Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Japanese Linguistics
Toshiko Yamaguchi
Discourse and Politeness:
Naomi Geyer
continuum
Continuum
The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704
11 York Road New York
London SE1 7NX NY 10038
Naomi Geyer has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
ISBN: 978-08264-9781-9
Acknowledgments vii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
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
Chapter 8 Conclusion 175
Notes 191
Bibliography 196
Appendix A 213
Appendix B 214
Index 215
List of Figures and tables
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 conceptua-
lizations 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 meta-
theoretical 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
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 distin-
guishes 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.
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 evalu-
ations 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 meth-
odological insights can lead us to significant advances in our understand-
ing 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 observ-
able 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
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
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 conversational-
maxim view of politeness formulates principles concerning the interper-
sonal 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 corres-
pond, 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
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
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 conceptualiza-
tion 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 under-
standing of the various notions of face.
[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 van-
across 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
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 expres-
sions 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 non-
honorific 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,
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).
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)
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 socio-
linguistics - and discusses how the key concepts of these approaches can
relate to linguistic politeness.
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 manage-
ment 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.
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
First Parts Second Parts
Preferred Dispreferred
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.
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:
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/indivi-
duation" 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 interpret-
ations 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 non-
imposition 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 communi-
cation. 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.
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
2.6 Summary
3.1 Introduction
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.
approaches are concerned with actions and practices, and avoid assump-
tions 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' action-
oriented 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. inten-
tions or "wants").
As stated in Chapter 2, a number of studies in conversation and
discourse analysis have examined how interactants display their member-
ship 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 organiza-
tion, 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
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
3.3.2.3 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 represen-
tation 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 prac-
tices, 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 research-
ers 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
4.1 Introduction
A: Statement
B: Disagreement with speaker A
C: Endorsement of B's turn
(A: Defense, acquiescence, silence, etc.) (Kangasharju 2002:1450)
4.2 Analysis
Excerpt [I]
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
Excerpt [2]
scheduling practices for guidance sessions, whereas the plain form of the
tag expression janai and the final particle kana, frequently used in self-
addressed 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 self-
contemplating 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 moder-
ately 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 self-
contemplating 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 mechan-
ism 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.
Excerpt [3]
2 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 expres-
sion 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
Excerpt [4]
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.)
30 soogootekini natchau nda ne (.) are mo koremo tte (..) sore igai wa
all-aroundbecome Nom Cop FP that also this also Qt that except T
31 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 co-
construction 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
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
5.1 Introduction
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 face-
threatening 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 empiric-
ally" (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
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 informa-
tion 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:
conceivably applying also. And therein lies the sense that teases are close
enough to reality to have a hostile element. (247)
5.2 Analysis
Excerpt [2]
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
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 already-
established 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 face-
threatening 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 co-
constructing 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 pro-
faced 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 partici-
pants. 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.
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]
3-> 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:
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 co-
constructed 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]
([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 oppor-
tunity 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 topic-
shift 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 pro-
faced 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
Excerpt [9]
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 "clown-
like" self-image in the community of practice. Even though their self-
ascribed 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, longi-
tudinal studies are needed to answer these questions conclusively.
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= ((laughing tone))
Nom has-become FP FP Ohki teacher
8-> 8Ó1ÒÓÔ1Ó1Ò
Ó ÛÓ„ÓÁúàÒ
Ë ÓÔ§‡1[8õÚ‡8Ë
. ((1‡Ë§õÔ § ûÔÂ) )
ȯ-�‡Ô õÒÂ-§ÓÓÒ1-Ò‡„
 �!‡8
Â
(ì‚. I ËÔÒ1„81‡ÔÒ1.
)
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 interpret-
ation, 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 institu-
tional 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 con-
tent 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
5.3 Summary
6.1 Introduction
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 displace-
ment 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 face-
related 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 com-
plaints 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.
6.2 Analysis
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]
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 miscon-
duct and the troublemaker's agency, and presents the trouble as report-
worthy.
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 trouble-
maker 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
Excerptsml [2]
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 unequivo-
cal: 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 asjibun-
de "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 inter-
related 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).
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 135
(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?)
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 ë ÄÇéßÉÉ íäéßßÇúÖ á 137
3 ‡„¥Ú‡ÁÂ
Ô ú‡„‡ (.) ÁÓÔ
Ó Ú‡Â ÔÓ ÁÔ¥„ÛÓ
Ó „ÂÔúË ÁúÓÓªÒÛ‡ª
¯ ÁÔ¥¥
‡ ÔÓ ä ‡
ÔÓß-Âıß8
ß 80 ßú‡ß úÂÉÓ„Â ßÄ Ú‡ªÂ„¥‡
¥ ‡¥¥ (¥¥ÁÒ‡Ô
¥ Ò¥¥Ò
¥ äÓ Úé ,
• ßÒÛÓÔÂÔ ÔÓ Óä‡Áú¥Áú¥Ú‡Á
ËÔ Ò¥� Ë ӂÁú‡Ë‡ Ô Ò¥� (.) ( ) ßÓ¥Ò
‡
߇‚Â-Û‡
„ ÓÔ ßÂÔÒ
¥ NÓÚ ëÓ� •• 8‡Û NÓÚ ëÓ� Â¥Ò
.
6 ÓÚÓ¥¥
‡ Ô Ò¥Â‚ Ë 1ÒÂÒ¥Ó
=
ãÓË^ú ¥ NÓÚ ëÓ�úË¥
(1 \ìÔ‡ ß ÁúÓËßÒ
¥ ß Ò¥
Ó\Û¥ã ã  ڇªÂ„¥‡¥
? \ìÂ11, 1 ú‡Û à˥ Âı�„¥ÂÔÒ
 ¥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 \^ÓÔÒ¥Â
„ ¥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 éÔ Â 8ÔÓË1Ò
¥ ßÒÂÂ
� ‡¥ ߇Á
¥ ÓÔÂ ÒÓ�Û
, „¥^Ô¥?
)
10 §‡ ÚÓË„
Ë ßÒ‡Ú
Ó[Áú¥„ÂÔ‡
¥ ËÂ
5 ú‡Û �„Óú‡úßÛ ^^
11 äËúÓ߇: [„ÂÔúË ÔÂ
‡¥¥ Éê
(11 Ä11Ó£ãÂÚ.)
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 trouble-
maker 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.
Excerpt [5]
2 ‡„Â1Â̄ fiÂÁúÓ
Ó ? °< (.) ÁÓúÓ ÔÓ ú‡Ò1Ó ÔÓ ˛äÓ„ Ó • ÁõÒõÔ ¯
öÂÒÓÚÂ-„Óˉ
ú ëÓ� ã„ 1ã Ò ÒÓ„ÔÂ
„ úö . �!‡Ò
 ‡1 ÁÂÛÂ
Ô
• 5ÓÔÓ1Ó1
Ë (1‡Ô(1‡Ô ú‡Ô‡Áõ ‰
‡ ÁÓÔ
Ó ° úÂÔÔ‡ °(.) úÂÔÔ‡ úÓÓäÓÓ Úi
ã‡Ï1Ú Â§„‡Ò1ˇ11Û õ ú 5 „ 5*„‡Ô‰
 51„‡Ô§Â (ç„ÂÒÈÓÔ ˛
9 1Ò‡Ô)1 ÔÓ 1ÒÓ<:Ó Ó ÔÂ? °< (.) (1‡1Ò‡„‡ Ú‡‡ (.) ‚ÓÔÓ Ú‡‡ úÓûÔÈÓ]ÓÓÒ!‡
Ô fi‡
ÁÂÔ‚
 ú1Ò ã1Ô§ é Åê ÁÓ \ÛÂ!1 „ \^Â!1 ÚÓÁÈ
Û ^Óú. ëÓ�
10 û \Û‡ ÓÚÓ
Ë 1ÒÂÒ1ÓÚÓ:
: Ú‡‡. ÁÓÔÔ
‡ úıç Ó ÚÓ ‡«‡ ÔÓÈÂ
0<; í 1õÔ1 Ò úË1 \ÛÂ!1 ã‡1-1ËÔÓ! 1õÔ $ ‡1ÁÓ 1ú„Â-\Û‡Á ÁÓ
Excerpt [6]
2 Ono: saishoni=
first
(2 At first...)
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
15 ÁÓ„
Â Ó ÁÂÂõ-ÔÓ-ÁÂÔÁÂ
 ÔÓ ˛ú Ó ¯ ËÒÂöıÎ Ë ç (.) 8Ó„ÂÒ1
Â
㇠Òé ‡Òú„-Ú-Òú‡„‰Â-ÓÉ-1ÓÓ1
Á úú . �!‡Ò
 ë Ó‰
Ó 0,ë Á‡Û
- ‡Ô<1 ‡ÔÈ
16 àÒ‡ÁÂÒ‡„
‡ Ú‡„Ë <1‡„ &‡ ÁõÒ‡ ú‡ ^V‡1Ò‡„‡Ô‡
^ ë Ó(1‡ÚÂ<1
‡ ëë  ¯‡ÚÂÌÂ
\ÛúÂÔ-Ú‡!ÒÂ-§
Ó È„ÁÒ \\„ú Ó 8 Òò é , 1˲\Û-õ & 1É ÔÓ-$ÓÓ<
1 é Ò \Û‡Á-ÒÓ1Ò1-‡Ô(
1
(8 òÂ11 , I „‡à„ÂÒ
! 1Ò ‡ ç‡1  úÂÉÓ„Â ã  ÂÔÒ1-ÓÉ-111Â-<1‡
Û ‡ÁÁÂÚõ
Û \\„úÂ Ô I
ÂÚ„Â
fi
9 ã Â Ò!‡8Á„ÓÓ
Ú ‡ÔÒ! Á‡\Û 1ú Ò1‡Ô1Ô
§ 1ÓÓ1úÓı. éÔ Â ÓÉ ã Â 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^Â
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‡ÒúÂ
„ Ú Òú‡„^ ÓÉ ûÓ1 Á
15 ‡ÔÒ1 ÈÂÁÒÔú
 ã  Ò1„ÒËÚÁÒ‡ÔÒÂÁ
, \ÛÂ!1, ÁÚÒ
 äÓÔÓ 1Á 1Ô Òú‡„^ ÓÉ ã Â
Ò1‡Ô1Ô
‰1ÓÓ1
Á ÓÉ ÓË„ Ò1‡ÁÁ
, ‡Ôfi
16 \ÛúÂÔ I ÁÂ
ÚõÚ , úÂ\Û‡Á ˛ õ [ú Û1ú ë‡Òú„] 1ú‡1 \Û ú‡Ò! ˛ ÈÔÒ! ÓËÂ\ÛÔÓ'<1
‰ÓÔ
 11,
17 ÁÓ úÂ Ò‡Ú
Âú‡Ò1Ò, ‡Ô<1 ÉÚ�1‡ÔÔ1Ô
§ ÒÓ Ò1Ó ÁÓÚÂÒúÚ
‰‡úÓËë 1Ò ÒÓÚÓ„„Ó\Û.
)
6.3 Summary
7.1 Introduction
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 commu-
nicate 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
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.
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
(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 Ç15ëéò5 Ö Ää Ç êé1ãíÖÜ8 5
12 ÄÓ1‡: ÚÓÓÁËúÓÁ
õ Û‡ÈÂÔË
õ Ô‡ ˛ ¯ 1ËÚÓÒ
õ \Û‡ ‡ÔÚ‡Á
Ë ÔÂ (.5) ‡ÔÚ‡
Ô ÁÓÔ
Ó
‡-òâÂ-ÚÓ„  \Û‡ÔåÓ-<1 Ó Éê é * Á‡Û ÉÂÂ1Ú
‰ í Âı181 Öê ÔÓ1 8é „
13 8ÔÛ1 ¯ 8ÓÔÓÚ‡ÔÚ
‡ $õ(‡§‡ Ë é  \Û‡úÂ]‡Ô‡1 Ô Ò!‡ ú„ÂÒúÚ
Ó (.)
1Ô81„ËÒ1˛Ô ¯ ‡ÚÓÚ‡ËÒ‡11
Û ÓúÂÛ é* ; Ò‡ÁÂ-õÂ
§ NÓÚ ëÓ� ö ¯
14 (1ÂÚ
Ó 1ÒõÓÓ úÓ„Â ^ Ú‡ÚË
! Ô ^‡Ô‡^ 1Ò‡ ËÂ 1Ë ÔÓ \V‡ 8Ó1Ò
Ó \Û‡
úË1 ‡â‡‚ 1 1õ 8 í ú‡Ò1 äÓ Úí‡ ‰^ ^^ 8‡Û äÓ Úí ò„  í
15 ( ) ä‡Ô ‡ Ë ¯ -
( ) êê 018‡Û
16 8Â1Ë: ËÔ ËÔ
Ëú-úË ú
(ò úËú. )
17 (5)
19 (3)
20 ÄÓ1Ë: ‰Ó
Ó fiÂÁ
Ë 1Ò‡? úú ú
úé\ ì ëÓ� é
(çé\ ì 18 11?)
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.
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.
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
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
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.)
2 çÒ‡„Ú‡‰‡„
‡ �‡‡ ç Ó 15Ëö‡ú‡11  1ÁËË $˧‡(‡ ÁúèÒ‡ ÚçÂÔ‡! Ô ÈÂÁ
Ë úÂÒ1Ó
.
Ú-‡Ô‰Â
„ 8�1‡Á
ú 0,1 5�11 (^1 ˉËÚ
 ÓÔ!
Û 1ÓÓú-õ§ õÓ ÚëÓ� ö Ú
(&{•. ä‡ ˛ Ò‡!
ÚÒ1Ó\Û
Ô \^úÂÔ ú Â Ï„ÂÚ ÈÓÚÂ
? \ìúÂ Ô I \ÛÂÔ1,1 ÓÔ!
Û §‡\Û õ Ú§ò 1
‡Ô‰„11
Û 8�1ËÚ
‰‡„ÓËÔÈ
, úËë ...)
4 <1‡ 1ÒÂÒ1Ó
.
ëÓ� úË1
(ÇË1 ËÔÒ1Â
„ ãÓ‚  ‡„ÒËÔ¯‡ÔÒÂÁ
, úÂ Ï˛Ë!(1Ô ó §‡Û Û‚, Ô§1Ë ã„Â, Ô§ú1?)
(íú‡Â' Á ÓÔÂ
. [ç Â \ÛÓË!(1Ô
ó Á‡Û Û‚] \^úÂÔ õ ‚ �‡!Á‡„ ‡„ÓËÔfi.
)
By advancing the need to call the police, Seki displays her positive self-
image 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.
2 ‡Ó‡ Ô ÈÂÁËÛ
Ó Ô (.) ò¯„Â& ¯ Á˯úÓ˛ ÓÁÚóÂÒ‡„‡‡Ô
Ó úÓ1‡Òõ
Âı181ÂÒ
1 çÓ Ú ëÓ� Éê Éê ÚÂÒÔ‡ÚÒ‡ã
Û (1Ó ãÚ‰é <1Ó4É ÂúÓÁ
 Òõç„ Ô
6 ÄÓ1‡: ‡‡ „ÂÔÒ1‡
Ô ÔÓ ÚÓÔÒ
õ <1‡ ÔÂ.
Û‡
ú �„ÂÛ1ÓË8-�ú‡8
 úú . �„ÓõÂÚ ëÓ� Éê
7 8Â1Ë: ˛ ÓÚÓ
Ë Ô ‰ÂÁ
Ë ÛÓ ÔÂ,
é Â 1õÔ ä çÓ Ú ëÓ� Éê Éê
áÂõ ‡„‰Ë Á È1‡1 1ú 8ÂÒÓÔÒ 1 ‡ÔÒ1 1õ„Ò1 81‡§Â8 ÓÉ Ä 1ÔÒ1Ò1ÂÔ1 : ÒÓË à ú‡ÛÂ
úÂÂÔ ‡ÛÓ!(1 fi 1É ò  8ÒúÓÓ 1 „Â�„Â8ÂÔ1‡<1Û 8 ö‡< 1 ‰ÓÔ Â "\Ûú‡1: ÄÂÛ \Û„Â
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 Â
Ú‡! 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‡!18 •••••• "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
Seki specifies another difference between herself and the school repre-
sentatives: 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
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 DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS
7 Miki: [ne::.
FP
(Right)
8 Aoki: [jikan no muda da yo ne:.
time Lk waste Cop FP FP
Miki expresses her opinion three times (lines 1, 5, 9 and 10). The
corresponding aligning turns are proffered as an elaboration, a para-
phrase, or a supplementary remark. Miki expresses her surprise in line 1
by using the interjectoiy expression HEEE "whaaat?" with rising inton-
ation. Seki's agreement in line 2 consists of the intensifier mattaku
"completely" and the final particle ne. The subsequent two turns (lines 3-
4) 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
2 (3)
3 Aoki: sore dakara dooiu huuni honnin ga ne, (.) ii hookoo ni chichioya ga
that so how way he-himselfS FP good direction to father S
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 ...)
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
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 face-
threatening, 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.
[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 partici-
pants 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 know-
ledge 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 face-
threatening (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 foreground-
ing 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 face-
threatening 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
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.
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.
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 manifest-
ations of politeness. (10)
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)
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
1 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.
2 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).
3 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.
4 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
Chapter 7
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 Elsewhere in the data, several teachers, including Seki, call the principal
and vice-principal kanrishoku "(school) managers" or "(school) represen-
tatives" 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 inter-
views,"/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
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
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-in-
interaction," 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
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
Appendix B