirect complaints," Journal of Pragmatics, 19 (2), 103-125. Boxer, D. and Cortes-Conde, F. (1997), "From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display," Journal of Pragmatics, 27 (3), 275-294.

198

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Brouwer, D. (1982), "The influence of the addressee's sex on politeness in language use," Linguistics, 20 (11-12), 697-711. Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983), Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1979), "Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena", in E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-311. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960), "The pronouns of power and solidarity," in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253276. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989), "Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies," Language in Society, 18 (2), 159-212. Cameron, D. (1997), "Performing gender identity: young men's talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity," in S. Johnson and U. H. Meinhof (eds), Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47-64. Cameron, D. (1998), "'Is there anv ketchup, Vera?': gender, power and pragmatics," Discourse and Society, 1998, 9 (4), 437-455. Christie. C. (2004), "Introduction," Multilingua, 23 (1-2), 1-11. Clancy, P. M. (1982), "Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives," in D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 55-76. Clancy, P. M. (1986), "The acquisition of Japanese," in D. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 373-524. dayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002), The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1981), "Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology," Language Learning, 31 (1), 113-134. Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M. (1990), "Rules versus relationships in small claims disputes," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178-196. Cook, H. M. (1992), "Meanings of non-referential indexes: a case study of the Japanese sentence-final particle ne" Text, 12 (4), 507-539. Cook, H. M. (1996a), "The Japanese verbal suffixes as indicators of distance and proximity," in M. Putz and R. Dirven (eds), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3-27. Cook, H. M. (1996b), "Japanese language socialization: indexing the modes of self," Discourse Processes, 22 (2), 171-197. Cook, H. M. (1997), "The role of the Japanese masu form in caregiver-child conversation," Journal of Pragmatics, 28 (6), 695-718. Cook, H. M. (1998), "Situational meanings of Japanese social deixis: the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

mixed use of the masu and plain forms," Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8 (1), 87-110. Cook, H. M. (2002), "The social meaning of the Japanese plain form," in N. Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 150-163. Cook, H. M. (2006), "Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities," MuUilingua, 25 (3), 269-291. Coulmas, F. (1981), "Poison to your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively viewed," in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69-93. Crawford, M. (1995), Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage. Crawford, M. (2003), "Gender and humor in social context," Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (9), 1413-1430. D'Amico-Reisner, L. (1983), "An analysis of the surface structure of disapproval exchanges," in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 103-115. Doi, T. (1971), Amae no kozo. Tokyo: Kobundo. Drew, P. (1987), "Pro-faced receipts of teases," Linguistics, 25 (1), 219-253, Drew, P. (1998), "Complaints about transgressions and misconduct," Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31 (3-4), 295-325. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durkheim, E. (1995), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (new edn). New York: Free Press. Eckert, P. (1990), "Cooperative competition in adolescent 6girl talk."' Discourse Processes, 13 (1), 91-122. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999), "New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research," Language in Society, 28 (2), 185-201. Eder, D. (1990), "Serious and playful disputes: variation in conflict talk among female adolescents," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67-84. Eder, D. (1991), "The role of teasing in adolescent peer group culture," in S. Cahill (ed.), Sociological Studies of Child Development, 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 181-197. Eder, D. (1993), " 'Go get ya a French!': romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent girls," in D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-31. Edwards, D. (1994), "Script formulations: an analysis of event descriptions in conversation," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13 (3), 211-247. Edwards, D. (1995), "Two to tango: script formulations, dispositions, and

200

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

rhetorical symmetry in relationship troubles talk," Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28 (4), 319-350. Edwards, D. (1997), Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. Edwards, D. (2000), "Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral," Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347373. Edwards, D. (2005), "Moaning, whinging and laughing: the subjective side of complaints," Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 5-29. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992), Discursive Psychology. London: Sage. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2001), "Discursive psychology," in A. W. McHoul and M. Rapley (eds), How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Setting: A Casebook of Methods. London: Continuum, pp. 12-24. Eelen, G. (1999), "Politeness and ideology: a critical review," Pragmatics, 9 (1), 163-173. Eelen, G. (2001), A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome. Egbert, M. (2004), "Other-initiated repair and membership categorization: some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization," Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (8), 1467-1498. Eisenberg, A. R. (1986), "Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes," in B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-198. Eisenberg, A. R. and Garvey, C. (1981), "Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts," Discourse Processes, 4 (2), 149-170. Ellis, R. (1992), "Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two language learners" requests," Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (D, 1-23. Emihovich, C. (1986), "Argument as status assertion: contextual variations in children's disputes," Language in Society, 15 (4), 485-500. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976), "Is Sybil there?: the structure of some American English directives," Language in Society, 5 (1), 25-66. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (1996), "Practices in the construction of turns: the TCU' revisited," Pragmatics, 6 (3), 427-454. Fraser, B. (1981), "On apologizing," in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 259-271. Fraser, B. (1990), "Perspectives on politeness," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 219-236. Fraser, B. and Nolen, W. (1981), "The association of deference with linguistic form," International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Fraser, B., Rintell, E. and Walters, J. (1980), "An approach to conducting research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language," in D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 75-91. Fujita, N. (2001), "Politeness in interaction: a discourse approach to Japanese

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

politeness markers." Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Fukada, A. and Asato, N. (2004), "Universal politeness theory: application to the use of Japanese honorifics," Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (11), 1991-2002. Fukuda, C. (2005), "Children's use of the masu form in play scenes," Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (7), 1037-1058. Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. J. (1984), Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gofrman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goldberg, D. (1997), "Joking in a multi-disciplinary team: negotiating hierarchy and the allocation of 'cases,'" Anthropology and Medicine, 4 (3), 229-44. Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1987), "Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments," IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1, (1), 1-54. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1990), "Interstitial argument," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-117. Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990), "Conversation analysis," Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307. Goodwin, M. H. (1983), "Aggravated correction and disagreement in children's conversations," Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (6), 657-677. Goodwin, M. H. (1990), He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Grainger, K (2004), "Verbal play on the hospital ward: solidarity or power?," Multitingua, 23 (1-2), 39-59. Grice, H. P. (1975), "Logic and conversation," in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. Gu, Y. (1990), "Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 237-257. Gumperz, J. J. (1982), Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M. A. K and Hasan, R, (1976), Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Haugh, M. (2004), "Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese," MuUiUngua, 23 (1-2), 85-109. Held, G. (1989), "On the role of maximization in verbal politeness," Multilingua, 8 (2-3), 167-206. Herbert, R. K (1989), "The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: a contrastive sketch," in W. Oleksy (ed.), Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3-35.

202

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Heritage, J. (1984), "A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement," in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299-345. Heritage, J. (1987), "Ethnomethodology," in A. Giddens andj. Turner (eds), Social Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 224-272. Heritage, J. (1989), "Current developments in conversation analysis," in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 21-47. Heritage, J. (2004), "Conversation analysis and institutional talk," in D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 222-245. Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005), "The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction," Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1), 15-38. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986), "Universals of linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English," Journal of Pragmatics, 10 (3), 347-371. Hinds, J. (1978), "Conversational structure: an investigation based on Japanese interview discourse," in J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 79-121. Hinds, J. (1982), Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Holmes, J. (1986), "Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English," Anthropological Linguistics, 28 (4), 485-508. Holmes, J. (1988), "Paying compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy," Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (4), 445-465. Holmes, J. (1989), "Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence," Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 194-213. Holmes, J. (1995), Women, Men, and Politeness. London: Longman. Holmes, J. (2000), "Politeness, power and provocation: how humour functions in the workplace," Discourse Studies, 2 (2), 159-185. Holmes, J. (2006), "Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace," Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (1), 26-50. Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002), "Over the edge: subversive humor between colleagues and friends," Humor, 15 (1), 1-23. Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (1999), "The community of practice: theories and methodologies in the new language and gender research," Language in Society, 28 (2), 173-183. Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005), "Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 121-149. Holtgraves, T. (2005), "Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 73-93. Houck, N. and Gass, S. M. (1996), "Non-native refusal: a methodological perspective," in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45-64. House, J. and Rasper, G. (1981), "Politeness markers in English and German," in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepattemed Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157-185. Hu, H. C. (1944), "Chinese concepts of'face,'" American Anthropologist, 46 (1), 45-64. Ide, S. (1977), "Eigo keigo no rikai to hon-yaku" [Understanding and translating English honorifics], Eigo Bungaku Sekai. Ide, S. (1982), "Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women's language,'" Lingua, 57 (2-4), 357-385. Ide, S. (1989), "Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness," Mutiilingua, 8 (2-3), 223-248. Ide, S., Hill, B., Games, Y., Ogino, T. and Kawasaki, A. (1992), "The concept of politeness: an empirical study of American English and Japanese," in R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. pp. 21-41. Ide, S., Hori, M., Kawasaki, A., Ikuta, S. and Haga, H. (1986), "Sex differences and politeness in Japanese," International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 58, 25-36. Ikuta, S. (1983), "Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse," Language Sciences, 5 (1), 37-53. Jary, M. (1998), "Relevance theory and the communication of politeness," Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (1), 1-19. Jefferson, G. (1980), "On 'trouble-premonitory' response to inquiry7," Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3-4), 153-185. Jefferson, G. (1984a), "On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters," in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-222. Jefferson, G. (1984b), "On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles," in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346-369. Jefferson, G. (1988), "On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation," Social Problems, 35 (4), 418-441. Jefferson, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (1992), "The rejection of advice: managing the problematic convergence of a 'troubles-telling' and a 'service encounter,' " Journal of Pragmatics, 5 (5), 399-422. Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987), "Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy," in G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152-205. Kakava, C. (1993), "Conflicting argumentative strategies in the classroom," in

204

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Georgetown University Round Tabk on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 402-420. Kamio, A. (1979), "On the notion speaker's territory of information: a functional analysis of certain sentence-final forms in Japanese," in G. D. Bedell, K Inoue, E. Kobayashi and M. Muraki (eds), Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, pp. 213231. Kamio, A. (1990), Joho no nawabari riron: gengo no kinoteki bunseki. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Kanagy, R. and Igarashi, K. (1997), "Acquisition of pragmatic competence in a Japanese immersion kindergarten," in L. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language, pp. 243-265. Kangasharju, H. (2002), "Alignment in disagreement: forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings,9' Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (10-11), 14471471. Kasper, G. (1990), "Linguistic politeness: current research issues," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 193-218. Kasper, G. (1994), "Politeness," in R. E. Asher andJ. M. Y. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 3206-3212. Kasper, G. (2004), "Speech acts in (inter)action: repeated questions," Intercultural Pragmatics, 1 (1), 125-133. Katriel, T. (1985), "Brogez: ritual and strategy in Israeli children's conflicts," Language in Society, 14 (4), 467-490. Kemper, S. (1984), "When to speak like a lady," Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 10 (5-6), 435-443. Kindaichi, H. (1982), Nihongo seminaa [A seminar on the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kenkyuusha. Kochman, T. (1981), Black and White Styles in Conflict. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Kotthoff, H. (1993), "Disagreement and concession in disputes: on the context sensitivity of preference structures," Language in Society, 22 (2), 193-216. Kotthoff, H. (2000), "Gender and joking: on the complexities of women's image politics in humorous narratives," Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (1), 5580. Kubota, T. (1990), Keigokyooiku no kihon mondai [Fundamental issues in the teaching of honorifics]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo. Kuno, S. (1973), The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Labov, W. (1972), Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977), Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Lakoff, R. T. (1973), "The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's," in C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305. Lakoff, R. T. (1977), "What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and performatives," in A. Rogers, B. Wall andj. P. Murphy (eds), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implkatures. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 79-105. Lakoff, R. T. (1979), "Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style," in J. Orasanu, M. Slater and L. L. Adler (eds), Language, Sex, and Gender: Does La Difference Make a Difference? New York: New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 53-80. Lakoff, R. T. (1989), "The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse," MuUilingaa, 8 (2-3), 101-129. Lakoff, R. T. (1990), Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. Scranton, PA: HarperCollins. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lebra, T. S. (1976), Japanese Patterns of Behavior. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Leech, G. N. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lerner, G. H. (1996), "Finding 'face' in the preference structures of talk-ininteraction," Social Psychology Quarterly, 59 (4), 303-321. Levinson, S. C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Locher, M. A. (2004), Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005), "Politeness theory and relational work," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 9-33. Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makino, S. (1983), "Speaker/listener-orientation and formality marking in Japanese," Gengo Kenkyuu, 84, 126-145. Makino, S. (2002), "When does communication turn mentally inward?: a case study of Japanese formal-to-informal switching," in N. Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 121-135. Manes, J. (1983), "Complimenting: a mirror of cultural values," in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 96-102. Mao, L. R. (1994), "Beyond politeness theory: 'face' revisited and renewed," Journal of Pragmatics, 21 (5), 451-486. Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), "Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation," Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224-253. Matsumoto, Y. (1988), "Re-examination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese, "Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (4), 403-426.

206

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Matsumoto, Y. (1989), "Politeness and conversational universals: observations from Japanese," Multilingua, 8 (2-3), 207-221. Maynard, D. W. (1991), "On the interactional and institutional bases of asymmetry in clinical discourse," American Journal of Sociology, 92 (2), 448495. Maynard, D. W. (2003), Bad News, Good News, II: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Maynard, S. K. (1989), Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Maynard, S. K. (1993), Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McGloin, N. H. (1984), "Some politeness strategies in Japanese," in S. Miyagawa and C. Kitagawa (eds), Studies in Japanese Language Use. Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research, pp. 127-145. McGloin, N. H. (1990), "Sex differences and sentence-final particles," in S. Ide and N. H. McGloin (eds), Aspects of Japanese Women's Language. Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 23-41. Meier, A. J. (1995), "Defining politeness: universality in appropriateness," Language Sciences, 17 (4), 345-356. Miller, P. (1986), "Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a White working-<:lass community,", in B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199-212. Mills, S. (2003), Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2003), "Miryokuaru kyooshi" [Good teacher], http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ shotou/miryoku/03072301 .htm Moerman, M. (1988), Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mori, J. (1999), Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mulkay, M. (1988), On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mullany, L. (2004), "Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: humour as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings," Multilingual (1-2), 13-37. Nakayama, T. and Ichihashi-Nakayama, K (1997), "Japanese kedcr. discourse genre and grammaticalization," in H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics, 6. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 607-619. Norrick, N. R. (1993), Conversational Joking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Nwoye, O. G. (1992), "Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face," Journal of Pragmatics, 18, (4), 309-328. Ochs, E. (1979), "Transcriptions as theory," in E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin (eds), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 43-72.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

O'Driscoll, J. (1996), "About face: a defence and elaboration of universal dualism," Journal of Pragmatics, 25 (1), 1-32. Ohori, T. (1995), "Remarks on suspended clauses: a contribution to Japanese phraseology," in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds), Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 201-218. Okamoto, S. (1998), "The use and non-use of honorifics in sales talk in Kyoto and Osaka: are they rude or friendly?," in N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, S. Sohn and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 7. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 141-157. Okamoto, S. (1999), "Situated politeness: manipulating honorific and nonhonorific expressions in Japanese conversations," Pragmatics, 9 (1), 51-74. Olshtain, E. (1983), "Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology," in S. M. Gass and L. Selinker (eds), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 232-249. Olshtain, E. (1989), "Apologies across languages," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Rasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37-70. Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1983), "Apology: a speech act set", in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 18-35. Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987), "Complaints: a study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew," in J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195-208. Osvaldsson, K. (2004), "On laughter and disagreement in multiparty assessment talk," Text, 24 (4), 517-545. Owen, M. (1983), Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pan, Y. (1995), "Power behind linguistic behavior: analysis of politeness phenomena in Chinese official settings," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14 (4), 462-481. Pike, K. L. (1967), Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (repr. of 1954 edn). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Pomerantz, A. (1984), "Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes," inj. M. Atkinson andj. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-101. Pomerantz, A. (1986), "Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims," Human Studies, 9 (2-3), 219-229. Potter, J. (1996), Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. Potter, J. (2003), "Discourse analysis," in M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds), Handbook of Data Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 607-624. Potter, J. (2004), "Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring

208

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

talk," in D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and

Practice. London: Sage, pp. 200-221. Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987), Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage. Psathas, G. (1995), Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raskin, V. (1985), Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Boston: Reidel. Sacks, H. (1987), "On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation," in G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 56-69. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974), "A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation," Language, 50, (4), 696735. Saft, S. L. (2000), "Arguing in the institution: context, culture, and conversation analysis in a set of Japanese university faculty meetings." PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Salsbury, T. and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001), "'I know your mean, but I don't think so': disagreements in L2 English," in B. F. Lawrence (ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, 10. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language, pp. 131-151. Scarcella, R. (1979), "On speaking politely in a second language," in C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins and J. Schachter (eds), On TESOL '79. Washington, DC: TESOL, pp. 275-287. Schegloff, E. A. (1987), "Between macro and micro: contexts and other connections," in J. Alexander, R. M. B. Giesen and N. Smelser (eds), The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 207234. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977), "The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation," Language, 53, (2), 361-382. Schieffelin, B. B. (1986), "Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's interactions," in B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165-181. Schiffrin, D. (1984), "Jewish argument as sociability," Language in Society, 13 (3), 311-335. Schiffrin, D. (1985), "Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in talk," in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 3, Discourse and

Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 35-46. Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1990), "The management of a co-operative self during argument: the role of opinions and stories," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241-259.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1981), Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1983), "Face in interethnic communication," inj. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 156-188. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1995), Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1971), "What is a speech act?," inj. R. Searle (ed.), The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 39-53. Searle, J. R. (1975), "Indirect speech acts," in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59-82. Searle, J. R. (1976), "A classification of illocutionary acts," Language in Society, 5 (1), 1-23. Shibatani, M. (1990), The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sifianou, M. (1992), "The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: modern Greek versus English," Journal of Pragmatics, 17 (2), 155-173. Sifianou, M. (1993), "Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition," Multilingua, 12 (1), 69-79. Sifianou, M. (1995), "Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite?: silence and FTAs," International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 95-110. Simon, B. (2004), Identity in Modern Society: A Social Psychological Perspective. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005), "(Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 95-119. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Tanaka, A. (1971), "Bunmatsu, kumatsu no hyoogen no gohoo" [Sentencefinal and phrase-final expressions and words], Nihongo Nihonbunka, 6, 3771. Tanaka, H. (2000), "The particle neas a turn-management device in Japanese conversation," Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (8), 1135-1176. Tanaka, H. (2005), "Grammar and the 'timing' of social action: word order and preference organization in Japanese," Language in Society, 34 (3), 389-430. Tannen, D. (1984), Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. (1986), That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Styk Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. New York: Morrow. Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Morrow. Tannen, D. (1994), Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

210

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Taylor, T. J. and Cameron, D. (1987), Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Terkourafi, M. (2001), Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2005), "Beyond the micro-level in politeness research," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (2), 237-262. Tholander, M. (2002), "Cross-gender teasing as a socializing practice," Discourse Processes, 34 (3), 311-338. Tracy, K. (1990), "The many faces of facework," in H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (eds), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 209-226. Trosborg, A. (1987), "Apology strategies in natives/non-natives," Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 147-167. Trosborg, A. (1995), Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tsuchihashi, M. (1983), "The speech act continuum: an investigation of Japanese sentence final particles," Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (4), 361-387. Ueno, T. (1971), "A study of Japanese modality: a performative analysis of sentence particles." PhD dissertation, University of Michigan. Usami, M. (2001), Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. van Dam, J. (2002), "Ritual, face and play in a first English lesson: bootstrapping a classroom culture," in C. Kramsch (ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 237-266. Van De Walle, L. (1993), Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit: A Pilot Study in Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Waring, H. Z. (2001), "Balancing the competing interests in seminar discussion: peer referencing and asserting vulnerability," Issues in Applied Linguistics, 12 (1), 29-50. Waring, H. Z. (2002), "Expressing noncomprehension in seminar discussion," Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (12), 1711-1731. Waring, H. Z. (2005), "Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: identity, expertise, and advice resisting," Applied Linguistics, 26 (2), 141-168. Waring, H. Z. (2007), "Complex advice acceptance as a resource for managing asymmetries," Text and Talk, 27 (1), 107-137. Watts, R. J. (2003), Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (1992), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weizman, E. (1989), "Requestive hints," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Rasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 71-95. Weizman, E. (1993), "Interlanguage requestive hints," in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

Wenger, E. (1998), Community of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whalen, M. R. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1990), "Describing trouble: practical epistemology in citizen calls to the police," Language in Society, 19 (4), 465-492. Wierzbicka, A. (1985), "Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs English," Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (2-3), 145-178. Wolfson, N. (1981), "Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speaker,", International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8 (4), 7-22. Wolfson, N. (1983), "Rules of speaking," inj. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 61-87. Wolfson, N. (1988), "The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social distance," in J. Fine (ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 21-38. Wolfson, N. (1989), Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Wood, L. A. and Kroger, R. O. (1991), "Politeness and forms of address," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10 (3), 145-168. Wooffitt, R. (1992), Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organisation of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Wooffitt, R. (2005), Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage. Wooffitt, R. and Clark, C. (1998), "Mobilising discourse and asocial identities in knowledge talk," in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in Talk. London: Sage, pp. 107-121. Yamada, H. (1992), American and Japanese Business Discourse: A Comparison of Interactional Styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Yedes, J. (1996), "Playful teasing: kiddin' on the square," Discourse and Society, 7 (3), 417-438. Zimin, S. (1981), "Sex and politeness: factors in first- and second-language use," International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 35-58.

This page intentionally left blank

Appendices

Appendix A Transcription Conventions [ the point where overlap begins ] the point where overlap ends = latched utterance (0) intervals within and between utterances (.) a short untimed pause within an utterance corlon an extension of the vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening) . a stopping fall in tone , a continuing intonation ? a rising intonation a halting or an abrupt cutoff of sound underline an emphatic stress CAPS spoken louder : lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater lengthening) 0 ° spoken softly hhh aspirations ?hhh inhalations (( )) comments on quality of speech and context > < spoken quickly (segment) uncertain transcription ( ) transcription impossible (Adapted from Atkinson and Heritage 1984)

214

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Appendix B Japanese Transliteration Conventions Cop various forms of copula FP

Int Lk Neg Nom O Q Qt S T Tag

final particle

interjection linking nominal negative morpheme nominalizer object marker question marker quotation marker subject marker topic marker tag-like expression

Index

action orientation 150 adjacency pair 35, 74 agreement 73-4, 76 alignment 51, 76-7, 95-6, 103, 159 amae4Q

analysis discourse-level 32-5 qualitative 29, 71 quantitative 29, 43-4, 71 sentence level 32-4 Antaki, C. 49-50, 117 appropriateness 12-13, 53-4, 142-3, 179-81 Arundale, R. 4, 44, 60 assessment first/second position 51. 76, 79-80 Atkinson, J. M. 34, 70, 74 Bakhtin, M. 120, 179, 187 Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 47 Bilmes,J. 65 Blum-Kulka, S. 28-9, 31, 33, 45 Boggs, S. T. 34 Bourdieu, P. 4-5, 42, 50, 63, 120, 179, 187 Boxer, D. 97-9, 102-3, 123-5, 167, 178, 194n Brown, P. 1, 3-5, 16-55, 61, 69, 73-4, 76, 98, 123, 149-50, 175, 177, 187-9, 191n, 194n Brown, R. 27-8, 39 Cameron, D. 37, 74, 194-5n Christie, C. 187 Clancy, P. M. 21, 192n community of practice 3, 5, 12-13, 434, 50, 53-5, 57, 63, 113-14, 142, 188 conflict talk 34-5, 73-5 context 29-30, 62-6, 75, 98-9, 183-5, 187-8 "bucket theory" 63-4 contextualization cues 39 ethnographic 58, 65-6 social variables 29-30, 62, 71, 99 conversation analysis 29-30, 32-41, 5866, 75, 192n conversational contract (CC) 13-14

conversational transgression 99-100. 105, 178-9 Cook, H. M. 27, 29, 44, 79, 82, 85, 94, 96, 102, 119, 177, 185, 192-3n cooperative principle (CP) 14-16 Cortes-Conde, F. 97-9, 102-3, 178 culture 15, 20-3, 25-34, 38-40, 62-6. 74, 188 African-American 34 American 21, 31, 39-40 Chinese 18, 21-2, 26 Igbo 21, 26 Greek 21-2, 43, 74 Israeli 31 Japanese 21-2, 24-5, 27, 31, 40, 43-4 Jewish 34. 74 Western 21-2, 27 data 23, 27, 65-71, 183 collection 69-70 transcription 70-1 disagreement collaborative 66, 73-96, 176-7 dissenter (first & second) 77, 80-1. 84, 86, 95-6, 176-7, 186 discourse analysis 32-41, 58-62, 191n discourse markers 41, 185 discourse organization 35-8, 105, 1278 as facework 171-3 discursive politeness studies 4-6, 41-6, 63 discursive psychology 2, 38, 41, 49-50, 59, 191n Drew, P. 34,52, 59, 64, 74,98-100,1025,108,110,114,123-4,126-7,130-1, 134, 141-2, 150, 178, 181, 194n Durkheim, E. 18-20, 46-7, 189 Eckert, P. 12, 34, 43 Eder, D. 34, 97-8 Edwards, D. 2, 49-50, 58, 64, 126-7, 129-31, 134, 136, 138, 150, 165, 194n Eelen, G. 1, 4-5, 13, 30-1, 37, 42, 44-5, 50, 60, 62, 99,120,142,175,179,183, 187 Egbert, M. 51, 59

216

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

emic/etic 31 event description 126-7, 149-151, 173 extreme case formulation 136 face Brown & Levinson 16-26, 47-9, 1879 Goffman 16, 19-20, 38, 46-50, 52, 189 identity 48-52 institutional 68, 108, 113, 118-20, 128-9, 188 notion 16, 18-25, 46-7, 52-5 origin 1&-20 and politeness 52-5 positive/negative 16, 1&-20, 47, 1889 reconceptualization 7, 50-1, 53-5, 187-8 self-image 1, 4, 7, 16, 19, 47, 50-1 universal 18-23, 48, 188 wants 16, 22-3, 40, 47-8 face threatening act (FTA) 16-7, 27, 32-5 weightmess 17, 27, 48-9 facework 4, 6-7, 47-8, 51-5, 57-66, 183-90 conscious/unconscious 23, 26 discursive approach 6-7, 48, 51-5, 58-62 frame 38-9, 43, 102-3, 117-20 Fraser, B. 4, 11-14, 16, 19, 28, 31 Gender 12, 29, 43, 50, 125, 194n Oilman, A. 27-8, 39 Goffinan, E. 16,18-20, 38, 46-9, 52, 55, 189 Goodwin, C. 34, 64, 71, 74-5 Goodwin, M. H. 34, 71, 74-5 Grice, H. P. 14-17 Gu, Y. 22, 26 habitus 42, 120 Haugh, M. 31 Held, G. 33 Heritage, J. 13-14, 29-30, 37, 51-2, 59, 63-4, 70, 74, 76, 79-80, 105, 176 Hill, B. 12, 22, 25-7 Holmes, J. 4-5,12, 29, 33, 43-4, 63,978 Holtgraves, T. 48-9 honorifics 24, 27, 43-4 Hu, H. C. 22 humor 97-122, 177-9 joking 97-100, 103

Ide, S. 12, 20-2, 25, 27, 31, 48 identity 37-8, 4&-52, 98-100 Ikuta, S. 85, 154, 193n imposition 16-17, 27-9, 47-9 indirect complaint 124^7, 194n institutional discourse 30, 64-5, 105, 127-8, 192n interactional sociolinguistics 38-41 Japanese schools 67-9, 195n faculty meetings 2, 67-9, 77, 123-4, 127-8 Jary, M. 53 Jefferson, G. 109, 123-7, 132, 134, 136 joking see humor Kakava, C. 33, 73-4 Kangasharju, H. 76-7, 82-4, 91, 95 Kasper, G. 16, 25, 27, 29, 33, 44, 46 Lakoff, R. 4-5, 14-16, 25, 31, 34 Lave,J. 12 Leech, G. 4-5, 15-16, 25, 27, 31 Lerner, G. H. 37, 74 Levinson, S 1, S-5, 16-55, 61, 69, 73-4, 76, 98, 123, 149-50, 175, 177, 187-9, 191n, 194n Locher, M. A. 4-5, 43-4, 47, 52-3, 7S-6, 181 Makino, S. 85, 193n Mao, L. R. 21, 26, 48 masu form see register Matsumoto, Y. 20-2, 48 Maynard, D. W. 64-6 Maynard, S. K. 27, 29, 82, 85, 102, 171, 185, 192-3n, 195n Meier, A. J. 12 membership categorization 49-52, 99 Mills, S. K. 1, 4-5, 12, 43-5, 50, 61-3, 65, 114, 185, 191n Moerman, M. 65 moral work 52, 126, 142 Nolen, W. 13 norms 12-13, 25-6, 37, 60, 114, 150, 188 Nwoye, O. 21-1, 26 O'Driscoll, J. 19, 22-3, 26-7, 47 objectification 126-7 Ochs, E. 70 Okamoto, S. 4,12, 24,27, 29,44, 82,85, 102, 193n Pan,Y. 20-1, 26

INDEX

Parsonian world-view 42, 62 particle contrastive 90, 142, 165, 181, 185-6, 194-5n final 28, 79, 83, 85, 94-5, 166, 185-6, 192n kedoW, 141-2, 157-9, 181, 185-6, 194-5n n*79, 95^-6, 117, 119, 166, 169, 171, 177, 185-6, 192-3n plain form see register politeness "conversational-contract" view 13-14 "conversational-maxim" view 14-16 discernment 12, 25-7, 96, 120-1, 177, 179, 185-7 evaluation 1-2, 6-7, 31-2, 45-6, 534, 176, 184 and face 52-55 "face-saving" view 16-17 first-order see poUtenessl

intentional/unintentional 26

Japanese see culture

politenessl 12, 22, 30-2, 42, 45-6, 52-3, 63, 183-4 politeness2 22, 3O-2, 42, 183-4 politic behavior 42-3, 52-3 positive/negative 24, 191n second-order see politeness2 social index see discernment

"social-norm" view 12-13 strategic 25-7 superstrategies 17 volitional see strategic Pomerantz, A. 35, 74,126,136,165,170 Potter, J. 2, 50, 58, 61, 64,130,138,140, 150, 157, 160, 191n power 27-9, 3Sk41, 48-9 multidimensional model 39-40 unidimensional model 39 preference 35-8, 74 rapport 125-6 Raymond, G. 13-14, 29, 37, 51-2, 59, 74, 76, 79-80, 176 register masuform 82, 96, 102, 120-1, 177-9, 186-7, 193n plain form 82-3, 85, 95-6, 102, 120, 177-9, 186-7, 193n

217

relational work 52-3 relevance theory 43 ritual 20, 189 cults positive/negative 19-20, 189 Sacks, H. 35-6 Schegloff, E. 36, 64, 74, 84 Schifrrin, D. 34, 41, 73-4 Scollon, R. 4, 24-5, 39, 191n Scollon, S. 4, 24-5, 39, 191n service encounter 125 Sifianou, M. 21-2 social distance 15, 24, 27-8 speech act 16, 23, 27-9, 32-4, 191n theory 32-4 Spencer-Oatey, H. 49 Sperber, D. 5, 43 subjectivity 41, 49-51, 126-7 Tannen, D. 24-5, 39-41, 73-4, 123-5, 134, 194n teasing 6, 60, 64, 66, 97-122, 177-9, 184-5 biting tease 98-9, 178 bonding tease 64, 97-9, 103, 178 nipping tease 98-9, 178 pro-faced reaction 99, 114, 185 troubles talk 123-147, 150, 179-81, 194n formulation 126-7 solidarity-building 125-6 Usami, M. 5, 43 Van De Walle, L. 27 vulnerability 132, 139 wakimae 25-6

Waring, H. 80, 95, 132, 138, 157, 170 Watts, R. 1, 4-5, 19, 22, 30-2, 42, 44-5, 47, 52-3, 62-3, 65, 183 Wenger, E. 3, 5, 12-13, 43, 63 Widdicombe, S. 49-50 Wooffitt, R. 37, 59, 130-1 Yedes,J. 98 zatsudan 152, 171