1discourse and Politeness

Discourse and Politeness
Also available from Continuum

Japanese Language in Use
Toshiko Yamaguchi
Japanese Linguistics
Toshiko Yamaguchi
Discourse and Politeness:

Ambivalent Face in Japanese
Naomi Geyer
continuum
Continuum
The Tower Building
11 York Road
London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704

New York
NY 10038
Naomi Geyer 2008

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the publishers.
Naomi Geyer has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978-08264-9781-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Typeset by Data Standards Ltd, Frome, Somerset
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddies, Norfolk
Contents
Acknowledgments
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Politeness, Face, and Identity
11
Chapter 3
Analyzing Facework
57
Chapter 4
Collaborative Disagreement
73
Chapter 5
Teasing and Humor
97
Chapter 6
Talking about Troubles
123
Chapter 7
The Meeting:
Facework in Description and Discourse Organization
149
Conclusion
175
Notes
191
Bibliography
196
Appendix A
213
Appendix B
214
Index
215
Chapter 8
List of Figures and tables
Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4)

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

second parts
Meeting summary
Development of Aoki's turns in lines 2 to 20
17
19
24
39
40
36
70
158
Acknowledgments
I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the teachers in

Japan who allowed me to tape-record their meetings, and especially to the
two colleagues who acted as a liaison between the teachers and me (I have
promised them anonymity and cannot mention their names). Without
their co-operation, this study could not have been realized.
My understanding of face, politeness, and discourse has been shaped by
a number of people. I am greatly indebted to Leslie Beebe, my mentor and
teacher at Teachers College, Columbia University. For this student, her
courses opened a window to the field of sociolinguistics and pragmatics,
and they cultivated my interest in politeness and face. Without her
encouragement and guidance, I would never have started on this journey.
The open and stimulating academic environment at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison has heightened my interest in discourse issues. I would
like to recognize all my colleagues and students, but I am especially
grateful to Naomi McGloin and Junko Mori, my colleagues and role
models, who guided and supported me throughout the busiest years of my
life. I thank them for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript and for
inspiring me with their thoughtful comments.
Next, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Hansun Waring,
who provided frequent and valuable feedback and encouraged me at
various stages of the project. I also extend my gratitude to Shigeko
Okamoto for her insightful comments. My sincere appreciation goes to
David Ward for his editorial work.
Finally, I am indebted to my husband, Bernhard, for his patience,
humor, and support of every kind. His insightful observations and
unending support were vital in shaping this project. This book is
dedicated to him.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Politeness and Facework

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

such as face-threatening acts and negative and positive politeness
strategies, focusing primarily on explicit face-threatening acts such as
requests, apologies, and disagreements, while leaving other more
interactionaily delicate actions unexplored.1 My study tries to overcome
this limitation by assessing facework situated in several discursive actions
such as collaborative disagreement (in which several participants form a
dissenting "team"), teasing, and troubles talk. These linguistic behaviors
necessitate subtle interactional negotiations, for they appear to be both
face-threatening and face-enhancing. The study explores how these
seemingly conflicting evaluations are attached to specific actions, by
paying attention to the details of talk that construct various discursive faces
simultaneously. It also observes how facework is displayed in a seemingly
face-neutral activity, event description, and in the course of an entire
meeting.
The research data document multiparty interactions in small faculty
meetings in Japanese secondary schools, in which issues ranging from
school outings to student misconduct and sexual harassment are
discussed. While planning events and seeking solutions to current
problems, the teachers attend to their interpersonal relationships and
professional personae through a range of facework. By examining
numerous segments of discourse as well as an entire meeting, the study
illustrates how face is constructed and negotiated in interaction, and how
it is related to interactants' emergent discursive identities.
Past politeness studies, including some discursive approaches, paid
much attention to the psychological mechanisms active in individuals (e.g.
intentions and motivations), even though they are difficult to capture in
discourse. The present study follows a different path, adopting both
elements of conversation and discourse analysis (as used in discursive
psychology) and ethnographic information to its analytical practice.
Conversation analysis and discourse analysis serve as the analytical
framework of discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards 1997, Edwards and
Potter 1992). Discursive psychology is concerned with actions and
practices in talk, attending to features of interaction and rhetorical
organization without simply assuming an underlying cognitive organization. It attempts to see psychological issues from the point of view of
human behavior. In other words, discursive psychology regards thinking as
a form of acting, and this focus on social practice suggests the possibility of
defining "face," otherwise considered as psychological "wants," in terms
of discursive reality. Discursive psychology's change in perspective,
considering psychological notions from the viewpoint of their role in
talk, provides both a strong rationale and an analytical model for the
treatment of face and facework in this study. Informed by a discursive
psychological approach, this study reconceptualizes the notion of face,
previously considered a basic human need or an underlying motivation of
INTRODUCTION
politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987), as a discursive reality, negotiated

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

Research on linguistic politeness came into its own with the publication of
Brown and Levinson's study in 1987. Since then, this phenomenon has
received extensive scholarly attention. Researchers have approached
politeness from different perspectives, viewing it as a means to reduce
friction in personal interaction (Lakoff 1973), as a device for strategic
conflict avoidance (Leech 1983), as a distancing and solidarity-building
practice (Holmes 1995, Scollon and Scollon 1995), or as a behavior that
expresses positive concern for others (Holmes 1995). These conceptualizations agree with Brown and Levinson's (1979, 1987) notion of
politeness as a rational behavior aiming to reduce an imposition or a
threat to an interlocutor's face.
Brown and Levinson (1987) claim that "all competent adult members of
a society" have "face," a public self-image (61). Face comprises two related
aspects: negative face (the claim to freedom from imposition) and positive
face (an interactant's positive self-image, including the desire to be
appreciated). According to the authors, a speaker's face is subject to
threats at every point of an interaction. Facework, the conscious and
unconscious practices interlocutors engage in to reduce face threats and
to maintain each other's face, constitutes the enactment of politeness.
Brown and Levinson's theory, as well as many later works on linguistic
politeness, revolves around the notion of face.
"Classical" politeness theories (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1979, 1987,
Fraser 1990, Leech 1983, Lakoff 1973, 1977) have engendered many
empirical studies. Yet they are, as critics have pointed out, not without
intrinsic limitations: they conceive politeness strategies as categorical and
static; they are primarily concerned with sentence- or utterance-level
politeness, overlooking situational and contextual details that are only
discernible in situated discourse; and they do not account for politeness as
a linguistic ideology, thereby essentializing politeness as a universal and
fixed norm (e.g. Arundale 1999, Eelen 2001, Locher 2004, Mills 2003,
Okamoto 1999, Watts 2003). Eelen (2001) undertook a significant metatheoretical critique of earlier politeness research. He uncovered the
Parsonian bias underlying existing theories and maintained that the
researchers' act of conceptualisation through their own evaluations of
politeness compromises their theories' validity. Drawing on the
Bourdieuan notion of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1991), he proposed a
revision of the notion of politeness as a discursive, evaluative, and
argumentative phenomenon, stressing the importance of "concentrating
on the processes of social production" (240).
In current research, there is a trend away from the earlier act-by-act
treatment of linguistic politeness that was criticized by Eelen (2001) and
others. Instead, new discursive directions have been pursued, both from a
qualitative (e.g. Locher 2004, Mills 2003, Okamoto 1999, Watts 2003) and
INTRODUCTION
a quantitative (Terkourafi 2001, 2005, Usami 2001) perspective. Some of

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

within the larger fields of politeness and discourse studies.
1.3 A Discursive Approach to Facework
This study shares the following premises with recent discursive politeness
scholarship: (1) it considers politeness and facework as phenomena
situated in a particular group and context; (2) instead of an act-by-act,
speaker-centered approach to politeness, it establishes interaction and
rhetorical practice (e.g. objectification) as the object of study; and (3) it
rejects a static and deterministic evaluation of politeness. What distinguishes this study from other discursive works on politeness? What is its
position in the wider fields of politeness and discourse studies? I will
address these questions in the following sections.
1.3.1 What this book is not about
Since its main topic is the discursive co-construction of facework, this book
does not contain an analysis of politeness evaluations per se. It does not
seek to capture evaluative moments in which participants display their
assessment that something they said or heard was polite or impolite. It is
my contention that by limiting the scope of analysis to these rare
moments, we would lose sight of the intricate interpersonal mechanisms
elucidated through facework analysis.
However, the study does consider evaluative moments in the examination of two social actions: teasing, and troubles talk. Participants
performing these actions engage in evaluative practices; teasing may be
triggered by a transgression (more precisely, by participants' evaluation of
encountered actions as a transgression), and troubles talk frames the
trouble source's behavior as an infringement. (The relation between these
evaluations and the participants' sense of politeness and impoliteness will
be explored in Chapters 5 and 6.)
This study does not aim at analytical innovation by devising a
parsimonious model of facework. In this respect, it stands in contrast to
traditional politeness studies, which attempt to account for polite behavior
through the formulation of succinct notions (e.g. positive and negative
face, politeness maxims). A formulaic and categorical understanding of
interpersonal communication is not the aim of this study.
1.3.2 What this book is about
This project's analysis centers on a Goffmanian respecification of face
which, with its social rather than cognitive characterization, supports a
data-driven treatment of facework in interaction. Face, within the scope of
the study, is conceptualized as speakers' interactional social image. As
such, this image is closely linked to their discursive identity: an interlocu-
INTRODUCTION
tor ascribes and is ascribed multiple discursive and social identities which,
in turn, can invoke multiple faces. Instead of devising a parsimonious
model of facework or politeness, this study attempts to capture the
complexity and richness of interpersonal communication through the
lens of facework.
Despite the central role assigned to face and facework, the book does
not assume that facework and politeness are identical. On the contrary, it
makes an effort to clarify the relationship between these two distinct
notions. The study endorses the idea that the study of politeness should
focus on interactants' evaluations about their own and others' behavior as
being polite or impolite. As such, moment-by-moment politeness evaluations include volatile elements (e.g. interactants' expectations and
emotions).
Facework (behavior that displays and acknowledges others and the
speakers' interactional self-image), on the other hand, encompasses a
wider range of practices than polite behavior. For instance, a speaker's
display of his or her own positive self-image may be regarded as facework
but not necessarily as politeness. On the other hand, from a politeness
perspective, evaluations of facework and appropriateness constitute the
basis for evaluations of politeness. The relationship between facework,
appropriateness, and politeness will be explored later in the book.
As its titie "Discourse and Politeness" indicates, the study situates face
and facework at the crossroads between politeness and discourse studies.
To my knowledge, few existing studies have attempted to link politeness
scholarship to other discourse analytic disciplines, such as discursive
psychology, conversation analysis, or ethnographic analysis, whose methodological insights can lead us to significant advances in our understanding of discourse politeness. By connecting politeness research to discourse
studies, and by formulating a social notion of face tied to interactants'
discursive identity, this project develops a framework for facework
research that integrates results from the fields of conversation analysis
and discursive psychology.
The main aim of this study is to provide a discourse-based analysis of
facework realized in several interactionally delicate social actions. It
suggests a revision of the notion of face based on Goffman's definition,
which allows for an empirical description of the ways in which facework is
displayed and managed in discourse. The study also explores the
relationship between face and politeness, and between face and discursive
identity, to make findings from diverse fields available for the analysis of
facework. The combination of a conversation/discourse analytic approach
and ethnographic information in the framework of the study provides the
methodological base for depicting facework as an intersection of observable linguistic behavior, my knowledge of the particular community of
practice, and my understanding of face-related notions in politeness and
discourse studies.
1.4 Structure of the Study

Chapter 1 has presented a brief summary of past politeness research and
identified the purpose and methodology of the study, highlighting recent
developments in the field, remaining issues, and the project's possible
contributions. Chapters 2 and 3 develop the themes introduced in
Chapter 1 and give a more detailed description of the study's theoretical
background and analytical framework.
Chapter 2, "Politeness, Face, and Identity," introduces earlier politeness
theories and prominent issues concerning the notion of face, discernment
and volitional politeness, sociolinguistic variables of politeness, and the
distinction between politenessl (the lay conceptualization of politeness)
and politeness2 (politeness as a theoretical construct). Since the review of
these issues consistently points to the need to incorporate discursive data,
the chapter next details how politeness- and face-related subjects are
discussed in various fields of discourse analysis (i.e. speech-act related
studies, research on conflict talk, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics). Recent discursive approaches to
politeness are introduced.
The rest of the chapter presents the conceptual underpinnings for this
study. It reconsiders Brown and Levinson's (1987) and Goffman's (1967)
notions of face and explores the relationship between face and identity,
and face and politeness. Through a synthesis of these conceptions, the
chapter situates the current investigation of facework at the nexus of past
and present politeness studies, discourse analysis, and linguistic studies on
participant identity and subjectivity.
Chapter 3, "Analyzing Facework," introduces the general research
objectives and describes the conversation/discourse analytic and ethnographic approaches to facework adopted in the study, as well as the
community of practice in which the data are situated. It presents the
rationale for adopting a conversation/discourse analytic approach, compares conversation and discourse analysis, discusses their treatment of
context and culture, and argues for the need to incorporate ethnographic
information. The chapter then relates how the analysis of facework draws
from attention to details of linguistic actions, my knowledge of the
relevant community of practice, and my understanding and assessment of
the subject matter.
Chapter 3 ends with an overview of the data, the institutional setting,
and the participants of the study. It includes a statement concerning my
initial understanding of face categorizations relevant to the data set, which
prepares the ground for the empirical work executed in later chapters.
Chapters 4 to 7 contain an empirical analysis of facework. Chapters 4, 5,
and 6 each illustrate how facework is constructed and negotiated in one
specific type of discursive practice - collaborative disagreement, teasing,
and talking about troubles, respectively. These actions are interactionally
INTRODUCTION
delicate in that they appear to be both face-threatening and faceenhancing at the same time. The chapters dissect the complex mechanisms of facework involved in these practices, which lead to such seemingly
contradictory results. Several linguistic resources of the Japanese language
are listed as crucial agents in accomplishing facework: the final particle ne,
the connective particle kedo, and the plain and masu forms of clause final
predicates. Instead of being enlisted as politeness markers or strategies,
these resources are observed in the course of action accomplishment to
uncover the connection between their role in facework and their
grammatical and sequential characteristics. Chapter 7 analyzes the coconstruction of facework in a seemingly face-neutral action, event
description, and in an extended data segment that spans an entire
meeting.
Chapter 4, "Collaborative Disagreement," focuses on the practice of
collaborative disagreement, in which two or more participants form a
dissenting "team". Beyond the stereotypical understanding of collaborative disagreement as the combination of a first disagreement and a second
disagreement offered as agreement with the first, the chapter foregrounds
the crucial role the second dissenter plays in the construction of the
dissenting stance, a process in which complex multiple faces are displayed
and manipulated. The chapter also supplies a deviant case in which the
second dissenter assumes a neutral stance, and in which no alignment is
achieved between first and second dissenter, even though the second
issues agreement and grants information supporting the opposition. The
analyzed examples also suggest that it is possible to consider the overall
participation framework as a type of facework.
Chapter 5, "Teasing and Humor," turns to another discursive practice:
teasing. Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism,
the nuanced subtlety of this act raises certain questions: "Are teases
bonding experiences?" "Are teases face threatening?" To which both
layman and scholar will answer: "It depends." Teasing is a context-bound
social activity whose interpretation depends on a number of factors.
Instead of relying on contextual variables as explanatory measures, the
chapter documents how the two antagonistic forces of affiliation and
disaffiliation are intertwined in the act of teasing. It illustrates how teasing
is initiated when a claimed face is not confirmed by other group members,
and how the onset of teasing can be read as an interactional marking of a
deviation from normative acts.
Chapter 6, "Talking about Troubles," examines excerpts in which
teachers relate troubles encountered at work. Troubles talk in ordinary
conversation is generally considered a solidarity-building activity; in faculty
meetings, however, the same practice may result in a threat to the
speaker's institutional face. A recurrent theme in teachers' troubles talk is
student misbehavior. To project their face as responsible, concerned and
caring teachers, the troubles tellers relate their attempts to solve the
10
problem in question, yet the fact that they were not able to do so calls their
authority into question. By projecting a positive self-image, a speaker can
easily endanger another aspect of face. The chapter focuses on the
rhetorical practices employed by troubles tellers, paying special attention
to the ways in which they portray the troublemakers' misconduct and their
own involvement in the situation. In the course of analysis, we witness how
participants highlight and undermine certain aspects of troublesome
events, and how they display and manage various conflicting faces through
these rhetorical practices. The chapter also observes how troubles tellers
formulate others' behavior as deviant, illicit, and/or impolite. Since
deviation formulation indexes the underlying norms of appropriateness,
the inquiry lays the groundwork for a future empirical assessment of
politeness and impoliteness.
Chapter 7, "The Meeting: Facework in Description and Discourse
Organization" expands the scope of analysis from a particular action to
an entire meeting and examines the progression of facework in event
description. The analyzed meeting was called after a troublesome incident
(a physical confrontation) involving an unruly student and his homeroom
teacher. It represents, therefore, in itself a grave potential threat to the
face of the homeroom teacher. The chapter explores how the participants
co-construct versions of the incident to accomplish various face-related
actions. While reporting the course of events - traditionally considered a
face-neutral activity - the teachers build group affiliations in relation to
the incident and display alignment among group members (including the
homeroom teacher). By observing a prolonged speech event, the analysis
is able to show how facework can be constructed from a sum of distinct
building blocks dispersed over long stretches of talk and through the
organization of the entire discourse.
Chapter 8, "Conclusion," summarizes the study's main arguments and
findings and considers how they contribute to the issues concerning
facework and politeness reviewed in Chapter 2 (the distinction between
lay and theoretical conceptualizations of politeness, discernment versus
volitional politeness, sociolinguistic variables, and the notion of face). The
final section discusses the significance of this study for our understanding
of facework in interaction.
Chapter 2: Politeness, Face, and Identity
The core question of this study is this: how do interlocutors construct,

display, and manage their discursive face in Japanese institutional talk? To
gain a better understanding of the mechanics of facework in this type of
discourse, my study singles out a number of interactional practices
(collaborative disagreement, teasing, talking about troubles, and event
description) for closer inspection. In addition, it follows the sequential
unfolding of facework through the course of an entire meeting. The
conceptualization of face and the analytical framework adopted by this
study are based on the insights of several fields of linguistic study:
pragmatic studies on politeness, different approaches to discourse
analysis, works on discursive identity and speaker subjectivity, and research
on Japanese linguistic markers.
To delineate the connection between these diverse fields from the
vantage point of my study, I will first introduce several theories of
politeness and summarize the major issues discussed in previous studies of
linguistic politeness. Among the different paths leading to a synthesis of
these issues, a discursive approach to politeness seems the most promising
one.
Later in the chapter, I will examine how various approaches to discourse
analysis relate to politeness and facework, and present an overview of
recent discursive approaches to linguistic politeness, touching upon
remaining issues. The recognition that the notion of face is a link between
politeness research and various discourse studies necessitates a reexamination of the notion of face. The final task of this chapter is to
formulate profiles of face and facework suitable for their discursive
analysis, and in turn provide a foundation for the analysis performed in
the middle section of the book.
2.1 Perspectives on Politeness
Every discussion or critique of issues of politeness inevitably returns to the
theoretical framework and to the basic concepts defining the field of
politeness studies. Therefore, I would like to begin by briefly summarizing
four different perspectives on politeness, based on Eraser's (1990)
classification: the "social-norm" view (section 2.1.1), the "conversational-contract" view (section 2.1.2), the "conversational-maxim" view
(section 2.1.3), and the "face-saving" view (section 2.1.4). Besides
12
clarifying their characteristics, I will also point out current developments

in their scientific evaluation. A general understanding of these four
approaches will help us in our later discussion of issues concerning
politeness research.
2.1.1 Politeness as social norm
Viewed through the lens of social norm, linguistic politeness is a standard

verbal practice within society. Every culture has specific norms of behavior,
and behavior that conforms to these rules is considered "polite." In this
normative view, according to Fraser (1990), politeness is generally
associated with formality. In other words, the degree to which people
use linguistic resources associated with the formal register correlates with
the degree of politeness (Fraser 1990).
Fraser (1990) notes that there are few adherents to the social-norm view
in current studies of politeness. This claim is valid if we accept Fraser's
characterization that this approach equates politeness with formality or
etiquette. However, the social norms of a society generally constitute a
more complex and inclusive system containing components other than
formality. Within this broader understanding, politeness as a social norm
can include "discernment politeness," the "almost automatic observation
of socially-agreed-upon rules" (Hill et al 1986: 348), frequently discussed
in relation to Japanese culture (Hill et al. 1986, Ide 1989). The behavioral
norm presupposed by the social-norm view agrees with the notion of
discernment politeness - both are concerned with normative, appropriate
behavior in a particular social setting (e.g. the use of "Sir" in addressing a
male guest of high social status at a formal dinner). (Discernment
politeness will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2.2, which
introduces different types of politeness.)
If a social norm is understood as appropriateness in a social setting, the
social-norm view has common characteristics with Meier's (1995) definition of politeness as "socially appropriate behavior" (351) and with
Fraser's (1990) conceptualization of politeness, which will be discussed in
section 2.1.2. Since social norms are shared by ordinary people in a given
society or culture, this view is also related to "first-order politeness," the
laypersons' conceptualization of language as being polite or impolite
(discussed in section 2.2.4).
Several studies cast doubt on the autonomy of "norms" in a given
society. Okamoto (1999) demonstrates that norms concerning politeness
can be considered ideology and that they vary over time and among
individuals. Researchers who explore gender and politeness issues (e.g.
Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999, Mills 2003) claim that politeness norms
ought to be discussed with reference to the community of practice (cf.
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1999, Lave and Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998)
in which the communication is situated. The term "community of
practice" refers to a loosely defined group of people who are jointly
POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY
13
engaged in a particular task and have "a shared repertoire of negotiable

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

obligations of conversation participants (Fraser 1990, Fraser and Nolen
1981). These rights and obligations constitute a conversational contract
(CC) which, in turn, determines participant expectations in conversation.
Politeness, according to this approach, is defined as the normative act of
"operating within the then-current terms and conditions of the CC"
(Fraser 1990: 233). The conversational-contract view is the most generalized view of politeness - it equates politeness with appropriate language
use. In this respect, it is compatible with the social-norm view discussed in
the previous section: both locate politeness in the appropriate application
of linguistic resources.
The defining quality of the conversational-contract view is the premise
that conversational contracts (the situation-dependent rights and obligations of participants), and not social norms, govern participants' expectations of appropriateness. Moreover, in contrast to the static nature
generally ascribed to social norms, conversational contracts are conceived
as dynamic and interactive phenomena. They remain subject to change in
every phase of an interaction, in response to the participants' constant
assessment of varying contextual factors.
By connecting politeness to the concept of a conversational contract,
this perspective presents the most dynamic view of politeness. Since it
situates politeness in the moment-by-moment progression of talk, it is
possible to categorize the conversational-contract view as a discursive
approach to politeness. Even though Fraser and Nolen's (1981) model
does not specify methodological details for detecting components of
conversational contracts (rights and obligations in interaction) and
participant expectations in analytical practice, it nevertheless makes
valuable contributions to the development of a discursive analysis of
politeness.
Heritage and Raymond's (2005) recent treatment of rights and
obligations in agreement segments is relevant to this perspective of
politeness. The authors claim that participants' interactional rights and
obligations are closely linked to their identity and face (i.e. their positive
self-image) (see section 2.5 for a further discussion of identity and face).
They state that "participants' concerns with face can be found in the
14
management of rights and responsibilities related to knowledge and

information" (16). Through their rigorous analysis of conversational
practice, Heritage and Raymond demonstrate how participants' relative
rights to perform evaluative assessments are indexed in talk. Even though
they do not connect their research to the notion of politeness per se, their
treatment of face in interactional practices can be seen as a link between
Eraser's view of politeness and the conceptualization of face in this study.
2.1.3 Politeness as conversational maxim
The conversational-maxim view is related to Grice's (1975) cooperative

principle (CP), which states that participants in conversations try to cooperate in order to ensure the most efficient transmission of information.
He identifies four basic conversational maxims that constitute the CP:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
maxim of quantity (to make one's contribution as informative as

necessary)
maxim of quality (to make a truthful contribution)
maxim of relevance (to make a relevant contribution)
maxim of manner (to make a clear contribution)
Any mutually recognized deviation from the CP and its maxims gives rise
to conversational implicature. The fact that they indicate what is inferred
in conversation makes both the CP and the maxims immensely useful in
the pragmatic analysis of verbal interactions.
Politeness as a conversational maxim can be viewed as an expansion of
the cooperative principle, in which Grice's maxims are supplemented by
other pragmatic rules or principles. In other words, the conversationalmaxim view of politeness formulates principles concerning the interpersonal aspects of talk to supplement the cooperative principle.
Lakoff (1973) was the first to account for politeness within this
framework. Eraser (1990) summarizes LakofFs view of politeness as "a
device used in order to reduce friction in personal interaction" (223). In
LakofFs (1973) model, the interpersonal rule "be polite" supplements the
co-operative principle, which she rephrases as the rule "be clear." The
rule "be polite" consists of three sub-rules: (1) do not impose, (2) give
options, and (3) make the addressee feel good. These sub-rules correspond, respectively, to three types of politeness: (1) formal/impersonal
politeness leads to the rule "do not impose," (2) informal politeness leads
to the rule "give options," and (3) intimate politeness leads to the rule
"make the addressee feel good."
Lakoff (1979) later modified this model, distinguishing four stylistic
strategies: clarity (adhering to the CP), distance (adhering to sub-rule [1]
above), deference (adhering to sub-rule [2]), and camaraderie (adhering
to sub-rule [3]). A speaker chooses one of these strategies according to his
or her speech style and assessment of the situation. This choice, Lakoff
15
posits, occurs on a continuum of social distance: clarity is associated with

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

generosity maxim (minimize benefit to speaker, maximize cost to
speaker)
approbation maxim (minimize dispraise of hearer, maximize
praise to hearer)
modesty maxim (minimize praise to speaker, maximize dispraise
of speaker)
agreement maxim (minimize disagreement between speaker and
hearer, maximize agreement between self and other)
sympathy maxim (minimize antipathy between speaker and
hearer, maximize sympathy between speaker and hearer)
Leech (1983) suggests that a number of scales are involved in determining

the type and degree of politeness: cost-benefit, optionality, indirectness,
authority, and social distance. The complex interrelation between maxims
and scales creates the nuances in politeness style and level.
A further structural feature in Leech's (1983) work is the distinction
between relative and absolute politeness. The former denotes politeness
within a particular setting or culture; the latter refers to politeness
inextricably linked to specific speaker actions. The idea of absolute
politeness implies that speech acts are intrinsically polite or impolite based
on their illocutionary force. Leech stresses the importance of absolute
politeness, stating that "general pragmatics may reasonably confine its
attention to politeness in the absolute sense" (84).
The author names four main illocutionary functions - competitive,
convivial, collaborative, and conflictive - and associates them with types of
politeness. For instance, competitive illocution (e.g. ordering), which is
16
inherently impolite, requires mitigation. On the other hand, convivial

illocution (e.g. thanking), which is inherently polite, calls for politeness to
enhance the positive impact.
The conversational-maxim view of politeness offers a parsimonious (i.e.
LakofFs) and a comprehensive (i.e. Leech's) model of politeness, and
provides rules, strategies, maxims and scales as the basic building blocks of
politeness. For the researcher, these elements constitute an important set
of considerations for tracing the occurrence of politeness.
2.1.4 Politeness as a face-saving device
Among the approaches to politeness, Brown and Levinson's (1987) has

been the most influential paradigm to date. Like the concepts formulated
by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), it is based on the maxims of Grice's
cooperative principle (CP), yet it does not supplement Grice's maxims
with a new set of maxims, nor does it present an overarching notion that
includes the CP (cf. Eraser's conversational contract). Instead, Brown and
Levinson's model views politeness as a reason for deviations from Grice's
maxims. One essential assumption is that rational conversation contains
"no deviation from rational efficiency without a reason" (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 5), and considerations of politeness in ordinary conversation provide a reason for deviation.
Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory is also unique because it links the
CP with the notion of face, as used in social studies. Adapting Goffman's
(1967) conceptualization, the authors define "face" as "the public selfimage that every member wants to claim for himself (61). Brown and
Levinson (1987) distinguish between two types of face, positive face and
negative face. Negative face is defined as "the basic claim to territories,
personal preserves, rights to non-destruction - i.e. to freedom of action
and freedom from imposition" (61). Positive face is defined as "the
positive consistent self-image or "personality' (crucially including the
desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants" (61). Brown and Levinson consider these two types of face to
be the "wants" of every competent adult member of society. In other
words, every speaker wants his or her action to "be unimpeded by others
(negative face wants)," and every speaker wants his or her action to "be
desirable to others (positive face wants)" (68).
For Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is the manifestation of
respect for the interlocutor's face. Participants in interpersonal communication want to maintain each other's face, and they want to defend it
when threatened. The underlying assumption is that face is vulnerable.
Most speech acts can be regarded as being inherently face-threatening,
either to the speaker, the hearer, or both. Consequently, these facethreatening acts (FTAs) require softening devices that alleviate the threat
with appropriate doses of politeness (Rasper 1994). In order to meet this
requirement, speakers employ "politeness strategies," conveying their
17
Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4) (Adapted from Brown and

Levinson 1987: 69)
intention to be polite while performing FTAs. Brown and Levinson's
taxonomy of politeness strategies is summarized in Figure 2.1; it contains
their super-strategies of politeness (items 1-4 in the figure).
Committing an FTA on record without redressive action parallels
Grice's maxims. It is the most efficient, clearest way of performing an act.
When performing an FTA on record with redressive action, positive or
negative politeness strategies are utilized. The former include expressions
of solidarity, the latter primarily expressions of restraint. Off-record
politeness, the avoidance of explicit imposition, is the most indirect type
of politeness strategy, requiring a greater amount of inference.
The authors claim that the superstrategies are hierarchically organized.
Speakers can choose from among them, depending on the seriousness of
the face threat posed by a specific FTA. The most serious offense requires
an off-record strategy, the least serious a bald-on-record strategy. The
seriousness or "weightiness" of an FTA is measured by assessing
contextual factors. The relevant formula is:
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
where Wx represents the "weightiness" of FTAx, which estimates the risk
of face loss. Wx, in turn, determines the degree of politeness the speaker
needs to attend to in performing x. The three variables that determine the
degree of weightiness (W) are: D(S,H), the social distance between the
speaker and the hearer; P(H,S), the relative power of the speaker with
respect to the hearer; and Rx, the absolute ranking of imposition of an act
x in the particular culture in which x is performed. Brown and Levinson's
D, P and R factors are comparable to Leech's social distance, authority and
cost-benefit scales, respectively, which determine the type and degree of
politeness.
2.2 Issues of Politeness
Scholars generally regard Brown and Levinson's (1987) approach as the
most comprehensive, in part because their notion of face provides a social
18
and psychological explanation for the phenomenon of politeness. The

extensive use of cross-cultural data lends further credibility to their theory.
These strengths notwithstanding, Brown and Levinson's theories have
created much controversy. Their claim that politeness is universal is
debatable since the notion of face on which it is based may be culturespecific; the notion of politeness itself needs to be clarified; and the
formula of sociolinguistic variables has been criticized as well. All these
issues will be discussed in this section. In addition, I will review another
fundamental issue debated in various current theories of politeness,
namely the distinction and relationship between politenessl (i.e. firstorder politeness, or the layperson's concept of politeness) and politeness2
(i.e. second-order politeness, or politeness as a theoretical construct). In
the following pages, I will introduce these issues separately, but the reader
should bear in mind that they are closely connected and that their
description requires numerous cross-references.
2.2.1 The notion of face
The notion of face, which forms the basis of Brown and Levinson's (1987)
politeness theory, has generated scholarly debates on two interrelated
issues. The first is the claimed universality of the notion of face; the second
is the distinction between positive and negative face.
Before addressing these two issues, however, I would like to add a few
remarks on the origin of the terms "positive face" and "negative face,"
since the way in which Brown and Levinson (1987) incorporated these
notions into their theory is relevant to the discussion at hand (see Figure
2.2). The positive/negative distinction originates in Durkheim's (1995)
description of basic religious cults. The term "face" derives from an
English folk term (which is in turn based on the translation of a Chinese
expression), as well as from GofFman's (1967) notion of face.
2.2.1.1 The origin of "face"
Brown and Levinson (1987) introduced the notion of face as a universal

human need to explain why certain expressions are considered polite. It
has become a focal point in the debate about the universality of politeness.
According to the authors, two sources for their notion of face are the
English folk term "face," as well as Goffman's (1967) extended notion.
Brown and Levinson (1987) note that the English folk term "face" is
taken from the metaphorical expression "to lose face" (to be embarrassed
or humiliated). The origin of this expression can, in fact, be traced back
further. Translated from the Chinese phrase tin lien, it was "originally used
by the English community in China, with reference to the continual
devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace"
(Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn, XIV: 526). That the notion of face
should originate in a Chinese expression is not without irony since, as we
19
Figure 2.2 The origin of the terms positive and negative face
will see later, researchers from East Asian countries often argue against
Brown and Levinson's claim that the notion of face is universal.
Goffman (1967) adopts the term "face" for his theory of interpersonal
communication. He defines face as "the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during
a particular contact" (5). Elaborating on these thoughts, Brown and
Levinson (1987) state that face is "something that is emotionally invested,
and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly
attended to in interaction" (61). By integrating Goffman's (1967)
terminology, the study of politeness became linked to other fields, such
as self-presentation in social interaction and managing interpersonal
relationships.
Fraser (1990) questions whether Brown and Levinson's conceptualization maintains Goffman's original notion of face. O'Driscoll (1996) argues
in a similar vein: while Goffman's notion of face refers to self-image,
Brown and Levinson's can be perceived both as self-image and as the
desire for a positive self-image. Furthermore, researchers doubt whether it
is possible to expand Goffman's notion to such a degree that it
accommodates Brown and Levinson's conception of negative face
(O'Driscoll 1996, Watts et al 1992). (For a more thorough comparison
of the notion of face as conceived by Goffman (1967) and Brown and
Levinson (1987), see sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.) An informed appreciation
of the positive/negative distinction is therefore essential to an understanding of the various notions of face.
2.2.1.2 The origin of the positive/negative distinction
The dual concept of negative and positive face has its source in
Durkheim's (1995) distinction between negative and positive cults.
20
These cults are a system of ritual practices, performed to maintain a

balanced relationship between sacred and profane beings. Negative cults
are rites of prohibition to "prevent undue mixings" between the sacred
and profane; positive cults are rites of approach to exalt and propitiate the
sacred.
This division can be extended to interactional rituals in everyday life.
Durkheim (1995) regarded religious forces as "transfigured collective
forces" (327). By studying one archaic religion, he hoped to "reveal a
fundamental and permanent aspect of humanity" (1). Durkheinrs
thinking exerted considerable influence on sociological theory. For
example, Goffman (1967) asserts that individuals are endowed with
sacredness and that interactional rituals are remnants of earlier public
rituals.
Brown and Levinson (1987) take the argument one step further. They
regard interactional rituals as an "omnipresent model for rituals of all
kinds" (44). In this interpretation, both negative and positive face
concern the sacredness of the individual: negative face is attended to by
negative rites of avoidance, positive face by positive rites of approach.
2.2.1.3 Universal vs culture-specific face
Brown and Levinson's (1987) notion of positive and negative face is,
therefore, a combination of two theses concerning fundamental human
traits: Durkheim's (1995) distinction between positive and negative rites
and Goffman's (1967) notion of face. It is not without internal logic, then,
that Brown and Levinson (1987) claim the universality of their notion of
face, as follows:
[W]hile the content of face will differ in different cultures (what the
exact limits are to personal territories, and what the publicly relevant
content of personality consists in), we are assuming that the mutual
knowledge of members' public self-image or face, and the social
necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal. (61-62)
Other researchers (e.g. Tracy 1990, Wood and Kroger 1991) also support
the universality of the notion of face, drawing on its origins as addressed
by Durkheim and Goffman.
Criticism of the universality claim is often registered by non-Western
researchers (e.g. Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1988, 1989, Nwoye 1992, Pan
1995). They argue that the concept of self and its relation to society vanacross cultures, and that the multiplicity of concepts of self in turn gives
rise to culturally mediated interpretations of face. As a result, these
authors claim cultural specificity for either the concept of face itself or for
the elevated status of negative face in Brown and Levinson's (1987)
paradigm.
The notion of face, these scholars contend, receives a different
21
interpretation in group-oriented cultures. For instance, the Japanese

configuration of self is claimed to be distinct from the American (Ide
1977, cited in Kubota 1990). The boundary between self and in-group
(e.g. family and intimate friends) is more clearly drawn in America, while
the Japanese make a clearer distinction between the in-group and the
outside world. A thin boundary between self and in-group creates
interdependence among insiders (Doi 1971). The collective orientation
of Japanese culture is manifested in its emphasis on empathy, belongingness, and dependency (Clancy 1986, Lebra 1976).
Markus and Kitayama (1991) distinguish between independent and
interdependent selves. They associate the independent self with Western
cultures, which emphasize the separateness of individuals. Conversely, the
interdependent self, associated with non-Western cultures, emphasizes the
connectedness of members of society.
Similar observations can be made in other cultures. Sifianou (1992,
1993) studies in-group and out-group orientation in Greek society, and
argues that it encourages involvement and in-group relationships based on
mutual interdependence. Nwoye (1992) characterizes the Igbo society as
similarly group-oriented: the Igbo conceive of the relationship between
self and others as "I and others" - and not as the "I versus others" relation
prevalent in Western society.
In cultures with a different social orientation, the notion of face and its
role in the politeness system can vary considerably from practices
customary in the West. In Japan, research shows, politeness is not driven
by concerns regarding the maintenance of face, but by concerns regarding
the maintenance of the place or position relative to others (Ide 1989,
Matsumoto 1988). Consequently, the highly individualistic face proposed
by Brown and Levinson (1987), indicative of Western society, cannot,
according to Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1988), serve as the underlying
motivational impulse for politeness in Japanese society.
A similar situation prevails in Chinese society, where, researchers
maintain, the primary consideration in polite behavior is "relation
acknowledgment" (Pan 1995). Mao (1994) assigns a distinct notion of
face to Chinese culture, which cannot be fully subsumed by Brown and
Levinson's precept, and postulates two interactional ideals: "ideal social
identity" and "ideal individual autonomy," operative in Asian and
Western societies, respectively. He coins the term "relative face orientation," conveying the idea that in China and Japan face is oriented towards
"ideal social identity," whereas Brown and Levinson's notion of face is
oriented towards "ideal individual autonomy." Nwoye (1992) establishes a
similar dichotomy, contrasting "public/group face" (the notion of face in
Igbo culture) and "private/individual face" (the notion efface in Western
societies).
Critics of the universality of face have also raised questions regarding
the status of negative face within the politeness system. As mentioned, in
22
group-oriented societies the boundaries of personal territory are less well

defined than in Western societies. The fact that their collective nature
tends to devalue negative face wants casts doubt on Brown and Levinson's
(1987) assertion that both positive and negative face wants exist in all
cultures. Some researchers dispute that negative face wants can account
for polite behavior in Japanese culture, citing its collective rather than
individualistic orientation (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1989, Matsumoto 1988,
1989).
The Chinese notion of face has spurred a similar debate. Researchers
believe that neither of the two prevalent concepts, lian and mien-tzu,
studied first by Hu (1944), is associated with negative face (Gu 1990). Even
in European cultures, Sifianou (1992, 1993, 1995) argues, positive rather
than negative face wants are more significant, as for example in Greek
culture. Wierzbicka (1985) presents a similar case for Polish interaction.
She raises objections to Western values of individualism manifested in
politeness and other pragmatic theories in general, and cautions that
these values are not necessarily shared by other cultures.
In essence, the critique leveled against the universality claim rests on the
perception that Brown and Levinson's (1987) notion of face, especially
negative face, is individualistic in nature, and therefore cannot be readily
applied to non-Western societies with a collective orientation. In defense
of the universality of face, however, O'Driscoll (1996) notes that "a link
between the concept of face itself and individualism has been forged" (7).
He contends that even though Brown and Levinson (1987) envisioned
face as the attribute of an individual, their notion does not necessarily
imply a linkage between the concept of face and the cultural value of
individualism.
Several scholars have tried to synthesize the controversial arguments
surrounding the universality of face. Brown and Levinson (1987) address
cultural variability by asserting that positive and negative face are assigned
specific values of content and weight in each culture. Fukada and Asato
(2004) make the case that Brown and Levinson's universal theory of
politeness is adequate to account for Japanese politeness, when the
vertical and hierarchical structure of that country's society is taken into
consideration. Watts et aL (1992) introduce the distinction between firstand second-order politeness - the everyday notion of what constitutes
polite and impolite behavior (first-order), and politeness as a theoretical
construct (second-order). According to the authors, most of the
approaches pursuing universals in politeness necessarily involve secondorder notions of politeness. On the other hand, studies of politeness in
particular cultural frameworks tend to involve first-order notions of
politeness. The universal principles and the cultural relativity of politeness
can be studied simultaneously, they conclude, as long as the two distinct
levels of analysis are not confused. (See section 2.2.4 for a further
discussion of these concepts.)
23
In a similar vein, O'Driscoll (1996) contrasts "foreground-conscious"

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

with the analysis of speech acts performed in individual utterances, cooccurring politeness strategies in connected discourse have not been the
focus of Brown and Levinson's (1987) work. Their study had the general
purpose of covering the potential range of strategies constituting the
enactment of politeness, and did not include a more thorough investigation into the question of how multiple strategies co-occur and interact
with each other. Yet there is a section where Brown and Levinson (1987)
turn to the use of multiple politeness markings ("mixture of strategies" in
their terms) (230-232). In the following paragraphs, I will review this
section and pose several questions.
Brown and Levinson's (1987) description of how multiple strategies are
24
integrated in talk, provides evidence that the authors viewed negative and
positive politeness as distinct and more or less opposing directionalities on
a linear scale. They list two ways of incorporating co-occurring strategies:
(1) a speaker can create a "hybrid" strategy, located "somewhere between
the two [i.e. the negative and positive strategies]" (230), and (2) a speaker
can make a moment-by-moment "minute adjustment," which moves
speaker and addressee "back and forth between approaching and
distancing in their interaction" (231 ).*
Brown and Levinson's (1987) argument is intuitively appealing since
interactants constantly negotiate their relationship with each other.
Okamoto (1999) presents data on honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversation, which empirically support this account.
Okamoto demonstrates how speakers attempt to express "the right degree
of formality/deference" (64) by "mixing" honorific and non-honorific
expressions. In other words, speakers utilize both honorific and nonhonorific expressions in addressing the same interlocutor within a single
speech event in order to create a desired interpersonal relationship.
Nevertheless, Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization invites
questions concerning the contrastive relationship between negative and
positive strategies. The authors' proposition that these strategies function
as approaching and distancing devices appears to situate them on a social
distance scale, depicted as (A) in Figure 2.3. However, the conflation of
negative and positive strategies with the dimension of distance puts special
emphasis on the corresponding parameter D(S,H) in Brown and
Levinson's formula of social variables affecting politeness: Wx = D(S,H)
+ P(H,S) + Rx. The other two parameters - power (P) and the absolute
value of imposition (R) - remain unexplained.2
A discourse perspective reveals other concerns as well. Brown and
Levinson's (1987) concept of strategy mixture applies only to the multiple
politeness markings of a single speaker. It would be worth exploring
whether employed strategies interact with one another across speakers. It
also remains to be seen if minute adjustment and hybridization suffice to
flexibly depict a phenomenon as complex as the moment-by-moment
process of facework in a stretch of discourse.
Valuable contributions to these issues have come from the field of
discourse analysis (Scollon and Scollon 1981, 1983, 1995, Tannen 1984,
Figure 2.3 Illustration of Brown and Levinson's (1987) negative and

positive strategies on social distance/politeness scales
25
1994) (see section 2.3.4 later in this chapter). Through the analysis of
discourse data, researchers were able to show that independence and
solidarity politeness (Scollon and Scollon 1995) or distancing and
solidarity functions of indirectness (Tannen 1984) are seemingly opposing
but actually interrelated notions, standing in a paradoxical relationship both entail and limit each other simultaneously. One could conclude that
every communication is a double bind, since both independence and
solidarity are present at all times.
Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization of face and later
alternative theories are oriented towards a parsimonious model of
interactional aspects of human behavior. This orientation, however, may
obscure our vision of subtle interactional activities related to interactants'
"positive self-image." In other words, if we free ourselves from the
overarching dual concepts of face (e.g. positive vs negative, solidarity vs
independence), and if we put aside our desire to arrive at a categorical
and parsimonious understanding of interpersonal behavior, we open
ourselves to the possibility that something else - more ambiguous and
chaotic, yet perhaps also richer in nuance - may come into view in the
exploration of facework (see section 2.5 later in this chapter for an
elaboration of this point).
2.2.2 Strategic and social index politeness
Our next topic is the distinction between politeness as a strategic device
and as a social index. Brown and Levinson (1987) consider politeness a
strategic device that interlocutors employ to attend to negative and
positive face wants. According to Rasper (1990), they see politeness as a
redressive action employed to "counterbalance the disruptive effect of
face-threatening acts" (194). Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) present a
similar conceptualization of politeness as a strategy of conflict or friction
avoidance.
However, questions were raised concerning the cross-cultural applicability of this view of politeness as a strategic device. In certain societies, as
some scholars have pointed out, politeness operates "independently of
the current goal a speaker intends to achieve" (Ide 1989: 196) and can
therefore not be characterized as a strategic device. Researchers adhering
to this school of thought distinguish between two kinds of politeness:
strategic or volitional politeness, and discernment or social index
politeness (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1982, 1989, Ide et al 1986, Rasper 1990).
Strategic or volitional politeness is also considered politeness as strategic
conflict avoidance, whereas discernment or social indexing politeness is
"the linguistic expression of 'social warrants'" (Ide 1989: 196), which
marks the speaker's recognition of expected norms.
The concept of "discernment" is synonymous with the most basic
meaning of the Japanese word wakimae, "conforming to the expected
norm," which refers to an "almost automatic observation of socially-
26
agreed-upon rules" (Hill et al 1986: 348). After assessing role relations

and situational factors, the choice of the appropriate linguistic form is
almost obligatory and automatic. Discernment is perceived as independent of the speaker's current goal in interaction.
A type of politeness similar to discernment has been observed in
Chinese (Gu 1990, Mao 1994, Pan 1995) and in Igbo culture (Nwoye
1992), where "discerning what is appropriate and acting accordingly is
much more important than acting according to strategies designed to
accomplish specific objectives" (Nwoye 1992: 311). Nwoye distinguishes
between politeness addressed to "group face" and that addressed to
"individual face." Likewise, Gu (1990) distinguishes between "normative"
and "instrumental" politeness. These dichotomies resemble the conceptual division between strategic and social index politeness.
The key criteria in differentiating between these two kinds of linguistic
politeness - strategic (volitional) politeness on the one hand, and
discernment (social index) politeness on the other - are the speaker's
intention and the degree of freedom in his or her choice of linguistic
expressions (O'Driscoll 1996). As for the first, strategic politeness is
generally used intentionally, and discernment unintentionally. This
distinction is not always easy to make, however, since intentionality is
elusive and difficult to detect in analysis. As O'Driscoll maintains, all
utterances can be said to have purpose (and are therefore intentional),
and even consciously goal-oriented utterances are constrained by social
norms.
Brown and Levinson (1987) apparently attempted to incorporate both
the intentional and unintentional enactment of politeness into the term
"strategy." The authors state that this term should cover both "innovative
plans of action, which may still be (but need not be) unconscious," and
routines or ready-made plans whose application is automatic (85). In
other words, their definition of "strategy" includes both intentional and
unconscious politeness.
Regarding the second criterion, the optionality, or the degree of
freedom of linguistic choice, Hill et ai (1986) claim that volitional
politeness offers the speaker a "considerably more active choice [to select]
from a relatively wider range of possibilities" (348), whereas in the case of
discernment, the choice is mostly obligatory. However, the strictness of
social obligation in conforming to an expected norm can vary not only
from culture to culture, but also within the same culture from expression
to expression and from situation to situation. For instance, both the
conventionality of an expression and how politeness is marked in a
particular language are factors that determine whether a politeness
enactment is considered a social index. Within the same culture, one
situation may allow more linguistic latitude than others. This situational
variation may obscure the distinction between the two types of politeness
solely on the basis of obligation.
27
Given that it is difficult to draw a clear dividing line, strategic politeness

and discernment should be viewed as interrelated and complementary
aspects of politeness, rather than distinct, mutually exclusive types of
politeness (O'Driscoll 1996, Van De Walle 1993). Rasper (1990) proposes
that future studies investigate "the exploitation of social markers in
expressing strategic politeness" (197), admitting the possibility that socialindex politeness can be used strategically. In order to explore this
possibility, it is important to examine variations in the enactment of socialindex politeness in naturalistic discourse data.
Volitional (strategic) politeness and discernment have been observed in
both Japan and the West, but studies suggest that politeness in Western
societies is skewed towards strategic politeness, while politeness in Japan is
predominantly discernment (Hill et al 1986, Ide 1982, Ide et al 1986).
Although these observations may be the valid result of cross-linguistic
comparisons, they may have partially contributed to the view that Japanese
politeness is rigid and mandatory. Research establishing the central role of
discernment in Japanese politeness is often based on data consisting of a
single speech act assessed by a written questionnaire, correlating the
subjects' judgment of situational factors with linguistic choice (Hill et al.
1986, Ide etaL 1986).
Recent studies on Japanese honorifics, based on discourse-level conversational data, demonstrate flexible and diverse enactments of politeness
(Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1998, Maynard 1993, Okamoto 1999). The considerable variety of honorifics observed in these studies provides an
alternative view of Japanese politeness. The diversity of Japanese politeness
enactments, including honorifics, within larger stretches of discourse
requires further study.
2.2.3 Sociolinguistic variables and politeness
Inquiries into linguistic politeness face another critical issue: the identification of sociolinguistic variables affecting the use of politeness
strategies. Brown and Levinson's (1987) original theory includes the
formula of "weightiness of FTAs," which is measured as the sum of three
variables: power, social distance, and an FTA's inherent degree of
imposition. Prior to Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, Brown and
Gilman (1960) attempted to account for pronoun usage in terms of two
variables: power and solidarity. Among the "scales" that Leech (1983)
introduces in his politeness theory, the social distance, authority, and costbenefit scales function in a similar way to Brown and Levinson's variables
of distance, power, and degree of imposition, in determining the degree
and type of politeness.
Researchers continue to discuss these and other social and psychological variables affecting the enactment of politeness. A number of
speech act studies focusing on first and second language performance
have examined the effect of power and distance on politeness. They report
28
cross-cultural differences in the performance and perception of politeness

in various speech acts, such as disagreements (Beebe and Takahashi
1989), refusals (Beebe el al 1990), requests (Blum-Kulka 1982, 1983,
Blum-Kulka and House 1989, Ervin-Tripp 1976, Fraser et ai 1980), and
apologies (Fraser 1981, Olshtain 1989).
Wolfson (1988,1989) studied the influence of social distance and power
on the amount of elaboration in talk, which may be a result of politeness
concerns. Based on comparisons between intimate and non-intimate
interlocutor groups, she developed her "bulge theory." It states that the
power and distance between interlocutors affect the amount of elaboration in talk, and that the amount of linguistic elaboration forms a bulgeshaped curve along the scale of social distance. According to the author,
speakers engage in more elaborated talk with status equals, friends, coworkers and acquaintances, than they do with intimates, status unequals or
strangers. In the first case speakers are continually negotiating their
relationship with their counterparts, while in the second case they have
less need to negotiate relationships that are either secure or non-existent.
Even though Wolfson did not relate her theory directly to politeness, the
linguistic elements involved in elaboration seem to support such a link.
A number of researchers took issue with Brown and Levinson's set of
three sociolinguistic variables and added supplementary factors affecting
politeness behavior to the list. Brown and Gilman (1989), in their study of
politeness strategies in Shakespeare's tragedies, claim that degree of
imposition and power, rather than social distance, affect the enactment of
politeness. They argue that social distance must be distinguished from
affect, and they demonstrate that the latter has an impact on politeness
behavior.
In addition to social distance among interlocutors, the metaphorical
distance between interlocutors and conveyed information may also
influence linguistic behavior (Kamio 1979, 1990). According to Kamio,
information presented in conversation can be judged as belonging to the
speaker, the addressee, or both. The judgment depends on the
metaphorical distance between interlocutors and information; the person
who is better acquainted with the information at the time of conversation
is regarded as "nearer" to it. The content of an utterance can be shared by
speaker and hearer (as their common territory of information), held only
by the hearer (as the hearer's territory of information), or held only by the
speaker (as the speaker's territory of information). Kamio (1979, 1990)
reports that Japanese speakers vary their use of sentence-final forms,
depending on their perception of information territory. For instance,
when two people meet on a hot day, they are obviously both aware of the
weather condition. In this situation, a speaker can remark atsui desu ne "it
is hot, isn't it?", adding the final particle ne, but it would sound
inappropriate to say atsui desu "it is hot" without the particle. Even though
Kamio, too, does not refer directly to politeness in his study, his notion of
29
information territory is related to a type of face described by Heritage and

Raymond (2005), namely the speaker's claim of epistemic authority (see
Chapter 4 for a further discussion of this point).
Other factors affecting politeness behavior include topic and goal of
interaction (Blum-Kulka et ai 1985), age (Blum-Kulka et al 1985), type of
speech event (Blum-Kulka 1990), type of offense (Holmes 1989), and
gender (Brouwer 1982, Holmes 1986, 1988, 1989, Kemper 1984, Zimin
1981). The studies on interlocutors' gender reached opposing results.
Some show that gender difference has a negligible effect (Kemper 1984,
Zimin 1981), while others suggest that a speaker's gender does play a role
(Holmes 1986, 1988, 1989). In a number of these studies, considerable
cross-cultural differences have also been observed.
Kasper (1990) categorizes sociolinguistic variables by differentiating
context-external variables, such as the social factors of power and distance,
and context-internal variables inherent in specific speech acts, such as the
rank of imposition (R) of the act as formulated by Brown and Levinson
(1987). A number of speech act studies have presented various R-factor
components for specific speech acts (e.g. Blum-Kulka and House 1989,
Holmes 1989, Olshtain 1989). These components are frequently associated with the rights and obligations of interlocutors; their weightiness
shows cross-cultural variation.
Several studies on sociolinguistic variables have demonstrated how
difficult it is to determine which variables affect politeness at any given
point of an interaction. Kasper (1990) encapsulates this dilemma in her
remark that "what exactly the mechanics are of this delicate interplay of
social, psychological and communicative processes remains a major issue
for pragmaticists to address" (205). One factor contributing to this
problem may be the correlational treatment of social variables and
sentence-level speech enactments employed by many studies. Changing
phenomena, in particular the processes of communication, are difficult to
capture with a quantitative analytical framework. The practice of displaying and managing facework and politeness involves variable parameters
and is best assessed by analyzing the phenomenon qualitatively within a
longer unit of talk. Moreover, correlational studies cannot account for the
varied use of politeness markers within a stretch of discourse, as reported
by Cook (1996a, 1996b), Maynard (1993), and Okamoto (1999). Kasper
(1990) poses the poignant question: how can a researcher know which
contextual feature, from an infinite number of possible features, affects
linguistic practice at any given point in talk?
This question leads to another, more fundamental one, which concerns
the notion of context itself, and the relationship between discourse and
context. The studies on social variables cited above are based on the
underlying assumption that there is a set of pre-existing contextual
features enfolding and affecting discourse. Yet there are other approaches
to discourse available (e.g. conversation analysis), which consider context
30
as "both a project and a product of the participants' actions" (Heritage

2004: 224). Discussing the use of conversation analysis in research on
institutional discourse, Heritage states:
The assumption is that it is fundamentally through interaction that
context is built, invoked, and managed, and that it is through
interaction that institutional imperatives originating from outside the
interaction are evidenced and made real and enforceable for the
participants. (224)
If we transfer this line of thought to politeness and facework, it may be
premature to consider the relationship between social variables (context)
and politeness enactment as unidirectional (i.e. social variables affect
politeness). Rather, a discursive treatment of politeness and facework may
have to consider not only the context-dependent nature of discourse but
also the contextual elements occasioned in discourse. If a researcher
decides to select certain relevant aspects of contextual information (e.g.
speaker A's higher social status relative to speaker B's) and unquestioningly interprets a stretch of discourse according to this information (e.g. B
recognizes A's higher status and shows deference), the analysis ends up
reproducing common-sense knowledge without providing original
insights. If, on the other hand, we focus on participants' discursive
practices and start from contextual features occasioned in discourse, we
may sidestep the cycle of commonsensical reproduction (see Chapter 3 for
a discussion of the treatment of context in this study).
2.2.4 First- and second-order politeness (poKtenessl and politeness2)
As pointed out in section 2.2.1.3, reviewing the debate on the universality
of politeness, Watts et al (1992) introduced the dual concept of first- and
second-order politeness, termed by Eelen (2001) as politenessl and
politeness2, respectively. Politenessl refers to the common-sense, lay
notion of politeness, the everyday understanding of what constitutes polite
and impolite behavior, while politeness2 refers to politeness as a
theoretical and scientific construct Watts et aL (1992) maintain that the
simultaneous examination of universal principles (which are primarily the
subject of politeness2) and cultural relativity (requiring references to
politenessl in particular cultural frameworks) can be accomplished in
politeness research, as long as the two levels of analysis are not confused.
Although insightful, the introduction of two different levels of politeness poses practical difficulties. Since researchers observe the same
linguistic behavior regardless of whether their study focuses on first- or
second-order politeness, it is often not easy to draw a clear distinction
between the two levels. As Eelen (2001) remarks, "our scientific efforts
should be aimed primarily at understanding the (social and linguistic)
world we live in, so it is to this real world that our attention should be
31
directed" (252). Furthermore, researchers continually create their own

levels of abstraction that may or may not correspond to the notion of
second-order politeness of Watts et al (1992). As a result, Eelen (1999)
comments that the relationship between first- and second-order politeness
is "a bit unclear to say the least" (167).
Eelen (2001) gives a detailed description of politeness 1 and politeness2.
Many existing politeness theories, he maintains, fail to recognize the
distinction between these two concepts, which mirrors the emic/etic
distinction established by Pike (1967). The emic perspective is relevant to
insiders, while the etic description refers to outsider accounts of participant behavior. A methodology that does not establish a clear boundary
between hearer and researcher, according to Eelen (2001), can result in
the contamination of one notion by the other: the researcher imitates the
hearer's evaluative behavior while claiming to capture the behavior in
scientific terms. In Eelen's (2001) judgment, this contamination leads to
"the essentially normative nature of most theories, and their simultaneous
denial of any such prescriptive intent" (242). He explains:
They [i.e. most politeness theories] are normative in that they confound
their own position with that of the everyday hearer who is engaged in
normative evaluations, and they deny prescriptivism because they are
not aware of this confusion between the etic and emic viewpoints. (242)
Eelen (2001) concludes that a theory of politeness should first and
foremost be concerned with the evaluation of politenessl (i.e. the
evaluation of the everyday phenomenon of politeness). His conceptualization of politenessl comprises three distinct phenomena: actors' expressive
behavior or politeness encoded in speech, actors' evaluations about other
people's interactional behavior, and actors' metapragmatic discourse
about politeness.
While most of the politeness theories reviewed earlier in this chapter
(i.e. Brown and Levinson 1987, Fraser 1990, Lakoff 1973, Leech 1983)
concern themselves primarily with politeness2, there are researchers who
study what Eelen (2001) calls "metapragmatic" politenessl with reference
to a particular period of time or a particular cultural framework. BlumKulka (1990, 1992) introduces the results of ethnographic interviews in
which Israeli families were probed for their notions of politeness within
their family life and within Israeli culture. Experimental research
conducted by Ide et al (1992) assesses the extent to which adjectives
such as "polite," "friendly," or "appropriate" (and their Japanese
equivalents) correlate in a questionnaire completed by Japanese and
American speakers. They found that "politeness" correlates with "friendliness" in the American data, but that no such relationship exists in the
Japanese data. Haugh (2004) compares the notion of politeness in English
with its Japanese equivalents, teinei, reigi tadashii, and keii hyogen. He asserts
32
that these terms encompass slightly different conceptual ranges, which

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

Given the premise stated above, this section provides an overview of how
politeness relates to different approaches to discourse. First, it describes
the connection between speech-act-related studies and politeness. Second,
it introduces the study of arguments and verbal disputes. Finally, it
presents several research traditions for analyzing verbal interactions conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics - and discusses how the key concepts of these approaches can
relate to linguistic politeness.
2.3.1 Politeness and speech act studies
The strong tie between politeness and speech act studies derives from the
fact that the core concept of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness
theory, the face-threatening act (FTA), has its roots in speech act theory.3
Even though speech act studies generally rely on sentence-level analysis,
they do provide an analytical tool applicable to discourse-level analysis.
33
Recent studies have incorporated discourse-level performance into the

analysis of speech actions.
Extensive studies based on cross-cultural data of diverse speech acts have
provided a deeper understanding of politeness strategies. In speech act
studies, the notion of politeness is usually conceptualized as the mitigation
of a hearer-costly act For example, the Cross-Cultural Speech Act
Realization Project (CCSARP), an early comprehensive study of speech
acts, investigated requests and apologies in British, American and
Australian English, Canadian French, Danish, German, and Hebrew
(Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984, Blum-Kulka et al 1989). Studies exist on
FTAs such as apologies (Bergman and Rasper 1993, Cohen and Olshtain
1981, Coulmas 1981, Holmes 1989, Olshtain 1983, 1989, Olshtain and
Cohen 1983, Owen 1983), refusals (Beebe and Cummings 1996, Beebe et
al 1990), requests (Blum-Kulka 1987, 1989, Blum-Kulka and House 1989,
Blum-Kulka et al 1985, Weizman 1989, 1993), disagreements (Beebe and
Takahashi 1989, D'Amico-Reisner 1983, Kakava 1993), and complaints
(House and Kasper 1981, Olshtain and Weinbach 1987). Politeness
strategies have also been analyzed as a maximization of hearer benefits, for
example in research on compliments (Herbert 1989, Holmes 1986, 1988,
Manes 1983, Wolfson 1983).
Brown and Levinson (1987) characterize the relationship between their
notion of FTAs and speech acts as follows:
"Face-threatening acts" or FTAs need not be realized in sentence-like
units, and the upshot of all this is that we must now acknowledge that
the speech act categories that we employed were an under-analyzed
shorthand, but one which, were we to try again today, would still be hard
to avoid. (10-11)
Speech act based studies have been criticized for relying heavily on
sentence-level analysis. Since empirical research on linguistic politeness
often developed in conjunction with the study of speech acts, the
discourse-level analysis of politeness strategies has largely been neglected
in spite of Brown and Levinson's precautions cited above.
Some researchers have attempted to incorporate discourse-level analysis
into speech act studies. Held's (1989) work on requests demonstrates that
certain politeness strategies occur in relation to the function and
placement of requestive behavior in a discourse sequence. Blum-Kulka
(1990) suggests that discourse organization and conversational management can be seen as a component of politeness strategies in performing
requests. Studies of speech act performance in first and second languages
evaluate discourse data gathered from role plays (e.g. Houck and Gass
1996, Scarcella 1979, Trosborg 1987, 1995) and from the observation of
authentic discourse (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1993, Beebe and
34
Cummings 1996, Ellis 1992, Kanagy and Igarashi 1997, Salsbury and
Bardovi-Harlig 2001, Wolfson 1981).
Even though earlier speech act studies tended to focus on sentence-level
analysis, studies on specific speech acts are indispensable resources for the
development of politeness research, and both these disciplines, speech act
studies and politeness studies, benefit from each other. For instance,
speech act studies contributed functional notions such as upgraders,
downgraders, and grounders, which are useful in discerning politeness in
sentence- or discourse-level analysis.
2.3.2 Face-threatening acts and conflict talk
Since politeness studies work with the notion of face-threatening acts

(FTAs), discourse events that contain a series of such acts are often
associated with politeness. A pertinent subfield of discourse analysis is the
study of arguments and verbal disputes, since one of the defining qualities
of a dispute is the face threat it engenders. Various linguistic features
analyzed in these studies relate to politeness strategies (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig
and Hartford 1993, D'Amico-Reisner 1983).
Disputes and arguments are not just regarded as face-threatening
activities, however. Studies of conflict talk among children and adolescents
often depict conflict talk as status- and solidarity-building activities (Boggs
1978, Eckert 1990, Eder 1990, Eisenberg and Garvey 1981, Emihovich
1986, Goodwin 1983, Goodwin and Goodwin 1990, Katriel 1985). In
certain cultures, such as the African-American (Kochman 1981, Labov
1972) and Jewish community (Schiffrin 1984, 1985, 1990), disputes are
considered solidarity-building. In certain settings, such as the courtroom
(Atkinson and Drew 1979, Conley and O'Barr 1990, Lakoff 1989, 1990)
and in therapy sessions (Labov and Fanshel 1977, Lakoff 1989, 1990),
disputes are expected rather than avoided, and the strategies encountered
in these settings differ from those described in other works on disputes.
A number of research projects based on discourse-level analysis have
incorporated the notion of linguistic politeness, although their objective
was not to study politeness per se. These are beneficial to politeness
studies in two ways: (1) they emphasize the significance of social factors
affecting politeness strategies (e.g. discourse setting and interlocutors'
attributes); and (2) they provide a methodology for the analysis of
discourse strategies related to linguistic politeness.
In research on sentence- and discourse-level FTAs, the discourse-level
analysis of politeness is achieved either by describing discourse-level
strategies or by studying verbal disputes, a form of discourse-level FTA.
Brown and Levinson's (1987) original work itself contains discourse-level
strategies. Although the authors admit that their politeness theory largely
neglected conversational structure, their categories of positive and
negative politeness strategies do include more than a few discourse-level
items such as safe topics, repetition, and small talk. Their definition of off-
35
record strategies implicitly acknowledges the relevance of larger structural

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

of everyday talk (e.g. Sacks et al 1974). By producing systematic
descriptions of recurrent structural characteristics of talk-in-interaction,
it aims to discover systems of discourse by which individuals create social
order. A number of studies within the conversation analytic approach
discuss organizational features of talk, such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs,
preference organization, pre-sequences, repair construction, overlap, and
topic organization. The speech objects they examine include non-lexical
and quasi-lexical speech objects, such as laughter, pause, and response
tokens. More recent contributions analyze nonverbal behaviors such as
gaze and body movement as part of interactional behavior.
Conversation analysis investigates characteristics of recurrent sequences
of interaction to identify the normative expectations that underpin action
sequences. Since these normative expectations relate to appropriateness
and politeness, several conversation analytic concepts are relevant to the
study of linguistic politeness. Preference organization is one of them.
The notion of "preference" characterizes the unequal status attached to
alternative second parts of adjacency pairs (e.g. agreeing or disagreeing on
an assessment). Some second pair parts are routinely preferred while
others are dispreferred. Preference does not refer to personal desires or
psychological dispositions of speakers, but rather to recurrent sequential
and turn-organizational features of alternative actions (Pomerantz 1984,
36
Sacks 1987, Schegloff et al. 1977). Second pair parts recurrently exhibit a
set of distinct features, depending on whether they are preferred or
dispreferred. Researchers found that a variety of first pair parts have
preferred and dispreferred second parts (see Table 2.1). While preferred
actions are usually performed directly with little or no delay, dispreferred
actions exhibit one or more of the following features: (1) delay of delivery
within a turn or across several turns; (2) preface and qualification
accompanying the second pair within the same turn; (3) mitigated or
indirect performance; and (4) accounts or explanations of why the action
is performed.
Table 2.1 First parts and their preferred and dispreferred second parts
Second Parts
First Parts
request
offer
invitation
assessment
question
Preferred
Dispreferred
acceptance
acceptance
acceptance
agreement
expected answer
refusal
refusal
refusal
disagreement
unexpected answer
or non-answer
(Adapted from Levinson 1983: 336)

Some of the features of dispreferred sequences are similar to politeness
strategies in Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework: they introduce
types of preface accompanying dispreferred actions, such as token
agreement and hedging expressions, as examples of politeness strategies.
For instance, a token agreement is considered a positive politeness
strategy, displaying the speaker's desire to agree with the hearer. Thus, the
same linguistic markers are listed as politeness strategies attending
interactants' face wants in Brown and Levinson's (1987) study and as
prefacing elements marking dispreferred actions in the conversation
analytic framework.
Even though it is plausible to assume some kind of face consideration
underlying preference organization, it would be premature to draw a
direct connection between dispreferred and face-threatening acts or
between preferred and non-face-threatening acts.5
Adherents of the "purist" tradition of conversation analysis pay
secondary attention to interactants' cognition and intention, since their
analytical methodology requires that context relevance be grounded in
interaction. The research conducted by this strain of conversation analysis
aims to describe organizational features of talk with minimal reference to
the interactants' psychological state. Consequently, the notion of polite-
37
ness, defined in terms of the underlying interpersonal motivation of talk,

has no place within "purist" conceptions of conversation analysis.
Despite this line of reasoning, there are researchers who maintain that
face considerations can be associated with notions advanced by the
conversation analytic approach (Heritage 1989, Heritage and Raymond
2005, Lerner 1996, Levinson 1983, Owen 1983, Taylor and Cameron
1987). Although preference is thought to be a purely structural concept
referring to structural markedness, the fact that an act is marked or
"dispreferred" can be accounted for by the interlocutors' attempt to
maintain each other's face and to offset the potentially face-threatening
import of that particular act. Levinson (1983) points out that one
characteristic of dispreferred actions is that "they tend to be avoided"
(333), implying the psychological mechanism of preference. Heritage
(1989) explicitly states that "[t]he role of preference organisation in
relation to a wide variety of conversational actions appears to be strongly
associated with the avoidance of threats to 'face'" (26-27). Preference
organization, assert Heritage and Raymond (2005), has the function "to
maximize the likelihood of affiliative, socially solidary actions, and to
minimize the consequences of disaffiliative, socially divisive ones" (16).
Lerner (1996) attempts to present face concerns in interactional terms,
and illustrates how anticipatory completion can convert a structurally
dispreferred action (e.g. disagreement) into a preferred alternative (e.g.
agreement). Since, as Lerner maintains, face is recognizable as an
expression of self, his description of "self' and "other" in anticipatory
completion segments establishes a site in which we can locate face in talkin-interaction.
The rationale for connecting preference organization and facework lies
in the dual aspect of norms and normality, as pointed out by Eelen (2001),
who states that normality has both a moral evaluative aspect and a purely
numerical aspect, and that "both sides are connected in that people
generally follow the rules because they know about the moral evaluations
involved" (140). Eelen's argument supports the supposition that preference is associated with facework.
Another valuable insight that research on facework can gain from the
conversation analytic perspective is its interest in participant identity and
membership categorization occasioned and displayed in discourse (see
section 2.5.3 for a further discussion of the relationship between identity
and face). Wooffitt and Clark (1998) contrast the conversation analytic
treatment of identity with other more traditional approaches as follows:
Those studies regard social identity in terms of lay or vernacular social
categories, the ascription of which is inextricably tied to the details of
talk-in-interaction. This is a radical departure from those psychological
(and commonsense) accounts which treat identity as a fixed set of
properties or operations residing in the individual's cognitive make up,
38
and which regard language as a largely docile medium through which

dimensions of a person's identity (among other psychological characteristics) may receive occasional expression. (107)
Within the conversation analytic framework, interactants' identity is
indexically ascribed and made accountable in discourse. Since interactants' identity and face are closely related, such treatment of identity
opens up the possibility of a similar treatment of face, as pursued in this
study (see section 2.5.3 below for a further discussion of this point).
Discursive psychology uses conversation analysis as its main analytical
framework. While conversation analysis is mainly concerned with
organizational features of talk, discursive psychology attempts to explore
psychological notions (e.g. investments and stakes) in terms of their role
in talk and text For instance, researchers in discursive psychology observe
how speakers display their own activities as rational, sensitive, or justifiable,
and how they construct their interactional position as neutral and
unbiased. Some of these topics are closely related to the notion of face
as defined by Gofrman (1967) - "the public self-image that every member
wants to claim for himself' (61). As we will see in later sections, this
parallel points to the possibility of reconsidering the notion of face and
formulating the analytic approach to facework utilized in this study (see
section 2.5 and Chapter 3 for a further discussion).
23A Politeness and interactional sociolinguistics
Interactional sociolinguistics proceeds from the fundamental premises
that meaning is interactionally created, that interpretation is based on
shared expectations among interlocutors, and that interlocutors' interpretations of context are crucial to understanding discourse. As a research
discipline, it focuses on cross-cultural communication, delineating how
different cultural backgrounds influence a speaker's interpretation of
interaction. Several concepts of interactional sociolinguistics are closely
linked to the notions of politeness and facework: frame in discourse,
power and solidarity, and the treatment of discourse markers.
According to the tenets of interactional sociolinguistics, interactants
make sense of ongoing discourse by creating an interpretive frame, "a set
of expectations which rests on previous experience" (Gumperz 1982:
102). Since the interaction is dynamic, frames are interactive and
continually redefined. Participants use interpretive frames to mutually
read and negotiate interactional meaning.
Frames in discourse become particularly constructive in the discussion
of politeness as an evaluative phenomenon. The evaluation of speech as
either polite or impolite reflects a particular conversational frame. An
utterance can be perceived as polite or appropriate when it occurs within
the frame of intimate talk, and can acquire an offensive quality when it
comes from a bystander with whom no such intimate frame exists.
39
Gumperz (1982) illustrates how interactants signal their interpretive

frames by means of varying "contextualization cues" - linguistic and
paralinguistic features of talk signaling speakers' conversational intent
These cues include lexical and syntactic choices, tone of voice, and
intonation of utterances.
Speakers from different cultural backgrounds have their own ways to
signal conversational intent or, in other words, they utilize specific sets of
contextualization cues. Tannen (1984) terms a set of cues employed by a
group of people "conversational style." Speakers from different countries,
different regions of the same country, or different ethnic backgrounds
may exhibit different styles. Tannen identified gender-based differences in
conversational style in American middle-class society.
Tannen (1984) asserts that conversational style "results from the need to
serve basic human needs in interaction" (19). Building on concepts
developed by Brown and Gilman (1960), she positions power and solidarity
as the two motivating factors underlying stylistic choices. Tannen (1984)
writes that power and solidarity are "not precisely parallel" (15), but are in
fact similar to Brown and Levinson's (1987) conceptualization of negative
and positive face wants. Evidently, Tannen interprets Brown and
Levinson's positive politeness as a rapport- or solidarity-building strategy,
and their negative politeness as a deference or distancing strategy. Scollon
and Scollon (1983, 1995) present similar interpretations.
Tannen (1984, 1986, 1994) depicts the relationship between power and
solidarity that emerges in conversation. In a summary of her earlier work
(1984, 1986), Tannen (1994) concedes that "although power and
solidarity, closeness and distance, seem at first to be opposites, each also
entails the other", and therefore the relationship between them is
"paradoxical" (22).
Tannen (1994) contrasts the unidimensional with the multidimensional
model of conceptualizing power, solidarity, and related notions. She
begins by introducing the unidimensional model which, she claims,
reflects American assumptions. This model places power and solidarity on
a single continuum, which also represents symmetry/asymmetry, hierarchy/equality, and distance/closeness, as shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Unidimensional model (Adapted from Tannen 1994: 27)
40
Figure 2.5 Multidimensional model (Adapted from Tannen 1994: 28)

Tannen (1994) then represents the relation between power and
solidarity as a multidimensional grid of intersecting continua, as shown
in Figure 2.5. The typical employer/employee relationship can be found
in area B, the relationship between siblings in area C. Both attributions are
based on prevalent American conventions. However, Tannen's crosscultural perspective includes other relations, such as the Japanese amae (a
term originally coined by Doi [1971]), typified by parent-child or
employer-employee relationships (Yamada 1992). Amae affiliations are
characterized by tight hierarchical interdependence and are therefore
located in area A of Tannen's multidimensional model.
It is interesting to note that Tannen's dimensions of power and
solidarity and the corresponding examples appear to be equivalent to
Brown and Levinson's (1987) sociolinguistic variables, namely power and
distance. In Brown and Levinson's model, negative and positive face wants
are conceived as motivational factors underlying polite behavior, while
sociolinguistic variables are contextual factors determining the "weightiness" of the FTA and consequently affect the enactment of politeness.
These two sets of notions - positive/negative face wants and sociolinguistic
variables - are discussed separately in Brown and Levinson's work, with
little elaboration on their relationship. In Tannen's model, power and
solidarity are motivational factors underlying the choice of linguistic styles
as well as contextual features, namely the interpersonal relations between
interlocutors. As a result, it remains questionable whether one can equate
Brown and Levinson's pair of terms, negative and positive politeness, with
Tannen's pair, power and solidarity.
Yet Tannen's discussion proves insightful in several ways. First, the view
of power and solidarity not as opposites, but as paradoxical phenomena
entailing each other, can guide us in our analysis of interactionally
delicate actions such as teasing and troubles talk, which tend to be
considered as both face-threatening and face-saving. Second, Tannen
(1984) considers elements of speech style such as overlap, pause, silence,
and narrative strategy, as polysemous - i.e. they contribute to both
solidarity and power. Similar claims might be made about other linguistic
41
devices in relation to interactants' face. More precisely, it is conceivable

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

As illustrated in section 2.2, several interrelated issues concerning
linguistic politeness call for a broader scope of analysis. In fact, a recent
trend in politeness research shows a marked shift from a sentential to a
42
discursive framework. This section presents an overview of such efforts and

reviews several unresolved concerns.
In his critique of politeness theories, Eelen (2001) cites a common
presupposition underlying most of these constructs: they adopt, albeit
unintentionally, a Parsonian worldview,
where the social/cultural level constitutes an independent reality
residing on a cybernetically higher level than the individual, in the
sense that social values and systems of social norms - which are
internalized during socialization - are a priori regulative factors
determining the individual's behaviour. (244)
Because of this presupposition, Eelen (2001) concludes, existing theories
of politeness manifest a twofold conceptual bias: they tend to emphasize
the polite side of the polite/impolite spectrum, and they conceptualize
politeness primarily as a mode of speaker production rather than one of
hearer evaluation. As mentioned in the discussion on sociolinguistic
variables (section 2.2.3) and on first- and second-order politeness (section
2.2.4), Eelen (2001) is equally critical of the analytical process adopted by
current politeness research, in which researchers mimic the hearers"
interpretation and still claim their reasoning is scientific. As a result, Eelen
(2001) comments that politeness theory reproduces researchers'
commonsense knowledge, and thus "fails to provide any original insights
beyond those already available on the intuitive level" (246).
To remedy the shortcomings uncovered by his critique, Eelen (2001)
suggests an alternative view of politeness. As a guiding principle, he
chooses Bourdieu's (1977, 1991) notion of habitus, defined as "systems of
dispositions which can be 'regulated' and 'regular' without in any way
being the product of obedience to rules," and which are "collectively
orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a
conductor" (Bourdieu 1977: 72). Habitus orients people's actions by giving
them a "feel for the game," without strictly determining their actions
(Bourdieu 1991).
In Eelen's (2001) estimation, empirical politeness research must begin
with politenessl, and it must take into full account the hearer's position
and evaluative participation in discourse. Eelen, who conceived of his work
mainly as a critique, does not include a concrete methodology for
politeness research in his thesis.
Watts (2003) takes up Eelen's (2001) proposals, devising an analytical
tool as well as a discursive model of politeness. He claims that the
analytical object of any theory of politeness should be the lay conception
of politeness (politenessl), and he subscribes to a Bourdieuan view of
society. Watts (2003) distinguishes between polite, impolite, and politic
(i.e. socially expected) behavior, and postulates that politeness is a
situated evaluation made by participants in an emergent network (i.e. a
43
network of social links among participants set up in the course of

interaction). This evaluation process can be traced by inference mechanisms based on Sperber and Wilson's (1995) relevance theory. Locher
(2004), in her analysis of power and politeness in disagreement sequences,
adopts the same tripartite partition of polite, impolite, and politic
behavior. She cites the relevance theory as a fundamental influence on
her thinking, but does not refer to cognitive inferential processes in her
analysis.
In her work on the relationship between gender and politeness, Mills
(2003) agrees with Eelen's (2001) caveat that researchers should be aware
of issues of social struggle in the assessment of politeness, and argues for
their inclusion in the scope of analysis. In her attempt to develop a
community-based, discursive model of gender and politeness, she draws
on the notion of community of practice (cf. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet
1999, Wenger 1998): a group of people drawn together to perform a
particular task. Based on these precepts, Mills (2003) describes how
individuals negotiate norms (or what they assume to be norms) within a
particular community of practice.
Mills (2003) rejects the claim that most people tend to agree about what
is polite and what is not. Instead, she asserts that "disagreement about
politeness, and particularly about impoliteness, is one of the constituent
and defining features of politeness" (6). Recognizing how difficult it is to
capture the complexity of an ongoing conversation, Mills uses various
types of data (e.g. recorded conversations, structured interviews, anecdotes), from which she extracts rich information about the role of
stereotypes and about the ways in which individuals assess politeness.
In their inquiry into issues of gender and politeness, Holmes and
colleagues (e.g. Holmes and Schnurr 2005) utilize the notion of
community of practice as well. Incorporating the dual concept of positive
and negative face into their working concept of "relational practice'*
(Holmes and Schnurr 2005: 125), they analyze discourse data situated in a
particular workplace's community of practice.
Other scholars have attempted to approach discursive politeness from a
quantitative research paradigm. Usami (2001) evaluates the unmarked
level of honorific usage in dyadic Japanese discourse between newly
acquainted pairs, and interprets the deviation from the unmarked usage
as a politeness strategy. Terkourafi (2001), in her frame-based study on
politeness in Cypriot Greek data, conceives of politeness as regularities in
the co-occurrence of linguistic expressions and components of the extralinguistic context, which are represented holistically as "frames." The
regular occurrence of unchallenged realizations of particular acts, she
infers, creates the perception of politeness. Terkourafi's (2005) conceptualization of politeness as regularity, which enables "the sociohistorically constrained 'preferred' interpretation of expression x"
(254), is reminiscent of the conversation analytic notion of preference,
44
even though her quantitative orientation is distinct from the qualitative

approach prevalent in conversation analysis.
We turn now to interactional and conversational frameworks of
politeness. Arundale (1999) takes up Brown and Levinson's (1987)
prediction that future politeness studies will develop within "work on
interaction as a system" (48). From this starting point, Arundale develops
an alternative model of politeness, in which communication and politeness are regarded as dynamic and emergent phenomena framed within a
broader and complex "co-constituting model of communication" (127).
On a more practical level, Okamoto (1999) details the usage of mixed
honorifics in Japanese connected discourse and, by analyzing newspaper
articles, reports various competing evaluations attached to honorific usage
in Japanese society. Rasper (2004) depicts politeness constructed in
ongoing interaction in language proficiency interviews. She examines
multiple questions performed on the same referential point and claims
that the question versions often differ in their social stance, and are
therefore differentially polite. Cook (2006) analyzes style shifts in Japanese
academic consultation discourse. She illustrates how participants' social
relations and social personae are displayed in a moment-by-moment
fashion as the interaction unfolds.
All studies reviewed in this section treat politeness as a discursive
phenomenon, yet they exhibit considerable variation in their analytical
frameworks, stemming from divergent interpretations of the terms
"discourse" and "politeness." Despite their apparent differences, most
of these studies share the following premises: they consider politeness a
situated phenomenon in a particular group and context, termed a
community of practice (Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999, Mills 2003),
emergent network (Locher 2004, Watts 2003), or frame (Terkourafi
2005); and they reject an act-by-act, speaker-centered approach to
politeness and choose interaction as the object of study instead, focusing
not only on the speakers' production but also on the hearers' evaluation of
prior utterances.
Despite these shared theoretical inclinations, there appears to be little
agreement among discursive politeness studies on the most essential
terminology - that of "politeness" itself. Some argue for a tripartite
division into polite, politic, and impolite behavior (Locher 2004, Watts
2003), and accept within that set of attributes only those behaviors as
polite, which are "beyond what is perceived to be appropriate" (Watts
2003: 21). Others consider all actions unchallenged in interaction as
polite (Terkourafi 2005), or they look to participants' reported feelings
(e.g. whether they perceived a certain interaction as polite or impolite) as
indicators to determine politeness (Mills 2003).
This diversity is caused by the methodological difficulties researchers
encounter when they attempt to make politeness analyzable in discourse.
Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003) contend that the subject of politeness
45
research ought to be the discursive struggle over politeness 1, and that

researchers should focus on evaluative moments in which such struggles
manifest themselves. Theoretically appealing as they are, practical
difficulties emerge as soon as one attempts to pin down such "evaluative
moments." For one, discursive struggle over politeness 1 can mean at least
two different things, depending on how we define politenessl.
If one takes Eelen's "metapragmatic politenessl" as the valid definition,
then the discursive struggle will manifest itself when people talk about
what (im) politeness (or its equivalent in other languages) means (cf.
Blum-Kulka 1992). Appraising this type of approach, Terkourafi (2005)
issues the warning that "eliciting participants meta-linguistic comments
about politeness runs the danger of becoming an exercise in the lexical
semantics of the lexeme 'politeness,' if we lack the speaker-independent
definition of politeness" (242).
If we choose "politeness-as-action" or "expressive and/or evaluative
politenessl" (Eelen 2001: 32) as our definition of politenessl, then the
"discursive struggle over politenessl" occurs when participants do not
agree whether a certain behavior is polite or not, and an evaluative
moment has arrived when participants explicitly evaluate some preceding
act as polite or impolite. As Watts (2003) states, "first-order evaluations ...
are often not expressed in terms of the cluster of adjectives associated with
(im)politeness" (8). Participants whose utterances are examined in
discursive politeness studies rarely evaluate prior utterances explicitly as
polite or impolite.
In this context, an analysis of politeness depending on hearer
expectation presumes the researcher's awareness of the range of hearer
expectations in order to identify an inexplicit participant reaction as an
evaluation of politeness, or to reliably detect (im) politeness in the absence
of any relevant participant reaction. Researchers recognize the challenge
involved in such an analytical practice. Watts (2003) recommends that "if
the researcher wishes to locate polite behaviour, s/he must begin by
examining very closely what happens in the flow of social interaction in
order to identify the kinds of behaviour that seem to warrant the
attribution of the term 'polite'" (8). Mills (2003) devises a method that
incorporates various types of data, such as tape recordings, participants'
comments on recorded conversations, anecdotes, and the researcher's
own interpretation of experienced events. These approaches open up a
promising line of study.
Researchers who attempt to identify instances of politenessl are faced
with the difficulty of looking into a hearer's cognition and of determining
his or her expectation concerning what is appropriate or inappropriate in
an interaction. Mills (2003) states that capturing the in-the-moment
evaluation of (im) politeness is often impossible since it depends on hearer
expectation.
Yet if politeness research, trying to avoid this difficulty, confines its
46
object of study exclusively to the "discursive struggle over politenessl"

(i.e. when participants do not agree whether a certain behavior is polite or
not, and when participants explicitly evaluate some preceding act as polite
or impolite), it would lose sight of politeness that passes unnoticed
(Rasper 1990) or is not commented on as such in discourse. Followed
strictly, such a stringent effort to locate explicit politenessl in discourse
limits our scope of analysis considerably. Politeness research has gained
currency in diverse scientific disciplines because of its omnipresence in
everyday language use. We forgo its overarching analytical potential if we
confine our analysis to scarce moments in which first-order evaluations are
plainly observable in discourse.
Instead of limiting the object of analysis to explicit evaluative moments
in which actors convey their assessment of politeness, this study takes as its
focal point the notion of face. Centered upon this concept it will try to
develop a reasonable account of the ways in which participants display and
manage face in several delicate interactional practices (collective disagreement, teasing, and troubles talk). While this study assumes that
facework and politeness are not identical (see section 2.5.4 for a further
discussion of this point), its focus on face and facework is motivated by the
fact that the notion of face serves as a tentative link between politeness and
discourse studies. By pursuing this path, it seeks an adequate level of
empirical accountability in facework analysis, while keeping in sight the
intricate interactional mechanisms of talk.
Section 2.5 outlines various conceptualizations of face and presents a
Goffmanian respecification of this notion which, I hope, will better
accommodate the empirical analysis of social interaction.
2.5 Politeness, Face and Identity
The first part of this section highlights the differences between the
notions of face formulated by Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson
(1987). The Goffmanian notion, I will argue, is better suited for the
discursive approach adopted in this study. Later sections explore the
relationship between face and identity, and face and politeness.
2.5.1 Revisiting Goffman9s social notion of face
As noted in section 2.2, the central tenet of Brown and Levinson's (1987)
theory of politeness is their notion of face, which is, in turn, based on ideas
advanced by Goffman (1967) and Durkheim (1995). Goffman (1967)
states that "the term face may be defined as the positive social value a
person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact" (5), where the term "line" means "a pattern
of verbal and nonverbal acts" (5). According to Goffman, face is "not
lodged in or on his body, but rather something that is diffusely located in
47
the flow of events in the encounter" (7) - it is only "on loan" to him from
society. Face can be saved, threatened, or lost in interaction. The act of
making whatever a person is doing consistent with face is called
"facework," which may be performed consciously or unconsciously and
frequently becomes habitual. For Goffman (1967), then, facework involves
self-presentation in social encounters. The pronounced social orientation
of his concept of face and facework is clearly in evidence in the following
passage:
To study face-saving is to study the traffic rules of social interaction: one
learns about the code the person adheres to in his movement across the
paths and designs of others, but not where he is going, or why he wants
to get there. One does not even learn why he is ready to follow the code,
for a large number of different motives can equally lead him to do so.
(12)
Scholars such as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), Locher (2004), and Watts
(2003) assert that the social orientation of Goffman's notion of face is all
but lost in Brown and Levinson's more cognitively and psychologically
inclined notion of face.
2.5.2 Face as wants
At the beginning of their book, Brown and Levinson (1987) define face as
''public self-image." In their framework, face consists of two related
aspects: negative face (the basic claim to freedom from imposition) and
positive face (the positive self-image claimed by interactants). Brown and
Levinson (1987) present their view of face as "wants" as follows:
negative face: the want of every "competent adult member" that his or
her actions be unimpeded by others
positive face: the want of every "competent adult member" that his or
her wants be desirable to at least some others. (62)
Yet the focus on self-image gets "increasingly lost during their analysis,"
claims Locher (2004: 53). Negative and positive face wants are treated as
intrinsic parts of an individual who seeks "association/belonging/
merging" on the one hand, and "disassociation/independence/individuation" on the other (O'Driscoll 1996: 10). Bargiela-Chiappini (2003)
remarks that Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive concept of "face"
does not agree with Goffman's study of interaction.
The notion of negative face proves to be especially problematic.
Researchers have pointed out that while both Goffhian, and Brown and
Levinson, draw on Durkheim's notion of positive and negative religious
rites in their conceptualization of face, they extract different interpretations and implications from this common source (e.g. Bargiela-Chiappini
48
2003, Holtgraves 2005). While Goffman (1967) treats the avoidance ritual
as a process or type of facework, Brown and Levinson (1987) view nonimposition as a universal human desire. As recounted in section 2.2.1.3,
the universality of Brown and Levinson's concept of face has been
questioned by many, mainly non-Western, researchers (e.g. Ide 1989, Mao
1994, Matsumoto 1988).
The definition of face as "wants" and the construction of a rational
"model person" who has these wants are the consequence of Brown and
Levinson's (1987) formal adherence to the Gricean theory of communication. While their theory stimulated research on politeness in the fields
of cognitive and social psychology, their treatment of face as a cognitive
notion does not concur with a more socially oriented view of politeness.
Most of the politeness research based on Brown and Levinson's framework
conceptualizes face as an intrinsically cognitive entity. The resulting
analysis tends to become an interpretive attempt to look into interactants'
hidden intents.
Given the inherent difficulty in depicting interactants' cognitive
workings (e.g. intentions and expectations) in unfolding discourse, my
study takes Goffman's (1967) definition of face as its guiding principle in
the construction of an alternative analytical framework of facework.
Informed by discursive psychology's respecification of psychological
elements in terms of discursive reality, I replace Brown and Levinson's
(1987) cognitive notion of face with Goffman's more socially oriented one.
The implementation of this Goffmanian respecification of face in the
treatment of facework as a discursively constructed phenomenon provides
direction for an empirically grounded analysis of facework.
Goffman's (1967) notion of face is concerned with interactants' public
self-image, which is closely related to speaker identity and subjectivity,
much-studied subjects in social psychology and discourse studies. In order
to contextualize my approach to analysis of facework within the larger field
of discourse studies, the next section explores the relationship between
participants' face and identity.
2.53 Face and identity
Just as there are many conceptualizations of face, researchers have
presented diverse views of interactants' social and discursive identity. In
one school of thought, identity is treated as a static descriptive label of an
individual ascribed by society or acquired and internalized by the
individual. In another, it is regarded as an individual's ascription to a
membership category observable in discourse. This section attempts to
link these diverging views to our understanding of face.
2.5.3.1 Power, distance, and identity
In Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework, interactants' social identities
are related to the contextual variables determining the weightiness of a
49
face-threatening act. The weightiness, then, decides how much politeness

is needed in a particular situation. As introduced in section 2.1.4, the
weightiness or seriousness of a particular act (Wx) is calculated by the
formula Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx, where D(S,H) is the social distance
between the speaker and hearer, P(H,S) the power that the hearer has
over the speaker, and Rx the level of imposition caused by the facethreatening act x in the culture in which it is performed. Holtgraves
(2005) recognizes that the three variables (D, P, R) are "high-level,
abstract variables that should subsume more specific variables," and that
identity categories such as gender, ethnicity, or occupational differences
"feed into power and distance, and ultimately, politeness" (79).
2.5.3.2 Identity face
Spencer-Oatey (2005) takes the relation of face to identity one step
further. Based on Simon's (2004) notion of self-aspects, she coins the term
"identity face," a situation-specific face equivalent to Goffman's (1967)
definition. This type of face is contrasted with another she calls
"respectability face," a "pan-situational" face, which "refers to the
prestige, honor or 'good name' that a person or social group holds and
claims within a (broader) community" (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 102). Selfaspects are categories or concepts such as physical features, abilities, roles,
behaviors, or group memberships, which serve to process and organize
information about oneself. People's claims to identity face, according to
Spencer-Oatey (2005), are "based on the positive social values that they
associate with their various self-aspects" (104). Identity face is threatened
when individuals' self-aspect sensitivities are challenged, while it is
enhanced when their self-aspect sensitivities are ingratiated appropriately.
Thus, instead of retaining Brown and Levinson's (1987) dual conception
of positive and negative face, Spencer-Oatey's (2005) framework proposes
multiple aspects of face based on identity categories.
Holtgraves (2005) and Spencer-Oatey's (2005) views of identity and face
suggest strong ties between these two entities. These studies appear to
conceive of identity categories as static social ascriptions or as intrinsically
stable aspects of the concept of self. Identity is something that interactants
"are" and that affects how they employ politeness, and its various aspects
form the basis of interactants' positive self-image. Another view of identity
- as interactants' discursive ascription to a membership category - will be
introduced in the next section.
2.5.3.3 Discursive identity and face
As discussed in section 2.3.3, the notion that identity and speaker
subjectivity are discursively displayed was adopted widely by conversation
analytic approaches to interaction, and more specifically by conversation
analysis and discursive psychology (e.g. Antaki and Widdicombe 1998,
Edwards 1997). In these approaches, and discourse psychology inter-
50
actants' identity and subjectivity are indexically assumed and ascribed

through the exploitation of various conversational structures, leaving
open the possibility of multiple identity and subjectivity ascriptions.
Identity, defined as a static sociopsychological category in the previous
section, is thus reconceptualized as a discursive entity. Informed by
conversation and discourse analytic studies, this project regards identity in
terms of lay social and membership categories (e.g. woman, teacher, dog
owner, moderator, project representative), "the ascription of which is
inextricably tied to the details of talk-in-interaction" (Antaki and
Widdicombe 1998: 107).
In relation to politeness, one aspect of identity - gender - and its
performativity have been studied extensively. Gender is considered "a
repeated performance of a range of behaviors associated with a particular
sex" (Mills 2003: 173). In other words, gender is discursively performed in
interactional practices in which interactants "do," rather than "are," men
or women (e.g. Crawford 1995). Studies on gender and language
positioned at the gender/politeness nexus often draw on the community
of practice framework, which provides a community-based perspective on
gender and politeness as performed and displayed in discourse.
Eelen (2001) likewise recommends that politeness studies ought to
focus on discursive reality and develop a new "discursive" approach based
on Bourdieu's sociological insights and contributions from discursive
psychology (e.g. Edwards 1997, Edwards and Potter 1992). My study
recognizes Eelen's (2001) theoretical recommendations and applies them
to the empirical analysis of facework in discourse.
The discursive psychological approach depicts issues that are commonly
considered psychological in terms of human behavior. It promises to be a
useful aid in the reconceptualization of face. Instead of contrasting
cognition with action, discursive psychology regards cognition as a form of
acting. This focus on social practice suggests the possibility of a definition
of face, otherwise considered as psychological wants, in terms of discursive
reality. In other words, face, construed as an internal "want" that
underlies and influences talk by Brown and Levinson (1987), can be
respecified as a phenomenon that is constructed, manipulated, and
displayed in interaction.
This respecification can be understood as a return to the Goffmanian
notion of face, where an interactant's face manifests itself as his or her
interactional self-image, which is determined in relation to others,
discursively constructed during a particular contact, and closely aligned
with the participant's discursive identity. This notion of face, referred to as
"discursive face," "interactional face," or "interactional self-image" in this
study, includes dispositional features such as competence or autonomy.
For instance, certain face categories (e.g. expertise) may be ascribed and
displayed in relation to the membership category "doctor" in a doctorpatient conversation. Multiple face ascriptions, like multiple identity
51
ascriptions, can occur in ongoing discourse, i.e. it is possible that

participants in interaction display multiple faces simultaneously.
Facework, considered in this context, is a face-invoking device (by which
a speaker, for example, projects his or her own competence or acknowledges the competence of another person) operative on linguistic and
other levels, which can be traced empirically in discourse. In a framework
in which an interactant's positive self-image is determined in relation to
others, facework also includes relational stances such as alignment and
opposition. A speaker's projection of alignment with other participants in
the interaction can be considered facework, for it constitutes an
endorsement of others' positive self-image, as well as the display of the
speaker's own self-image as sharing common traits with others.
The proposed conceptualization of face is less cognitive (since it does
not consider face as wants) and less parsimonious (since it involves more
types of face than the dual aspects of positive and negative face) than
Brown and Levinson's (1987). As a result, the analysis based on this
conceptualization will probably not produce a clear categorical understanding of politeness in isolated sentences. Instead, what this notion of
face can capture is the moment-by-moment management of multiple faces
constructed and displayed in discourse, thereby permitting a closer look at
the intricate mechanisms of interpersonal communication.
Equipped with this notion of face, the researcher can apply discourse
analytic research on identity and on speaker subjectivity to the analysis of
facework. For instance, in her study of interactants' overt and covert
orientation to regional or linguistic category membership in otherinitiated repair sequences, Egbert (2004) illustrates how a German student
implicitly assigns herself to "a category of persons intimately familiar with
university life in the US" (1474). This category, when evoked in a story
about the participant's experience of studying abroad in the US, is related
to the discursive face of having expertise in American student life. Egbert
cites instances in which interlocutors form alliances and draw separations
between themselves and others through the collaborative achievement of
successive repair initiations. Such a solidarity-building practice can be
considered facework as well (see the discussion on alignment as facework
earlier in this section). In short, Egbert's inquiry suggests that the
incorporation of conversation analytic insights into the study of facework
can lead to constructive results.
Heritage and Raymond (2005) examine how interlocutors negotiate
their epistemic authority in first and second position assessments (i.e. an
initial assessment, and a responsive assessment to the previously offered
assessment). The authors report that considerations of face are implicated
in these epistemic negotiations. Although second position assessments
frequently take the form of an agreement and are fundamentally
affiliative, "they can involve complex face considerations relating to the
management of knowledge and information" (16). The concept of
52
epistemic authority advanced by Heritage and Raymond (2005) implicates

elements of situated social identity (e.g. "dog and cat owners ... expect to
be treated as experts on their pets" [36]), and it can be taken as an
instance of face as defined in this study.
Drew (1998), in his study on indirect complaint sequences, demonstrates how speakers describe others' behavior as a transgression, while
portraying themselves as reasonable individuals who are neither biased
nor overly negative. Drew identifies these activities as moral work but, from
the viewpoint of my study, a speaker's claim to be reasonable represents an
example of facework. These and other works provide valuable ideas for the
analysis of facework in this study, for they point out exemplary ways in
which facework manifests itself in conversation.
Before closing this review, I would like to consider a last, but no less
important, question in the politeness riddle - the relationship between
face and politeness. What role does the discursive conceptualization of
face play in an overall discursive approach to politeness? By searching for
an answer to this question, we will gain a clearer understanding of how the
notion of face is conceptualized in this study.
2.5A Face and politeness
As we have seen earlier in this chapter, "face" is a central notion in Brown
and Levinson's (1987) seminal work on politeness. They consider
politeness as facework - language use that is geared towards mutual face
needs. However, this equation is not always supported by discursive
politeness research. Watts (2003), whose work is more informed by
Goffman's (1967) socially oriented notion of face than by Brown and
Levinson's (1987) cognitive approach, states explicitly that "Politeness
Theory can never be fully equated with Face Theory" (117). He
summarizes his argument as follows:
(Im)politenessl ... emerges contextually from instances of socio-communicative verbal interaction and is salient linguistic behaviour beyond
the structures used in facework and politic behaviour. To classify as
linguistic politeness all those structures which are used in positive and
negative facework is to empty the terms "polite" and "impolite" of the
meanings we attribute to these, and similar, lexemes in social practice
and to deny that there is a discursive struggle over their use. (141)
In a similar line of thought, Locher and Watts (2005) introduce the term
"relational work," signifying the relational nature of facework, or the
"work" individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others.
Relational work "comprises the entire continuum of verbal behavior
from direct, impolite, rude or aggressive interaction through to polite
interaction, encompassing both appropriate and inappropriate forms of
social behavior" (11). The relationship between relational work and
53
politeness is described in terms of individual participants' perceptions of

verbal interaction, which decide if behavior is considered polite, politic, or
impolite within the continuum of relational work. When participants
perceive behavior as marked and noticeable, it is polite, over-polite, or
impolite; when the behavior remains unmarked and unnoticed, it is
politic. Consequently, politeness comprises positively marked (noticed)
appropriate behavior, even though Locher and Watts (2005) admit that
"there can be no objectively definable boundaries between these
categories [i.e. polite, politic, and appropriate relational work] if ...
politeness and related categories are discursively negotiated" (12).
The cited studies provide a notion of facework as (1) distinct from
politeness, and (2) encompassing a wider range of behavior than
politeness. As quoted above, Watts (2003) mentions that "(im)politenessl
... is salient linguistic behaviour beyond the structures used in facework and
politic behaviour" (141). In this framework, the evaluation of politeness
appears to be established in reference to a baseline involving facework and
politic behavior. In other words, evaluations regarding facework and
politic behavior lie at the core of politeness evaluation.
This study, too, endorses the idea that the analysis of politeness should
focus on participants' evaluations of their and others' behavior as polite or
impolite. Taking the argument of the above-mentioned studies one step
further, this project assumes two interrelated main components constituting politeness evaluations: evaluations of facework (e.g. "Does a
behavior enhance or threaten face?" "Which types of face are displayed
in this behavior?") and evaluations of appropriateness (e.g. "What degree
of face threat and face enhancement is allowed and expected in a given
community of practice?"). These two types of evaluation are interrelated: a
face evaluation can be affected by an appropriateness evaluation, and vice
versa. For instance, when a certain behavior is evaluated as inappropriate,
it may lead to the speaker's loss of face. In addition to these two
interrelated types of evaluation, moment-by-moment politeness evaluations involve still other aspects of participant expectation, such as hearer
attribution of speaker motivation (Jary 1998), interactants' past discursive
history, their then-current emotional states, and their perception of the
lexeme "politeness" or any possible equivalent in their language.7
Due to the multiplicity of cognitive elements, it is difficult to represent
the working of moment-by-moment politeness evaluations methodologically. Face, as defined in this study, is less dependent on cognitive factors
and therefore more clearly discernable in discourse. Moreover, as we have
seen in section 2.3, the notion of face serves as a link between politeness
and discourse research. The description of facework provided by this study
can strengthen this link, and points to the possibility of a more empirically
grounded analysis of facework and politeness.
Previous discursive studies on politeness centered primarily on the
topic of appropriateness evaluation and on the distinction between
54
appropriateness and politeness, while taking the notions of face and

facework for granted. Nevertheless, the mutual acknowledgment of face
and facework in interaction within a certain community of practice, along
with evaluations of appropriateness, can be seen as basic constituents of
politeness evaluations.
Another distinguishing mark between politeness and face (as defined in
this study) is whose face the speaker attends to in interactional work.
Practices in which the speaker maintains others' face are likely to be
conceived of as politeness; facework includes in addition instances in
which the speaker maintains his or her own face. For instance, a speaker's
display of his or her own competence may be regarded as facework, but
not necessarily as politeness. At the same time, there are cases in which the
speaker's display of deference towards others' face is directly related to the
display of his or her own face as a considerate interactant, or in which the
speaker's display of his or her own face is embedded in an action which
marks consideration for others. In any case, the analysis of facework in this
book encompasses a wider range of activities than just politeness
phenomena.
My analytic framework treats face not as a normative, uncontestable
concept. Rather, it defines face as interactants' positive self-image,
constructed, displayed, and managed in discourse. As such, my notion
of face shares some characteristics with Eelen's (2001) conception of
politeness: it is discursive, evaluative, and argumentative. The first quality,
discursiveness, is an integral part of our definition of face. The evaluative
nature of face derives from the fact that the construction of face inevitably
involves the normative evaluation of what is considered "positive" in a
given community of practice. Evaluations of face (e.g. what is considered
"competence") are contestable by the participants in talk, and therefore
argumentative.
In my depiction of discursive and evaluative facework, I will pay primary
attention to details of talk, apply my knowledge of the particular
community of practice in which the data are situated, and evaluate
reflexively how this knowledge as well as my stance toward the notion of
face might influence the interpretation of the data. The analysis of
facework emerges through an oscillation between observable linguistic
actions, my knowledge of the relevant communities of practice, and my
perspective on the subject matter (see Chapter 3 for more methodological
details).
As a component in this methodological process, this chapter serves the
purpose of testing out and shaping my academic stance in relation to
politeness and facework. It is through the examination of studies on
politeness, facework, and their underlying ideologies that my own position
on politeness and facework has emerged. The wealth of findings and
insights supplied by established politeness theories has provided me with
an initial inventory of behaviors that can potentially qualify as face
55
threatening or face enhancing. The subsequent broad review of

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

and of several issues associated with notions of face, types of politeness,
and sociolinguistic variables affecting the enactment of politeness. As
mentioned at several points in the discussion, it is my belief that the
utilization of naturalistic discourse data will lead to a better understanding
of the phenomenon of politeness.
In several sections of the chapter, I have delineated the relationship
between politeness and various approaches to discourse analysis. Among
the features of conversation analysis and discourse analysis (as applied in
discursive psychology), preference organization, and participant identity
and subjectivity, were shown to be closely related to the notion of face.
From the perspective of interactional sociolinguistics, I reviewed Tannen's
(1994) conceptualization of power and solidarity, and the relationship of
these dimensions to positive and negative face.
In the subsequent sections, I introduced recent discursive approaches to
politeness and synthesized associated unresolved issues which, in turn,
informed my reconsideration of the notion of face. Comparing Goffman's
(1967) notion of face with Brown and Levinson's (1987) cognitive
adaptation, I explained why I chose the GofTmanian approach as the basic
notion underpinning my framework. Next I clarified the relationship
between face and identity, to underscore my conceptualization of face and
facework and its potential benefits. Towards the end of the synthesis, the
relationship between face and politeness was critically examined. Even
though facework cannot be equated with politeness, my argument situates
face evaluations at the core of politeness evaluations.
Chapter 3: Analyzing Facework
3.1 Introduction
Near the end of Chapter 2, I outlined the Goffmanian respecification of
the notion of face and facework that forms the basis of my analysis. My
study attempts to provide an accountable analysis of the operation of
facework. To this end, it draws a link between interactants' discursive face
and their identity, which are both constructed and negotiated in
discourse. Through the analytic assessment of various linguistic (lexical,
grammatical and discursive) elements, and cultural and institutional
norms in the respective community of practice, my project represents
facework as an intersection of language, culture, action, and cognition.
From this core concept, connecting lines reach outwards to politeness
scholarship and to other disciplines such as conversation analysis,
interactional sociolinguistics, and discursive psychology.
This chapter assesses the practicability of a methodology that draws on
several analytical traditions in order to establish a discursive approach to
facework. It also presents the analytical framework of this study, and
describes the data and the community of practice within which the data
are situated.
I begin by introducing the conversation and discourse analytic
approaches (as applied in discursive psychology), which share many
methodological concerns, and which inform the examination of facework
presented in Chapters 4 to 7. I will delineate how the framework of
conversation and discourse analysis is adopted in the study, note the role
of ethnographic information in my analysis, and explore the relationship
between social action and culture. Considering that the analysis of
facework requires reference to the community of practice in which the
examined segment of talk is embedded, and that discourse analysis
scrutinizes the role of the researcher and the contingent nature of the act
of analysis itself, my project achieves analytical validity through the
combination of (1) primary attention to details of talk, (2) ethnographic
knowledge concerning the community of practice, and (3) reference to
previous research in the field. These practices allow the reader to check
analytic claims against the data and the treatment of the subject matter in
existing studies (e.g. how facework and politeness-related subjects have
been studied).
The subsequent sections describe the data and the community analyzed,
the preparation of the database, and the nature of the collected
58
conversational data (i.e. structure and topics). Along with a sketch of the
institutional setting, I will share my preliminary understanding of the
institutional faces prevalent in this community of practice. In combination
with the critical review of politeness research and various approaches to
discourse provided in Chapter 2, these accounts serve as an initial pointer
for capturing facework in interaction, and as a reference point for the
empirical work performed in later chapters.
3.2 Analyzing Facework in Social Interaction
The primary objective of this study is to describe how facework is
constructed, displayed, and managed in talk. Among the different paths
available to realize this goal, a qualitative conversation and discourse
analytic approach appeared to be the most constructive. This section
characterizes these analytic frameworks and appraises their adequacy for
the analysis of facework, their applicability to institutional discourse, and
their treatment of ethnographic information and culture. An eclectic
approach incorporating conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and
ethnographic information is proposed as the analytical framework best
suited for the interactional analysis of facework.
3.2.1 Conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and facework
In this section, I discuss the theoretical and analytical precepts of

conversation analysis and discourse analysis. A word of caution is in order
before we begin. I acknowledge that there are numerous forms of
discourse analysis with different disciplinary traditions. In this chapter,
however, I use the term "discourse analysis" to refer specifically to the
analytical method that originated in social studies of science (Gilbert and
Mulkay 1984), developed in the fields of social psychology (Potter and
Wetherell 1987), and serves as the analytical framework of discursive
psychology (Edwards 1997, Edwards and Potter 1992). I will examine both
conversation analysis and discourse analysis, and highlight their similarities and differences. Next I explain why I consider conversation and
discourse analysis suitable to the analysis of facework in interaction, and
point out the importance of ethnographic information to the analysis of
facework - a culturally bound evaluative phenomenon. Towards the end
of this section, I detail the eclectic approach implemented in this study,
which allows me to integrate ethnographic knowledge and other important information into the analysis.
Discourse analysis shares various theoretical and methodological concerns with conversation analysis, which has become one of the most
empirically cumulative fields in the study of interaction. Due to their
convergent understanding of interaction, we see an increasing crossover
between research in conversation analysis and in discourse analysis. Both
ANALYZING FACEWORK
59
approaches are concerned with actions and practices, and avoid assumptions concerning an underlying cognitive organization. Discourse is
treated as a "situated" phenomenon: it is embedded in sequences of
interaction, and it is oriented to participant identities and conversational
settings (see section 3.2.2 for a further discussion of this point).
Conversation analysis, as well as discourse analysis, attends to detailed
features of discourse, such as lexical and rhetorical choices, repair, pause,
laughter, and response tokens, and traces how these features construct
discourse in the performance of actions. These methodologies' actionoriented focus and attention to details of interaction contrast with other
more psychologically inclined approaches (e.g. earlier politeness studies),
whose primary concern is the relationship between different linguistic
realizations and a putative underlying cognitive organization (e.g. intentions or "wants").
As stated in Chapter 2, a number of studies in conversation and
discourse analysis have examined how interactants display their membership categories, discursive identities, and subjectivity - attributes closely
related to discursive face. Especially relevant among these studies are
those that illustrate how interactants display face-related concepts such as
alliance (Egbert 2004), epistemic autonomy (Heritage and Raymond
2005), and morality (Drew 1998). Their findings constitute vital reference
points in the realization of a data-based analysis of facework. In short,
through their attention to details of talk, both conversation analysis and
discourse analysis contribute valuable methodological insights to this
study's research objective: to capture facework as a discursively constructed
phenomenon.
Moreover, both conversation analysis and discourse analysis serve as
primary research methods in discursive psychology, whose discursive
treatment of psychological notions provides an analytical model for this
study. While the main concern of the more traditional strain of
conversation analysis is to discover systems of talk (e.g. organizational
features of talk such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, preference organization, pre-sequences, repair construction, topic organization), discursive
psychological studies, utilizing conversation analysis or discourse analysis,
pay attention to psychological aspects (e.g. stake, investment, speaker
subjectivity) of human behavior. As discussed in Chapter 2, discursive
psychologists' respecification of psychological notions in terms of their
role in talk provides a strong rationale for the treatment of face and
facework in this study.
Despite their similar views on interaction, discourse analysis diverges
from conversation analysis in other aspects. In his examination of the
relationship between the two disciplines, Wooffitt (2005) sees a key
difference in their research focus. According to the author, conversation
analysis seeks to discover sequential patterns of interaction and to explore
the normative expectations that inform sequential characteristics, while
60
discourse analysis displays a greater diversity of approaches and goals, and

is primarily concerned with "accounts" (e.g. expressions of opinion,
formulation of versions of events) in talk or texts. Since facework emerges
within participants' descriptions of, for example, past and ongoing
troubles (see Chapter 6) or events (see Chapter 7), the analysis in these
two chapters benefits from the discourse analytic focus on accounts in talk.
My study examines facework performed in delicate interactive actions
such as collaborative disagreement (in which several dissenters form a
dissenting "team"), teasing, and troubles talk (see Chapters 4 to 6). There
are several reasons why I chose these social actions for my examination of
facework in interaction. First, they promise to be suitable for a discourselevel analysis, for they can rarely be accomplished in a single utterance;
and second, they appear to be both face-threatening and face-enhancing,
requiring delicate interactional negotiations. My analysis explores how
these seemingly conflicting evaluations are attached to specific actions, by
paying attention to details of talk. So far, speech act based politeness
research has rarely ventured beyond the analysis of obvious face-threatening actions (e.g. requests) or face-enhancing actions (e.g. compliments). Yet proponents of a discursive approach to politeness point to the
benefits of expanding the analytical scope. For instance, Eelen (2001)
predicts that one of the advantages of reconceptualizing politeness as a
discursive process of social production would be "a full(er) coverage of
empirical data, since statistically marginal and contradictory data are also
covered" (240). Arundale (1999), too, asserts that a validating factor of the
new approach is its ability to explain "new and important phenomena"
(147). In my estimation, the ability to examine delicate discursive social
actions that have rarely been the subject of inquiry in politeness research is
sufficient justification for an alternative theoretical and empirical
approach.
Moreover, the actions mentioned above appear to be closely related to
norms effective in communities of practice (e.g. troubles talk recounts
problematic events, which are conceived of as a deviation from the
normative condition). Since the construction and negotiation of norms
are connected to appropriateness and politeness, the examination of
these social actions may provide insights into the ways in which
appropriateness and/or politeness is negotiated in discourse.
Due to these characteristics, the selected social actions appear to be
suitable for a detailed moment-by-moment description of multiple
facework. In addition, the study explores how facework is constructed in
a seemingly face-neutral activity, event description, and in the course of an
entire meeting.
Adopting conversation and discourse analytic frameworks, the analysis
of facework in this study will focus primarily on discursive details,
including participants' use of discourse markers, lexical choices, self- and
other-repairs, pauses, overlaps, laughter, and tone of voice. In particular,
ANALYZING FACEWORK
61
the action-oriented workings of language-specific discourse markers such

as the final particle ne, the contrastive particle kedo, and the plain and masu
forms of the clause final predicate are observed throughout the analysis of
distinct social actions.
A word of caution is necessary here regarding the adaptation of
conversation and discourse analytic techniques into the analysis of
facework. While there is a broad agreement within the conversation/
discourse analytic tradition that participant orientation can be analytically
powerful, my study is mainly concerned with facework that is displayed in
discourse, but may or may not be acknowledged as such by recipients in
subsequent turns. For analytical validation, I will rely on "coherence" and
"reader's evaluation," as discussed in Potter (2003). To achieve coherence, I will weigh my conclusions against the accumulation of empirical
studies, and I will present my empirical material "in a form that allows
readers to make their own checks and judgements" (Potter 2003: 618).
I value the discourse analytic "recognition of the constructed and
contingent nature of researchers' own versions of the world" (Potter 2004:
202). Discourse analysis treats "reality", whether constructed by participants or researchers, as a "rhetorical production that can itself be
decomposed and studied" (ibid.). Mills (2003), in her study on gender and
politeness, takes a similar position concerning the role of the researcher in
politeness studies (although she is not working within a discourse analytic
paradigm). Drawing on literary and cultural theory, she maintains that the
role of the analyst/critic, who cannot possibly be aware of everything that
is going on in any one interaction, should come under intense scrutiny.
Since my study treats politeness and facework as discursive and argumentative phenomena, I intend to maintain a similar awareness of the analyst's
role and the contingent nature of his or her interpretation. I acknowledge
the fact that analyzing facework is in itself an evaluative act, and that my
analysis is situated within the larger field of politeness research. With these
considerations in mind, I have clarified my understanding and my stance
toward politeness, face, and interaction in Chapter 2. Mills (2003) finds
Brown and Levinson's (1987) work constructive "in terms of being able to
trace the sites where politeness behaviour may be taking place" (245). In a
similar way, I appreciate the conclusions of earlier politeness theories and
the concepts related to face and politeness contributed by such diverse
disciplines as speech act studies, conversation analysis, discursive psychology, and interactional sociolinguistics. They opened my eyes to the first
traces of facework in my data, and aided me in their analysis. I recognize
the constructed and contingent nature of my analysis and attempt to
clarify my predispositions about politeness and face, which may color my
interpretations.
In order to allow the reader to check analytic claims against the data,
the analysis proper will be supplemented by my knowledge concerning the
particular community of practice in which the data are situated. Since the
62
treatment of context and culture is a controversial issue in both discourse

analysis and conversation analysis, it will be discussed in the next section.
3.2.2 Facework in context and culture
The debate concerning the issue of context and culture has a long history
in discourse and conversation analysis, as well as in politeness studies. In
order to consider the connection between earlier and recent politeness
studies, and to account for my decision to utilize conversation and
discourse analytic frameworks, it is important to elucidate the meaning of
context and culture for the purpose of this study. This section summarizes
how context and culture are conceptualized and incorporated in (1)
earlier politeness theories, (2) discursive politeness studies, (3) conversation and discourse analysis, and (4) the present study.
As we have seen in Chapter 2, most key issues discussed in early
politeness research pertained to social context (e.g. social variables
affecting politeness) and to culturally specific notions of face and
politeness (e.g. discernment vs volitional politeness). Researchers tried
to identify social variables affecting the enactment of politeness, such as
power difference, social distance, or the gender of participants, and
sought to explicate variations in polite behavior (e.g. in-group vs outgroup orientation, individualistic vs collective culture) in terms of cultural
difference.
In his critique of existing politeness theories, Eelen (2001) points out
that underlying these claims are certain conceptions of the terms
"individual," "society," and "culture" which, in turn, are related to a
Parsonian world-view. This world-view, explains Eelen, envisions culture as
a stable, self-sufficient system, which resides on a higher level than the
individual and determines their behavior. Individual behavior, then, is the
enactment of an individual's social role, regulated by various contextual
parameters and by the consensus present in a specific cultural setting.
Seen from this vantage point, the individual figures merely as a passive
receptor for cultural values and situational variables. Eelen (2001)
maintains that the definition of culture in most politeness studies is
vague and influenced by Parsonian ideas. In his estimation, "it does not
perform well as an explanatory concept, at best hindering an adequate
account of interaction, at worst leading to the reduction of human beings
as mere manifestation of cultural characteristics" (187).
Resonant with Eelen's (2001) recommendation that "culture should
not be treated as a given entity, but rather as an argumentative practice"
(238) is the dynamic and argumentative conception of culture evident in
discursive studies of politeness. Mills (2003) defines culture as "a set of
assumptions made by the individual because of his/her involvement with
groups where those values are affirmed and contested" (32). Watts (2003)
also registers his skeptical assessment of the treatment of culture as an
objective entity that can be used to explain politeness. He turns to
.ANALYZING FACEWORK
63
Bourdieu's concept of habitus, a set of dispositions shaping practices,

perceptions, and attitudes that are considered regular.
At the same time, recent discursive politeness studies (e.g. Holmes and
Schnurr 2005, Mills 2003, Watts 2003) seem to agree that the inclusion of
social context is essential to their analysis. This development was triggered
by researchers' interest in (im)politenessl and its evaluative and argumentative nature. There is now a general consensus among scholars that
interactants' moment-by-moment evaluations of (im) polite behavior
cannot be accessed without reference to contextual information. In
connection with the issue of context, the framework of community of
practice is considered beneficial to the analysis of politeness (e.g. Holmes
and Schnurr 2005, Mills 2003). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the term
"'community of practice" refers to a loosely defined group of people who
are jointly engaged in a particular task and have "a shared repertoire of
negotiable resources accumulated over time" (Wenger 1998: 76). Within
this framework, knowledge regarding appropriate behavior is acquired
through participation in activities and tasks. Since individuals do not
always take part in the same activities to the same degree, the associated
knowledge is not necessarily distributed equally within the community.
This particular characteristic of the notion of community of practice
provides a rationale for the argumentative nature of politeness.
Interactants who possess different levels of knowledge and experience
regarding appropriate behavior are likely to be engaged in argumentative
practices over politeness.
Mills (2003) states that "although context is something which is invoked
by speaker and hearer on an ongoing basis throughout the interaction,
that does not mean that larger forces are not also at work" (49). She
appears to suggest the possibility of referring to contextual information
that is not oriented to by participants (see the discussion on the treatment
of context orientation in the conversation analytic tradition later in this
section). An open stance toward context appears to be quite common in
discursive politeness research.
Let us now turn to the treatment of context in conversation analysis.
Regarding the sequential context of talk, conversation analysts view all
communicative actions as doubly contextual because they are shaped by
the immediate sequential context and simultaneously renew the sequential environment for following turns (Heritage 2004). Communicative
actions are context-shaped in that they display an understanding of the
preceding sequence and of the environment of the ongoing activity. For
instance, when an interlocutor gives an answer, he or she demonstrates his
or her understanding of the prior turn as a question. Communicative
actions are also context renewing since they initiate changes in the local
configurations of talk and, therefore, influence subsequent turns.
How do conversation analysts treat social context? Because of their focus
on participant orientation, they have developed a critical view of the
64
"bucket theory" of social context, in which interaction is treated as the

outcome of pre-existing circumstances (Drew and Heritage 1992,
Goodwin and Heritage 1990, Heritage 1987, 2004). In his study of teasing
sequences, Drew (1987) criticizes the treatment of contextual features as
an explanatory measure: since there are an indefinite number of possible
contextual features, one cannot predict which of these are actually
involved in triggering a certain action such as social bonding or conflict It
is the researcher who chooses one or more contextual features (e.g. the
characterization "close friends") from a vast inventory of features, and
based upon his or her choice assigns a specific function (e.g. "bonding")
to a particular linguistic behavior. The unquestioning reliance on
contextual features can only compromise the validity of the analysis,
which in the end merely reproduces what was already known at the
intuitive level. Drew's (1987) claim mirrors Eelen's (2001) criticism that
the use of culture as an explanatory device in current politeness research
is the symptom of an underlying Parsonian world-view.
In contrast, conversation analysts hold the view that social context is
"both a project and a product of the participants' actions," "built,
invoked, and managed" through interaction (Heritage 2004: 224).
Primarily concerned with the sequential organization of discourse, they
adopt a cautious attitude toward the invocation of contextual information
as a means to explain elements of interaction. To establish a meaningful
connection between talk and context, Schegloff (1987) requires analysts to
demonstrate that a feature of the context is oriented to by the participants
as relevant to the interaction, and that the context is consequential to the
talk. Conversation analytic research on institutional discourse has
evidenced ScheglofFs requirements - relevance and consequentiality through the examination of participants' interactional practices such as
lexical choice, turn taking, and turn design.
Other conversation analytic studies have taken up the question of how
institution-specific properties of a setting, for example a doctor-patient
consultation (e.g. Maynard 1991), or a news interview (e.g. dayman and
Heritage 2002), are constituted in talk, rather than being stable and predetermined in any straightforward way. Recent work in discursive
psychology has depicted the processes by which psychological notions
are constructed in institutions and for institutional ends (Edwards and
Potter 2001). These cited efforts are relevant to my study since my data
capture one type of institutional discourse: interactions recorded in gradelevel faculty meetings in Japanese secondary schools.1
The skeptical view of the "bucket theory" of context held by conversation analysis is equally evident in its position on the treatment of culture.
Instead of conceptualizing culture as an entity that is located outside of
the sphere of social interaction, influencing and determining interactional practices, conversation analysts conceive of culture as commonsense knowledge that is constantly deployed, renewed and co-constructed
ANALYZING FACEWORK
65
in interaction. (Note the similarities of this conceptualization of culture to

the one formulated by discursive politeness studies.) The cautious
approach to context and culture in conversation analysis contributes to
its reluctance to incorporate ethnographic information into the analysis.
Conversation analysts rely exclusively on recorded and transcribed data,
and refrain from interpreting features of talk in terms of context external
to the talk itself.
However, there is a group of conversation analysts who are more
disposed to include contextual information in their work (Bilmes 1996,
Moerman 1988, Saft 2000). These scholars primarily study interactions
situated in non-English-language settings. They claim that familiarity with
the context of the data is a precondition for their analysis and that neither
data nor analysis would be comprehensible to (English-speaking) readers
without relevant contextual information.
Since my study explores the mechanisms of facework in Japanese
institutional discourse collected in grade-level faculty meetings at Japanese
secondary schools, the reader may not be familiar with the type and setting
of the data, or the wider cultural background that surrounds it Therefore,
following the above-mentioned conversation analytic work on interactions
situated in non-English-language settings, and discursive politeness studies
(e.g. Mills 2003, Watts 2003), I welcome the inclusion of ethnographic
information and incorporate relevant information into my analysis.
However, as Maynard (2003) observes,
when advocating for investigations of context, investigators do not often
specify what is meant by "broader" or "larger scale" social structures
and organizations or precisely how to incorporate features of context
residing outside of and purportedly influencing direct interaction and
talk. (69)
The reliance on ethnographic information requires a delicate balance: the
researcher has to assess what amount of data is needed to make his or her
analysis more understandable (to readers unfamiliar with the setting), yet
at the same time he or she has to be aware that over-use of contextual
information may compromise the validity of his or her analysis.
Maynard's (2003) study of news delivery in medical settings utilizes both
conversation analysis and ethnography. He discusses "three uses to which
conversation analysts put ethnography: in description of settings and
identities of parties; in explications of terms, phrases, or courses of action
unfamiliar to an investigator or reader; and in explanations of 'curious'
patterns that prior sequential analysis may reveal" (73). In other words, he
recommends the use of ethnographic information in a limited manner,
only to make the data and their analysis more understandable to
investigators and readers.
Following his proposal, I include an overall description of the setting (in
66
this chapter and in Chapter 7) as well as several clearly distinguishable

identity categories, which may or may not influence the way participants
talk (in Chapters 4 to 7). These categories include gender, age group (e.g.
in his 30s), function (e.g. head teacher), and divisional membership (e.g.
member of the Student Life Division). In instances where I assume that
the reader may not be familiar with them, I include an explanation of
terms, phrases, and "curious" patterns of practice.
In this study, ethnographic information serves as a background, against
which the linguistic actions of interlocutors may acquire sharper contours.
At the same time, I recognize the value of relevance and consequentiality
and will not use contextual information as a simple explanatory measure:
my analysis refrains from drawing any conclusions from the assessment of
external contextual factors, such as the gender or age of speakers and
addressees. For, as Maynard (2003) cautions, even when it seems
important to see "how the practices they comprise may be distributed
among participants according to their sociodemographic and other
identities," we should "not engage in studies of variation until we have
grasped the phenomena ... in the full integrity of their locally produced
orderly detail" (72).
In Chapters 4 and 5,1 rely primarily on conversation analytic sequential
analysis, while I draw on the discourse analytic approach to "accounts" in
Chapters 6 and 7. The latter two chapters contain a greater quantity of
ethnographic information regarding the community of practice. The
choice of method is necessitated by the type of social action under
investigation. Collaborative disagreement (Chapter 4) and teasing
(Chapter 5) are frequently achieved interactionally through relatively
short contributions by multiple participants. Consequently, they are best
captured by sequential analysis. In contrast, troubles talk (Chapter 6),
event description (Chapter 7) and the examination of an entire meeting
(Chapter 7) require an increased measure of reference to the content of
the participants' talk and their rhetorical practices, as well as to the
specific attitudes and beliefs of the examined community (e.g. what is
considered trouble or incipient trouble in a given group). As a result, the
degree to which ethnographic information is incorporated varies between
the first half and the latter half of the analysis chapters.
3.3 Data, Community and Institutional Face
This section describes the social and institutional context of the data
examined in this study. The general information about the participants of
the meetings and the relevant institutional characteristics derive from the
observation of school sites and informal interviews conducted with several
participants, and the author's nine years of experience in similar
institutions (Japanese secondary schools).
.ANALYZING FACEWORK
67
3.3.1 Grade-level faculty meetings and participating teachers
This study documents facework constructed and displayed in multiparty

interactions among adult native speakers of Japanese, more specifically,
teachers participating in faculty meetings at several secondary schools in
the Tokyo metropolitan area. These meetings, called "grade-level faculty
meetings," are scheduled for teachers who teach the same body of
students (i.e. teachers assigned to the same grade). Six or seven instructors
in public secondary schools participated in each of the faculty meetings
recorded on tape. The teachers' ages ranged from early 20s to late 50s.
Their degree of teaching expertise varied as well. Some had been teachers
for more than 30 years; others had just graduated from college the same
year the data were collected and had only completed a few months of
teaching.
Each faculty meeting brought together a group of teachers who taught
various subjects to the same body of students. These groups are formed
when a new set of seventh-graders enters the school, and they stay
responsible for this set of students for the full three consecutive years of
secondary school, minor personnel changes notwithstanding. One group
member serves as head teacher. Each group consists of several homeroom
teachers and a smaller number of other instructors.
A homeroom teacher takes care of a class unit of approximately 40
students. Besides teaching, his or her duties include conducting daily class
assemblies (one in the morning and another after the last class session of
the day), organizing class participation in numerous school events such as
sports day, hiking, summer camp, school trip and school festivals, and
talking with parents both individually and at parent/teacher meetings.
The main responsibility for student behavior rests with the homeroom
teacher as well. To this end, the homeroom teacher often acts as an
informal counselor. (At the time of data collection, few Japanese
secondary schools had in-school counselors.) When students encounter
troubles with study, friends, family, and so on, the first person they turn to
is supposed to be their homeroom teacher, who takes on the role of
"surrogate parent," caring for his or her students for at least one year. The
non-homeroom teachers in the group support the homeroom teachers in
the above-mentioned activities.
The teachers' desks in the faculty room are arranged based on their
grade levels, and various school events are planned and conducted in the
grade-level unit. Therefore, teachers who belong to the same grade level
tend to talk with each other in the faculty room on a daily basis.
Besides the group of grade-level instructors, each teacher belongs to
one or two "divisions" (e.g. Student Life Division, Curriculum Division,
Facility Division). These divisions deal with school-wide matters, and each
grade has at least one teacher representing each division. The role of the
Student Life Division (seekatsu-bu or seekatsu-shidoo-bu in Japanese)
becomes pertinent in the later analysis and requires a short explanation.
68
Seekatsu-shidoo, roughly translated as "guiding students' life" or "exercising control over the student body," counts among the essential duties of a
Japanese teacher. Teachers belonging to this division are supposed to
prevent instances of severe student delinquency. A number of school-wide
events, such as the election of student committee members, are planned
in the division as well.
The instructors are also grouped by the subject they teach, and each
grade level consists of instructors representing at least four or five
different subjects. The instructors teaching the same subject meet once or
twice a semester to discuss teaching practices, materials, and subjectrelated school events (e.g. a chorus competition organized by music
teachers).
Among these three types - grade-level, division, and subject groups teachers meet most often with other members of their grade-level faculty
group. Grade-level faculty meetings are held regularly, at least once every
month, throughout the school year. These after-school meetings offer a
relaxed atmosphere. The participants sit together in a small room sharing
tea and snacks. The length of a meeting depends on the number and
content of the items on the agenda.
Among the topics discussed in these meetings are upcoming events, as
well as problems concerning the students. In addition, participants are
permitted to raise any issue they deem important. Most of the extracurricular activities involved in Japanese secondary school life are planned
and executed by the grade-level unit, and there are a number of these
activities all year round. Since teachers of various subjects are present at
these meetings, specific issues of instruction (e.g. methods or materials)
are rarely brought up. The opposite is true of student misconduct.
Japanese teachers are held responsible for their charges' behavior, and
disciplinary matters figure as a regular topic on the agenda.
The institutional face (i.e. the positive self-image related to this
institution) we encounter in these groups corresponds to qualifications
that can be best summarized as "a good teacher" and "a good colleague."
I created an initial inventory of interrelated face categories based on
informal participant interviews and on my own experience as a teacher in
Japanese schools.2 This inventory includes the following categories:
competence (being good at teaching, being able to keep students under
control), cooperation (being able to work well with other teachers),
experience (being a practiced instructor in general and within a particular
school in particular), motivation (being eager to engage in current tasks),
and open-mindedness (being flexible and receptive to new ideas). This
inventory overlaps with the description of "good teachers" published by
the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (2003), which lists qualities such as teaching competence,
humanity, competence in human relations, problem-solving skills, and
pride in the teaching profession as desirable teacher characteristics. These
ANALYZING FACEWORK
69
preliminary categories do not reflect the cultural specificity attached to

the community of practice in which the data were collected. The
observation of facework in discourse rendered in later chapters will
bring more community-specific features of face into play (What kind of
behavior is considered co-operative? Is openness valued over competence?
etc.).
At the present stage, these preliminary categories, supplemented by the
more general face values contributed by studies on politeness and related
subjects (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987), prepare the terrain for the
empirical analysis conducted in Chapters 4 to 7.
3.3.2 Data collection procedures
This section introduces the data collection procedures and the characteristics of the resulting data. Next, the strengths and weaknesses of the
collected data are discussed.
3.3.2.1 Audiotaping the data
The data analyzed in this study consist of audiotapes recorded at six gradelevel faculty meetings held at four different secondary schools in the
Tokyo metropolitan area. Each meeting was recorded by one of the
participants. All of the conferences provided naturally occurring speech
data. They were ordinarily scheduled meetings without any interference by
the researcher. To minimize the intrusion caused by the presence of a
tape recorder, audiotaping began before the meeting was scheduled to
open, during the informal chatter as participants arrived. This portion of
the recording was not analyzed.
Preceding the data collection, written consent forms were distributed to
all participants informing them that (a) the study would not report
recognizable details of the discussions, (b) individuals and organizations
would remain anonymous, and (c) participation was voluntary.
3.3.2.2 Overview of the data
The audiotape recordings of six faculty meetings provide naturally
occurring data of spoken Japanese. Of the six recorded conferences, 4,
5, and 6 were conducted by the same group of teachers (group D). At each
conference, six to seven participants were present, with the head teacher
acting as chairperson.
The length of the conferences ranged from approximately 20 to 90
minutes. A teacher who wished to add an item to the agenda could notify
the chairperson before the meeting. Even though participants were
encouraged to raise both related and unrelated topics during the meeting,
all main issues documented in the data were pre-scheduled and
introduced by the chairperson during the meeting. In addition, the
tapes contain discussions on numerous sub-topics, some of which were
70
Table 3.1 Meeting Summary

Meeting Group Participants
Length Main topics

(minrsec)
85.20
guidance sessions
extra course during summer
vacation
problem students
74.30
student council
assignments for summer
vacation
assembly during summer
vacation
problem students
26.50
parent/ teacher meeting

guidance sessions
40.30
school trip during summer

vacation
35.10
parent/ teacher meeting

problem students
23.00
problem students
spontaneously initiated by participants. Table 3.1 summarizes the characteristics of each meeting.
3.3.2.3 Transcription
Converting audio data into written language is "a selective process
reflecting theoretical goals and definitions" (Ochs 1979: 44). The
transcription method a researcher chooses reflects which aspect of
interaction he or she considers important. For my study, I decided to
use a notation that includes a moment-by-moment sequential representation of the interaction as well as selected linguistic and paralinguistic
features (e.g. laughter). Since my study adopts a conversation/discourse
analytic approach, the transcription of audiotapes adheres on the whole to
the accepted conventions of conversation analysis (Atkinson and Heritage
1984), with some minor modifications (see Appendix A for transcription
conventions).
The data analyzed in this study consist of spoken Japanese. Japanese
transliteration is presented in a phonetic orthography called the Hepburn
ANALYZING FACEWORK
71
style. To secure the anonymity of participants, all proper names have been
replaced by pseudonyms.
The excerpts presented in the analysis chapters include word-by-word
glosses and turn-by-turn English translations. Since it is the objective of the
analysis to depict the management of facework as a process, the sequential
order of expressions in Japanese became an important consideration. As
much as possible, I have tried to maintain the sequential placement of
linguistic expressions in Japanese, even when the resulting translation into
English lacks a sense of naturalness or fluency.
3.33 Limitations
This study conducts a qualitative analysis of facework. The quantitative
treatment of linguistic elements and social variables is not a central focus
of analysis. A number of studies in the existing literature have looked at
the correlation between social variables and politeness enactments. They
have tried to establish, for example, which types of politeness strategy are
used in addressing higher- or lower-status addressees, or which social
attributes of speakers and settings are associated with certain linguistic
forms. However, the quantitative treatment of facework, linguistic practices, or social variables is beyond the scope of my study, for "issues of how
frequently, how widely, or how often particular phenomena occur are to
be set aside" (Psathas 1995: 3) in the conversation analytic framework.
Despite this limitation, the chosen analytical method serves best for the
purpose of this study - to capture the moment-by-moment progression of
facework in interaction.
The second limitation of this study concerns the nature of the collected
data. They contain excellent examples of naturally occurring spontaneous
discourse, but they obviously lack visual information. Numerous researchers have stressed the importance of visual cues such as gaze, body
alignment, and head movement in analyzing spoken discourse (Ford et al
1996, Goodwin 1981, Goodwin and Goodwin 1987). One cannot
overemphasize the importance of nonverbal cues in tracing emergent
properties within ongoing talk. This recognition notwithstanding, my
study confines itself exclusively to the verbal elements of interaction. I
hope that future studies of facework and politeness will incorporate the
crucial visual dimension of interaction into their analysis.
Lastly, I do not claim that the findings of this study describe the whole
range of characteristic facework enacted in Japanese conversation. The
analyzed data are situated in a particular institutional setting and cannot
possibly represent the full spectrum of face-related actions available to
speakers of Japanese. However, I do believe that this study offers a basic
understanding of how facework is constructed, displayed, and managed in
interaction, and how these practices are often related to particular
institutional norms.
72
3.4 Summary
Chapter 3 has provided an overview of the research procedures used to
attain the objective of this study: to depict facework as a discursive and
constructed entity. To this end, the study employs conversation and
discourse analytic approaches. The evaluative nature of facework and
politeness, as well as the particularity of the collected data, necessitate the
incorporation of ethnographic information. In addition, constant awareness of the contingent nature of the analysis is required. The study pursues
its research goal by oscillating between three main methodological
components: attention to details of talk, knowledge concerning the
relevant community of practice, and my stance toward the subject matter,
informed by its treatment in the literature.
In the latter part of the chapter the data, the institutional setting, and
the participants of the study were reviewed. An initial understanding of
face categorizations relevant to the institution of Japanese secondary
schools, supplemented by facework- and politeness-related practices
derived from the literature, provides suggestions for the analysis of
facework in Chapters 4 to 7.
Chapter 4: Collaborative Disagreement
4.1 Introduction
This chapter illustrates a range of facework performed by multiple
participants in collaborative disagreement sequences, in which two or
more participants form a dissenting "team." In collaborative disagreements, oppositional stances are displayed collaboratively.
While disagreement is considered an archetypical face-threatening act
within Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework, other studies have
demonstrated that disagreement can enhance solidarity in certain social
and cultural settings (Kakava 1993, Labov 1972, Schiffrin 1984, Tannen
1990). Alliances among dissenters involved in multiparty disagreement
add considerable complexity to its analysis. As a disagreement sequence
unfolds, participants may engage in interactional practices that display
different degrees of opposition and alignment, as well as other types of
facework. The sequential achievement of collaborative disagreement poses
a methodological challenge, for we can no longer solely rely on Brown and
Levinson's (1987) framework with its emphasis on speech-act level
analysis. In my study, facework is conceptualized as the discursively
displayed self-image of multiple participants. This chapter attempts to
capture facework operative in the mechanism of collaborative disagreement as a discursive phenomenon constructed in a moment-by-moment
fashion.
After providing an overview of previous studies on disagreement and
conflict talk, including multiparty disagreement, this chapter will explore
how alignment, opposition, and other types of facework are formulated
and managed interactionally in the course of collaborative disagreements
during Japanese faculty meetings.
4.1.1 Disagreement and conflict talk
Disagreement is a form of verbal conflict, which can develop into an

argument or dispute. Brown and Levinson (1987) define disagreement
as an act that threatens the addressee's positive face want "by indicating (potentially) that the speaker does not care about the addressee's
feelings, wants, etc. - that in some important respect he doesn't
want H's [=addressee's] wants" (66). Brown and Levinson present two
disagreement-related positive politeness strategies that redress this threat
to positive face wants: "seek agreement (e.g. to engage in talk with safe
topics)" and "avoid disagreement (e.g. the use of token agreement and
74
hedges)." These strategies neutralize the face threat by claiming common

ground (e.g. common points of view, attitudes, knowledge) shared by
speaker and hearer.
A different view of disagreement has been developed in conversation
analysis, which considers disagreement a type of dispreferred second pair
part within an adjacency pair based on its sequential characteristics
(Pomerantz 1984). While agreement turns are usually unmarked, occupying the whole turn with a minimum temporal gap after the prior
assessment, disagreement turns are recurrently delayed, elaborated, and
prefaced by some type of agreement token or conversational marker
(Pomerantz 1984). Even though the term "preference" refers "not to
motivations of the participants, but to sequence- and turn-organizational
features of conversation" (ScheglofT et al 1977: 362), a number of studies
have associated it with the notion of face (Heritage 1989, Heritage and
Raymond 2005, Lerner 1996, Levinson 1983, Owen 1983, Taylor and
Cameron 1987).
Contrary to the characterization of disagreement as a face-threatening
act and a dispreferred second pair part, some researchers have focused
their attention on showing that disagreement can be preferred and
solidarity-building in certain contexts. For instance, disagreement is
preferred when the first assessment is a self-deprecation or compliment
(Pomerantz 1984), when it is issued in blame-allocation sequences in legal
discourse (Atkinson and Drew 1979), or when it occurs in other settings in
which the frame of argumentation is already established (Kotthoff 1993).
Disagreement has also been characterized as a sociable activity enhancing
solidarity. Schiffrin (1984) shows that disagreement in an East European
Jewish community in Philadelphia can initiate a sociable argument, "a
speech activity in which a polarizing form has a ratificatory meaning"
(331). Disagreement or conflict talk can also build solidarity in Black
teenager groups (Kochman 1981, Labov 1972), among Greeks (Kakava
1993), and among White male peers engaged in "report talk" (Tannen
1990).
These diverse sequential characteristics and social functions of disagreement reveal that several interrelated contextual factors influence its
enactment, including the type of speech action proffered in the first pair
part (Pomerantz 1984), speech situations (Atkinson and Drew 1979,
Kotthoff 1993), participants' background (e.g. age or gender) (Goodwin
and Goodwin 1987, Labov 1972, Tannen 1990), social and psychological
distance among participants (Kakava 1993, Labov 1972), and cultural
norms (Kakava 1993, Kochman 1981, Labov 1972, Schiffrin 1984).
The above-mentioned studies on disagreement point to the possibility
of face-related accounts for those varied practices. For instance, disagreement issued against another's self-deprecation (i.e. acts to undermine
one's own positive self-image) is preferred since, by opposing such a
challenge, the speaker displays his or her adherence to the other person's
COLLABORATIVE DISAGREEMENT
75
positive self-image. Prompt delivery of disagreement in blame-allocation

sequences may project the speaker's competence in defending himself.
The ability to engage in sociable arguments may be related to some ingroup situated competence. Moreover, in her research on face-to-face
interaction among a children peer group, Goodwin (1983, 1990)
illustrates how disputing allows participants the opportunity to construct
and display character and to realign the "social organization of the
moment" (1990: 142).
The functions, sequential characteristics, and face implications of
disagreement are closely related to the question of whether disagreement
is considered polite and/or appropriate in a particular context Locher
(2004) states that there is a "greater or lesser degree of tolerance for
disagreement depending on the situation," and that whether an enactment of disagreement is perceived as impolite, merely appropriate, or
polite by participants "depends on the frames and norms relevant for the
specific situation" and may vary individually (98). Locher maintains that
the successful analysis of disagreement depends on the availability of
contextual information regarding the norms of the specific community of
practice in which the interaction is embedded.
While research incorporating contextual information can be beneficial,
its use requires caution (see Chapter 3 for more discussion on this point).
Conversation analytic approaches keep distance from using contextual
information as an explanatory measure a priori. The analysis conducted in
this chapter is based on the general understanding that opposing or
correcting someone in a faculty meeting can cause offense to the opposed
party: correction or disagreement are signs of the speaker's non-approval
of someone's face (e.g. a claim of competence in the prior turn). However,
instead of relying on contextual features such as gender and status of the
participants to explain facework enactments, primary attention is paid to
the details of discourse. In section 4.2, I will illustrate how multiple faces
are displayed and managed in collaborative disagreement sequences.
4.1.2 Disagreement in multiparty discourse
Some scholars claim that multiparty interactions differ considerably from
dyadic interactions in their discursive practices and linguistic and nonlinguistic resources (e.g. Goodwin 1981). The range of facework displayed
and managed in multiparty disagreement may be wider than that in dyadic
disagreement.
In her research on power and politeness, Locher (2004) chooses a
discursive approach for her analysis of disagreement in three different
interactional settings: a dinner conversation among friends and relatives, a
business meeting at a research institution, and a radio interview program.
The first two cases are examples of multiparty discourse, but the dinner
conversation centers on two main antagonists, who exchange facethreatening acts during the gathering. The other participants serve
76
merely as an "audience," contributing primarily "in offering face repair"

(Locher 2004: 202). In her analysis of the business meeting, Locher
reviews participant contributions individually in separate sections; the
interwoven threads of oppositional collaboration are not reported.
Consequently, the relevance of Locher's study to our understanding of
oppositional collaboration remains minimal.
Among existing studies, Kangasharju's (2002) offers an important point
of reference for the analysis of collaborative disagreements in this chapter.
The author examines collaborative disagreements, "the alignment of two
or more participants into teams in the course of a disagreement" (1447),
in Finnish committee meetings. According to the study, alliances are
frequently formed after matter-of-fact statements, stance taking, and
proposals. Collaborative disagreement, Kangasharju claims, is a social
activity generally patterned on the following structure:
A: Statement
B: Disagreement with speaker A
C: Endorsement of B's turn
(A: Defense, acquiescence, silence, etc.) (Kangasharju 2002:1450)
In the alignment turns (C in the structure above), linguistic means such as
collaborative completion and repetition of the elements of the prior turn
are used, in combination with nonlinguistic devices such as headshakes.
The collaborative disagreement sequences examined in Kangasharju's
(2002) study can be divided into two parts: initial disagreement (B) and
subsequent agreement (C). Each act can be analyzed separately by
applying Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework. Kangasharju lists the
tasks accomplished by alliances: correcting prior statements, adjusting or
moderating a categorical or one-sided stance, acting against a proposal,
and achieving social power.
Collaborative disagreement may include agreement as one of its
constituents. In their research on second position assessment (an
assessment that expresses agreement with a prior assessment offered by
another speaker), Heritage and Raymond (2005) maintain that a second
speaker can index the independence of his or her agreeing second
position assessment from the first speaker's assessment, and "resist any
claim to epistemic authority that may be indexed by the first speaker in
'going first' in assessing some state of affairs" (15). Heritage and
Raymond's observation becomes pertinent in our analysis of second
dissenters' agreement turns in collaborative disagreement.
The data examined in this study reveal an intricate pattern of talk
realized through linguistic devices other than the collaborative completion and repetition observed by Kangasharju (2002). In our analysis of the
following data excerpts, we will observe in detail how multiple discursive
77
faces are displayed and manipulated in the interactional practice of

collaborative disagreement.
4.2 Analysis
4.2.1 Projecting alignment and claiming accountability
This chapter examines segments of talk in which several participants

assume dissenting stances collaboratively. Within the community of
practice of Japanese teachers at faculty meetings, assuming an oppositional stance toward a previously offered opinion or proposal can cause
an interactional offense to the person who has advanced this opinion or
proposal. A speaker who issues an opinion or proposal displays a certain
face (e.g. as a competent participant of the meeting), and this face can be
threatened by an oppositional statement. The formation of alliances
among dissenters is an integral element of collaborative disagreement,
and potentially compounds the challenge to the face of the opposed
speaker. Under these conditions, the choice of alignment and opposition
is a delicate matter in terms of face.
Facework, as conceptualized in this study, encompasses relational
stances such as alignment and opposition (see Chapter 2, section
2.5.3.3). The speaker's projection of alignment is considered facework,
for he or she endorses the other's face and displays his or her own selfimage of a person who is sharing some commonality with the other. A
dissenting stance, on the other hand, may undermine the opposed
speaker's face and project the dissenter's face as an independent and
competent (or reasonable, sensible, etc.) individual.
The instances of collaborative disagreement recorded in the faculty
meeting data attest to the critical role of the second dissenter. In
Kangasharju's (2002) study, the first dissenter issues the disagreement,
followed by the second dissenter, who shows alignment with the first
through various linguistic means. In my data, too, the second dissenters
align with the first, but, as we will see in later sections, their interactional
contribution to the collaborative disagreement is more substantial than
the one described by Kangasharju (2002).
In some cases, it is the contribution of the second dissenter that frames
the ongoing discourse as a disagreement, and thereby assumes accountability for the evolving disagreement. In the following analysis of examples
demonstrating the collaborative construction of oppositional alliances, I
will pay special attention to the role of the second dissenter. In addition, I
will try to show that alliance is displayed not only through repetition and
collaborative completion, but also through other language-specific register and lexical manipulations employed by multiple participants.
In excerpt [1], Haga, a female teacher in her 40s, initiates a partial
disagreement with a proposal concerning assignments during the
78
upcoming summer vacation. Before the onset of the segment, Baba, a

male teacher in his 40s in charge of organizing summer assignments,
proposed that all teachers individually assign some form of summer
homework to their students. Prompted by another teacher's clarifying
question, Baba specified that teachers who do not want to issue the
proposed assignment would not have to do so. Excerpt [1] begins with an
acknowledgment token offered by the teacher who asked the clarifying
question, followed by a suggestion by Haga.
Excerpt [I]
1 Muto:
hai wakarimashita.
yes understood
(I see.)
2 Haga:
ato (.) ichioo zenbu dashiowatta dankai de aruteedo bunryoo o=

and once all finish-to-assign stage at to-some-extent amount O
(And, when we all finish planning the assignment, to some extent, the
amount...)
3->Kasai:
=amarini ookattara [ne.

too
much-if FP
(If it is too much, right?)
4 Haga:
5
[o: mite amarini ooito nan te koto wa chekku

O look-and too much-if such-as Qt thing T check
shita [hoo ga,
do rather S
([It might be better] to look at the amount and check if it is too much.)
6 Tanaka:
[un yappa
ne,
yes as-I-thought FP
(Yes, as I thought, right?)
Haga's turn in line 2 specifies a point in time (when all teachers are
finished planning the assignment) and ends with bunryoo "amount" and
the direct object marker o. Typically, this object marker would be followed
by a transitive verb. Since the predicate was not articulated, the
illocutionary force of Haga's turn as well as her epistemic stance cannot
be specified, although the adverbial expressions ichioo "once" and aruteedo
"to some extent" appear to suggest some type of qualification. More
specifically, since these expressions have limiting qualities, they point to a
potential partial qualification of the prior turn.
79
Immediately after bunryoo o in Haga's turn, Kasai, a male teacher in his

30s, inserts the truncated supplementary comment amarini ookattara ne "if
it is too much, right?" (line 3). Kasai's turn is a detached if-clause of the
"if-then" sentence structure. Brief as it is, its meaning becomes more
explicit by virtue of its sequential placement. Tanaka (2005) examined the
role of adverbial phrases (e.g. anmari) and the conjunctive particle tara in
designing and foreshadowing dispreferred turns. In Japanese, according
to the author, the employment of the conjunctive particle tara at the end
of a clause "defines the just-produced clause as a subordinate clause while
simultaneously projecting a main clause" (418). She describes instances in
which incremental projectability achieved by the placement of the
conjunctive particle together with some adverbials heightens the
projective capacity of a turn-in-progress, so that the visibility of implied
dispreferred turns is improved. In a similar way, the combination of the
adverb anmari, the expression of excess -sugiru, and the connective
particle tara, foreshadows the dispreferred nature of Kasai's turn. Thus,
while Haga uses the neutral term bunryoo, Kasai's turn explicitly advances
the possibility that too much homework might accumulate. Taken
together, Haga and Kasai's statements constitute a dissension from
Baba's proposal to issue assignments individually, since it carries the risk
of overburdening the students with homework. Sequentially, Kasai's
disagreement follows Haga's turn. While aligning with Haga's proffered
qualification, he assumes accountability for the opposing stance. At the
same time, Kasai's turn is not a syntactic continuation of Haga's turn (the
direct object marker at the end of Haga's turn in line 2 calls for a transitive
verb, which Kasai does not offer in his turn in line 3). While Kasai's turn
propositionally elaborates Haga's, it is offered in a syntactically disjunctive
form.
Another relevant feature in Kasai's turn is the particle ne at the turnfinal position, which solicits agreement and marks a shared affective
stance (Cook 1992).l Sequentially, the placement of the final particle
marks a turn transition relevant place where the current speaker (Kasai)
relinquishes his turn (cf. Tanaka 2000). Doing so without syntactic
completion invites other speakers to complete the statement. While
Kasai's turn overtly points to his and Haga's dissenting stance through
prepositional elaboration, its syntactically incomplete structure and the
placement of the final particle invite collaborative completion.
In terms of facework, Kasai's turn accomplishes two purposes: it
establishes alignment with Haga's prior turn (by prepositional elaboration) and simultaneously displays his own face as the independent and
accountable agent of the ongoing disagreement. These indexical accomplishments in a single turn seem to have a parallel in Heritage and
Raymond's (2005) observation that speakers in second position assessments, while voicing their agreement, may also index the independence of
their assessment. Yet there is a potential difference: in a second position
80
assessment, the claim of independence can qualify the current speaker's

agreement with the prior speaker's first position assessment (Heritage and
Raymond 2005); in a second dissenter's turn, where the current speaker
joins the prior speaker in advancing a collaborative disagreement, the
accountability assumed by the second dissenter can both qualify the
agreement (by claiming his or her independence) and strengthen his or
her affiliation with the first (by assuming accountability for the collaborative disagreement).
In lines 4 and 5, without taking up Kasai's prompt to complete his turn
in line 3, Haga continues her own turn, started in line 2, stating in
truncated form that it might be better to check the amount of the
assignment. Syntactically, she does not complete Kasai's turn and thereby
completes the disagreement as her own. At the same time, she builds
alliance with Kasai by uttering the phrase amarini ooito "if it is too much,"
similar to amarini ookattara in Kasai's prior turn. While Haga acknowledges
the possibility of excessive assignment by repeating Kasai's phrase, her
disagreement is embedded in a truncated suggestion, which qualifies
Baba's proposal only partially.
In line 6, Tanaka, a female teacher in her 30s, expresses alignment with
Haga and Kasai. Her short insert consists of the agreement token un "yes"
and the adverbial expression yappa (a variant of yappari "as I thought"),
suggesting that she had held the same opinion prior to receipt of Haga's
turn. She indexes her agreement with Haga and Kasai as her own
independent viewpoint and assumes a "previously held" position
(Heritage and Raymond 2005). A similar tension between assuming
independence and displaying alignment is also shown in the practice of
"complex advice acceptance" in Waring (2007).
The co-construction framework exemplified in excerpt [1] can be
summarized as follows:
1. First dissenter initiates incipient disagreement using neutral
expressions.
2. Second dissenter demonstrates alliance in a brief turn, employing
linguistic means to index his or her independence and accountability for the disagreement and to increase confrontation.
3. First dissenter takes up second dissenter's remark and incorporates
it into his/her next turn.
We may recapitulate the segment with regard to these three steps as
follows: (1) Haga initiates the "disagreement" by questioning the
"amount" of homework. (2) Kasai's short turn of alignment (amarini
ookattara "if it is too much") acknowledges the possibility of excessive
homework. (3) The first dissenter, Haga, incorporates this expression into
her turn. The exchange is continued by a third dissenter, Tanaka, who
aligns with dissenters one and two and indexes her previously held
81
confrontational stance through an interactional practice similar to the one

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

hopeless Cop Qt say thing Nom Cop but FP
(It has been decided that we can't cut the afternoon classes.)
(1)
3 Abe:
mokuyoobi no rokkooji wa doo suru n daroo.

Thursday Lk sixth-period T how do Nom Cop
(I wonder what we'd do for Thursday sixth period.)
(.5)
5 Endo:
mokuyoobi (.) soo desu ne,

Thursday
so Cop FP
(Thursday ... that's right)
6 Abe:
ima made wa (.) sore mo mendan ni ateteta n janai kana

now until T that also consulting for assigned Nom Tag FP
(Before, we also used that time for consulting, didn't we?)
7->Miki:
semete ne,
at-least FP
(At least, right?)
8 Abe:
semete gojikan ni suru gurai wa ne (.) shitekurenaito

at-least five-periods to make about T FP do-for-us-Neg-if
(At least reducing the classes into five periods, without them doing
that,..)
82
9 Miki:

soo desu ne,
so Cop FP
(That's right)
10 Abe:
tootei yarikirenai naa.

absolutely cannot-do FP
(We can't possibly do it)
11 Miki:
soo desu nee,

so Cop FP
(That's right)
12 Seki:
jaa (..) jaa ichioo mokuyoo no gojikan iya rokujikanme wa katto shite
then then for-now Thursday Lk fifth no sixth-period T cut do
13
hoshii to iu yooboo o dasu tte kotode ii desu ka?

want Qt say request O submit Qt Nom-and good Cop Q
(Well, then, is it all right to request to cut Thursday fifth, rather, sixth
period?)
After a one-second pause following Seki's report, Abe, a male teacher in

his 50s, states, "I wonder what we'd do for Thursday sixth period" in a selfcontemplating manner. His turn ends with daroo, a plain, tentative form of
the Japanese copula, which is often translated into the English phrase "I
wonder." It does not specify an addressee (at least in purely linguistic
terms, as documented on the audio data) and therefore does not
challenge Seki directly.2 The inquisitive nature of his turn as well as the
use of the tentative plain form indicates a rather weak epistemic stance.
The suggestive delivery of Abe's statement implies an incipient disagreement. This implication, however, does not prompt Seki to reformulate her
previous statement.
After a half-second gap, Endo, a female teacher in her 30s, repeats the
word mokuyoobi "Thursday" from Abe's insert, followed by the agreement
token soo desu ne "that's right" (line 5). Linguistically, the repetition of
elements from a prior turn can index the current speaker's alliance
(Kangasharju 2002). Endo's turn ends in the masu form, the formal
register commonly used in utterances presenting the speaker's public self
(Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998), higher addressee awareness (Maynard
1993), and deference to the addressee (Cook 1998, Okamoto 1998) .3
Since the masu form is the formal register predominantly used in faculty
meetings, Endo's uptake has the potential consequence of elevating Abe's
self-contemplating utterance to a more official status.
In line 6, the first dissenter, Abe, indicates that in previous years
("before") the teachers held guidance sessions in the sixth period. The
content of the statement affirms that he is familiar with the school's
83
scheduling practices for guidance sessions, whereas the plain form of the
tag expression janai and the final particle kana, frequently used in selfaddressed questions, qualify his epistemic stance. The phrase "that time"
in this turn draws the participants' attention to "Thursday sixth period" in
Abe's previous turn (line 3), suggesting that this slot would be suitable for
guidance sessions. Overall, his statement is informative without an overtly
confrontational tone.
The next turn by Miki, another female teacher in her 20s, consists of the
adverb semete "at least" and the final particle ne, indexing a shared
affective stance. Albeit brief, this contribution contextualizes Abe's
previous statements, investing them with a stronger sense of dissension.
Since semete is generally used in sentences expressing needs or hopes,
Miki's turn takes up Abe's remark about the previous years and reframes it
as their (Abe's, Miki's, and possibly Endo's) shared expectation. In this
way, Miki projects her face as the one accountable for the ongoing
disagreement.
In his subsequent turn (line 8), Abe repeats the adverb from Miki's
statement (semete) and spells out the substance of the dissenters'
expectation, in other words, the need to reduce the number of periods
on consultation days to five. As Abe remarks in line 10, it is not possible to
conduct the guidance sessions without cutting classes. He continues to use
the plain form in both of these turns (lines 8 and 10), which are echoed by
Miki's agreement tokens in the masu form (lines 9 and 11). In the
subsequent summary (lines 12-13), Seki, the chairperson, incorporates
the substance of the previous exchange (formulated in the plain form and
masu form) into a formal statement (using only the masu form). In effect,
uptakes in the masu form (lines 5, 9 and 11) may help to elevate Abe's selfcontemplating utterances (lines 3, 6, 8, and 10) to a more official status.
Excerpt [2] contains several features of co-constructed facework. A brief
adverbial insertion (Miki's turn in line 7) frames the preceding moderately confrontational statement into a discourse of noncompliance. In line
with the co-construction framework summarized in the analysis of excerpt
[1], the first dissenter (Abe) initiates his incipient disagreement in a
neutral, informational tone. While Endo's turn (line 5) is similar to the
alliance described by Kangasharju (2002) (i.e. endorsement of the first
dissenter's turn), Miki's display of alliance (line 7) includes a linguistic
element, an adverbial expression, which amplifies the dissenting nuance.
Abe, the first dissenter, takes up this element and incorporates it into his
turn.
Another noteworthy feature is the situation-specific use of the formal
and informal registers. The plain form in conjunction with final particles
and tag expressions conveys the speaker's weak epistemic stance and
contributes to the "unofficial" nature of the utterances, reducing the
threat to the other party's situated face. Endo and Miki's uptakes in the
masu form, on the other hand, serve two possible functions: to indicate
84
their deferential stance toward other participants, and to invest Abe's selfcontemplating utterances with a more official tone.
This section has analyzed instances of collaborative disagreement in
which the second (or third) dissenters display dual faces: their alliance
with the first dissenter and their accountability as an independent
dissenter. The second (or third) dissenters' turns play a crucial role.
Despite their brief and truncated form, they are able to raise the
dissenting stance to a more explicit level and hence index the speakers
accountability. The first dissenters then incorporate the second dissenters'
"punch line" expressions into their own turn.
The interactional collaborations witnessed here function as a mechanism of offense management. While the first dissenter issues the incipient
disagreement in the first position and provides the largest contribution in
quantitative terms, his or her initial turn remains low-key or neutral and
off-record. The second (or third, see excerpt [2]) dissenters' contributions
appear sequentially after the first one and remain relatively small in
quantitative terms, thereby reducing the face threat, yet at the same time
they shape an overt dissension. My analysis does not posit psychological
impulses that may or may not underlie the participants' speech. Rather, it
attempts to delineate the inner workings of the participation framework in
collaborative disagreement, which manages potential offenses to the
discursive face of the opposed party through the order, quality, and
quantity of the participants' linguistic contributions.
4.2.2 Framing disagreement as a side comment
In this section, I continue to explore the role of the second dissenter in
collaborative disagreement. The analyzed example involves a second
dissenter who reframes the ongoing disagreement as a peripheral side
comment
In excerpt [3] a disagreement, or more precisely, a type of other-repair,
is constructed collaboratively. Other-repair is often treated as a speech
activity involving something more than just a correction (e.g. disagreement or criticism) (Kangasharju 2002, Schegloff et aL 1977). During the
taped data segment, the teachers discuss when to schedule the next
parent/teacher meeting. Sasaki, a new female teacher in her 20s, is in
charge of the event In lines 1 and 2, she states that it was not held around
the same time in the previous year. Two teachers, Kaga (female in her 30s)
and Takubo (male in his 30s), disagree collaboratively in subsequent
turns.
Excerpt [3]
1
Sasaki:
kyonen made wa kono jiki ni mendan shitenakatta yoona n desu

last-year until T this period at meeting did-not-do seems Nom Cop
2
85
kedo:,
but
(Until last year, it seems that we didn't have a meeting during this period,
but...)
3-Kaga:
etto nee yatta kana?=

er
FP did
FP
(Well, I wonder if we did it?)
4->Takubo:=yatta ne,
did FP
(We did, right?)
5 Sasaki:
a (.) shita n
desu ka. (.) jaa yappari kotoshi mo konojikini tte
oh did Nom Cop Q
then after-all this-year also this period at Qt
koto-de,
Nom-and
(Oh, you did? Then, after all, we are also thinking of around this time,
and ...)
Kaga's turn in line 3 is prefaced by the hesitation marker etto "er" and
ends with the final particle kana "I wonder", which frequently appears in
self-addressed questions. The statement is phrased in the plain form, a
register prototypically used in monologues and interactions among
intimates in informal settings. A switch from the formal to the informal
register can indicate low addressee awareness (Maynard 1993), little need
for public self-presentation (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998), or expression of psychological closeness toward the addressee (Ikuta 1983, Makino
1983, Okamoto 1998). In the context of faculty meetings, the use of the
plain form denotes the unofficial nature of the utterance (Fujita 2001). In
all probability then, Kaga's use of the plain form and the final particle
kana indicates her weak epistemic stance, evidenced by its unofficial and
self-contemplating nuance. The result is a reduced threat to the other
party's (i.e. Sasaki's) situated face (her positive image as an event planner
with adequate knowledge).
The subsequent uptake by Takubo (line 4) seems to raise the dissenting
stance to a more explicit level (similar to the mode of second dissenters in
the earlier examples in this chapter). From the audio data alone, we
cannot deduce if Kaga's turn in line 3 is intended for any specific
addressee. It may be a self-addressed contemplation, or aimed at all
participants of the meeting or at a particular one, including Sasaki or
Takubo. Takubo's response in line 4 treats Kaga's utterance as the first
pair part of a question-and-answer sequence. In other words, his uptake
determines retroactively the trajectory of Kaga's question. Takubo
86
reformulates Kaga's incipient repair into a part of an explicit repair

containing factual information. By doing so, Takubo displays his face as
the one accountable for the repair.
At the same time, Takubo's uptake is offered as a confirmation of Kaga's
contemplation. It is articulated in the plain form, lending the questionand-answer sequence an informal nuance. Taken together, the successive
use of the plain form and the uptake's confirmatory content indicate
Takubo's alignment with Kaga and formulate Kaga's question and
Takubo's answer as a peripheral side comment sequence.
Takubo's comment serves multiple functions: it makes the point of
repair explicit, confirms his alliance with Kaga, and frames the sequence as
a side comment. Realizing that her assumption was wrong, Sasaki corrects
it in her next turns (lines 5-6). Her acknowledgment in line 5 is offered in
the masu form, marking the return to the main sequence.
In excerpt [3], the second dissenter's uptake achieves several faceworks.
It displays his alliance with the first dissenter by affirming the prepositional content of the prior turn and co-constructing a question-and-answer
sequence, which constitutes a repair, and it raises the dissenting stance to
a more explicit level, indexing the speaker's accountability. Furthermore,
since this sequence takes the form of an off-record exchange between the
two dissenters, it avoids a direct confrontation with the addressee of the
repair. This participation framework allows Sasaki to "eavesdrop" on the
dissenters' side comments and to reformulate her statement essentially as
a self-repair. (A similar pattern is observed in excerpt [2], in which the
head teacher, whose report triggered a series of dissenting turns,
summarizes the opinions dissenting with her own report as a shared
conclusion.) Since the disagreement threatens Sasaki's face as a competent event organizer, the entire sequence can be interpreted as facework.
In addition, we were able to observe in this example the working of
language-specific register manipulation (i.e. use of the plain form) in
accomplishing several types of facework.
4.2.3 Displaying alignment and neutrality
This section examines a consecutive segment in two parts (excerpts [4]

and [6]; excerpt [5] is a partial repeat of [4]), in which participants
collaboratively construct a disagreement against a proposal offered by
Chiba, an experienced male teacher in his 50s. Several features distinguish
these examples from the previous ones. First, unlike the partial disagreement performed in excerpt [1], the dissenters in excerpts [4] and [6]
attempt an outright dismissal of the proposal. Second, unlike excerpt [2],
in which the opposed party conveyed her proposal as the joint decision of
a committee of which she is a member, Chiba, the opposed party in
excerpts [4] and [6], is himself the sole author of the proposal. Third,
unlike excerpt [3], in which the dissenters corrected a factual error, the
purpose of the disagreement in excerpts [4] and [6] is to dismiss a
87
proposal out of hand. All these factors combine to constitute a grave

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

well
that able-to-do Q O check-if
n ().
good Norn
(... well, it [might be] good to check if they are doing OK)
2 Honda:
seekatsushidoobu kara natsu

wa kotoshi mo deru no kana,=
Student-Life-Division from summer T this-year also assign Nom FP
(I wonder if the Student Life Division has an assignment this year, too.)
3 Dewa:
=deru n desu yo.=

assign Nom Cop FP
(There'll be [assignments].)
4 Honda: =iroiro-=
various
(Various ...)
5 Dewa:
=hai demasu.=
yes assigned
(Yes, there'll be [assignments].)
88
6 Honda: =ironna novarious ones

(Various ones.)
(1)
8 Dewa:
maitoshi onaji katachi de,

every-year same form in
(The same form every year.)
9 Honda: daitai onaji katachi no ga deru no ne,=

over-all same form one S assign Nom FP
(There will be one[s] in the same form, right?)
10 Dewa:
=hai.
yes
(Yes.)
11
(2)
12 Honda: dattara are dake de (.2) tte kangae mo arimasu yo ne,

if-so that only with Qt idea also exist FP FP
(If so, with only that one ... that's another idea, right?)
13 Dewa:
koomokubetsu-ni sono-hi sono-hi ncn=

on-different-items that-day that-day Lk
(On different items [to report], daily-)
14 Chiba:
=nisshi wa aru n da kedo ne,

diary T exist Nom Cop but FP
(There is the diary assignment, but..., right?)
15 Honda: onaji mono wa dasanakutemo-ii n ja:,

same thing T don't-have-to-assign Nom Tag
(I wonder if we have to assign the same thing twice.)
In line 2, Honda asks a question concerning the assignment of the Student

Life Division in a self-contemplating manner. This query fulfills a function
similar to that of the first dissenting turn in excerpts [2] and [3]: the
combination of the plain form ending (i.e. the nominalizer no) and the
final particle kana "I wonder" suggests self-contemplation, indicating
Honda's weak epistemic stance and obscuring the addressee of the query.
Anybody possessing relevant information about the Student Life Division's
summer assignments could be the recipient of Honda's question. Since
Chiba belongs to that division, he could very well provide an answer. Yet
the actual reply comes not from him but from another division member,
Dewa, a male teacher in his 30s. Dewa uses his uptake to affirm his
89
knowledge as a division member and to reframe Honda's prior turn from

an implicit query obliquely intended for Chiba into a question for
everyone who holds relevant information. Up to this point, Dewa's
alignment strategy is of the same type as Takubo's in excerpt [3] (line 4,
yatta ne "we did, right?"), confirming the content of the repair hinted at in
the previous turn.
Honda rejoins by asking Dewa a series of questions (lines 4, 6, and 9),
which establish the foundation for her noncompliance. There are two
possible reasons for her disagreement: (1) the Student Life Division issues
a great number of assignments, and no additional homework is needed;
(2) the two assignments (i.e. Chiba's proposal and the diary project issued
by the division) are similar and therefore redundant. In her ensuing
contributions, Honda mentions both of these issues.
In line 4, Honda characterizes the division assignment as iroiro
''various." Dewa's response - hai demasu "yes, there'll be (assignments)"
in line 5 - displays his understanding of Honda's previous statement as a
question, while neither accepting nor rejecting its characterization.
Honda then reiterates her previous statement, choosing a similar
expression, ironna no "various ones." Her second attempt highlights the
shortfall of Dewa's response in line 5 - it did not address the core of
Honda's request for confirmation (i.e. the variety of the assignments). In
reply to Honda's reiteration, Dewa states that the division issues the same
assignments every year (line 8), again withholding any response to
Honda's point of the division assignment being "various." The divergence
in content from Honda's preceding turns makes Dewa's statement less
collaborative.
In line 9, Honda incorporates elements of Dewa's turn into her question
whether "there will be one[s] (i.e. assignment[s]) in the same form." In
response, Dewa issues a minimum affirmation hai "yes" without any
elaboration (line 10). After a two-second pause (line 11), Honda proposes
to adopt the Student Life Division's assignments only, thereby implying
that the extra assignment proposed by Chiba is unnecessary (line 12).
Upon receipt of Honda's overt opposition to Chiba's proposal, Dewa
supplies details of a not clearly specified assignment, one that involves a
daily routine and various items (line 13). The assignment Dewa describes
is quite likely the one that will be issued by the Student Life Division, the
one that was referred to by Honda as are "that" in the previous turn (line
12). This referential connection would establish a weak conjunction
between Honda and Dewa's turn. However, Dewa's description as a whole
cannot be conceived of as a reaction to the opposing stance Honda
advances in line 12 (it does not, for one, register acknowledgment or
agreement), and it is therefore sequentially disjointed, leading to a
minimum degree of alignment.
Dewa's statement is latched and completed by Chiba in line 14, who
admits that the homework assigned by the division takes the form of a
90
diary. However, by adding the contrastive topic marker wa and the

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

every-year same form in
(The same form every year.)
9 Honda: daitai onaji katachi no ga deru no ne.=

over-all same form one S assign Nom FP
(There will be one[s] in the same form, right?)
10 Dewa:
=hai.
yes
(Yes.)
Honda confirms Dewa's statement by repeating onaji in line 9.

Retrospectively, the phrase onaji katachi "the same form" (lines 8-9) can
be interpreted in two different ways: the Student Life Division issues the
same assignments every year; or the division's assignment is the same as
the one Chiba proposed. Honda evidently chooses the second interpretation, making it the basis of her disagreement formulated in line 15,
where she states that it is unnecessary to issue the same assignment (as the
one of the division).
In excerpt [4], the overall co-construction of the dissenting stance is
only partially achieved, mainly through Honda's contributions. The
91
affiliation, if any, remains frail, due to the poor sequential coordination

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

15 Honda: onaji mono wa dasanakutemo-ii n ja:,
same thing T don't-have-to-assign Nom Tag
(I wonder if we have to assign the same thing twice.)
16
(6)
92
17 Honda: nandemo-ni naranakutemo-ii yo tte kanji mo

everything don't-have-to-be FP Qt feeling also
(I also feel that we don't have to assign this and that.)
18 Arai:
watashi mo katee no seekatsu made [hehe

I also home Lk life as-far-as
(I, too, (think) their family life ...
19 Honda:
[laughter])
[nanya yuu to ne, hehe
this-and-that say if FP
(If we say this and that about it, then ..., right? [laughter])
20 Hata:
maa shoojiki-ni wa kakanai daroo shi [ne,

well honestly T write-Neg probably what's-more FP
(Moreover, [they] probably won't write honestly, right?)
21 Arai:
[ee.
yes
(Yes.)
22 Honda: demo kore wa ichioo dasu hookoo de [itteru wake desho?

but this T by-and-large hand-in direction to going Cop
(But as for this one we are likely to assign, right?)
23 Dewa:
[hai
yes
(Yes.)
24 Arai:
sore kaku dake de ne,

that write only by FP
(Only writing that would be ..., right?)
25 Honda: un.=
uh-huh
(Uh-huh.)
26 Hata:
=kakanai yatsu mo ne,

write-Neg one also FP
(There will also be the ones who don't write, right?)
27
(5)
28 Chiba:
jaa moshikuwa are da ne (.) maa ninensee dake no o tsukutte

then alternatively that Cop FP well second-grader only one O make
29
moratte (1) toka (.) ore mo omou n da kedo (.) jibun-de shabettetemo
have like I also think Nom Cop but by-myself while-talking
30
31
93
soogootekini natchau nda ne (.) are mo koremo tte (..) sore igai wa
all-aroundbecome Nom Cop FP that also this also Qt that except T
iranai tte iikicchatta hoo-ga-ii no kamoshirenai ...
need-Neg Qt decide it-is-better Nom probably
(Then, alternatively, how's this, to have them make a special one for
the eight-graders ... or something like that... Come to think of it, I
myself notice that I tend to include everything, right? Like "let's do
this and that." It may be better to decide that we don't need anything
else ...)
Two other meeting participants, Arai and Hata, support Honda's third
disagreement. In line 18, Arai, a male teacher in his 30s, initiates a
sentence stating that teachers should not be too inquisitive about students'
family life. Even though his utterance is truncated, the use of mo "also" in
watashi mo "I, too" signals that he agrees and aligns himself with Honda.
Moreover, the word made "as far as" in this context qualifies any verb that
would follow it, conveying Arai's opinion that inquiring about students'
family life would be inappropriate. Pointing to the fact that both
assignments peer into the student's private life during summer vacation,
Arai's turn challenges not only Chiba's proposal but also the division's
assignments. With his brief insert, he registers his alignment with Honda
and his strong opposition against any and all assignments similar to the
ones discussed. By invoking the privacy issue, Arai asserts his epistemic
autonomy as an independent dissenter.
Arai's utterance is latched and continued by Honda in line 19. Her
utterance, stated in a truncated form, contains the phrase nanya yuu "say
this and that," which indicates that school should not get involved in the
students' private lives. Even though the conditional clause in Honda's
contribution is not followed by a main clause, the negative slant such a
main clause would have becomes evident from the stance Honda has
assumed up to this point, as well as from the use of made in Arai's previous
turn. In this exchange, the shared laughter in lines 18 and 19, the coconstruction of speech, and Honda's use of the confirmation-soliciting
final particle ne (line 19) all indicate a strong alignment between Honda
and Arai.
Following Honda's turn, Hata, another male teacher in his 30s, voices
his opinion that the students will probably not disclose honest information
about their family life (line 20). Like Arai in line 18, Hata casts doubt on
this type of assignment in general, and therewith supports Honda's
oppositional stance. He is also asserting his epistemic independence by
questioning the effectiveness and validity of the assignment. His turn starts
with maa "well," which often initiates a qualification segment (Mori 1999),
and ends with the conjunction shi "what's more," which frames the
preceding phrase as one of several arguments supporting the dissenters'
94
case, followed by the final particle ne indicating a shared affective stance

(Cook 1992). While the content of the utterance and the initial
interjection maa signify the qualifying nature of Hata's remark, the turnfinal construction "shi ne'9 indicates alignment with Honda and Arai's
position. Aral's agreement token ee "yes" (line 21) overlaps with Hata's
previous turn.
In lines 17 to 21, disagreement is elevated to a general opposition to the
type of assignment in question. Following this acceleration, Honda asks
for confirmation that the Student Life Division's assignment has already
been approved in spite of the proffered dissenting voices (line 22). After
Dewa's confirmation (line 23), Aral, Honda and Hata continue to coconstruct their opposition to Chiba's proposal (lines 24-26). Arai's
contribution (line 24) has a truncated structure: the concluding clause is
left unsaid. After Honda's brief agreement token un "uh-huh" in line 25,
Hata reiterates his point (that students will probably not report on their
private life), pushing it even further by hinting that some students may not
write their homework at all (line 26). His statement, too, is brief and
truncated, but it expresses a clear confrontational stance in its content
Both Arai and Hata's contributions are in sharp contrast to Dewa's noncommittal ones observed earlier.
After a five-second silence, Chiba, the presenter of the disputed
assignment, offers a modified proposal: the Student Life Division should
issue a special assignment just for eighth-graders (line 28). Seeing that
none of the participants responds, he concludes with a conciliatory
gesture toward his colleagues. He confesses that he tends to propose too
much and that it might be better to limit assignments to the one issued by
the division (lines 29-31).
The construction of oppositional alliances documented in excerpts [4]
and [6] involves delicate facework and the risk of a grave face threat.
Participants negotiate stronger and weaker alliances by employing various
linguistic and sequential means.
Affiliation and disaffiliation are in part evidenced by the participation
framework. For instance, the opposition between Chiba and the dissenters
is reflected in Chiba's nonparticipation in the ongoing discourse. Even
though there are several sequential locations where Chiba could step in,
his participation remains minimal. His exclusion becomes especially
marked when specifics of the Student Life Division's assignments, of which
Chiba as a division member has ample knowledge, are discussed without
him. Rather than engaging in direct oppositional talk, and thereby
increasing the face threat, both Chiba and the dissenters choose to convey
disaffiliation through nonparticipation and exclusion.
This framework is similar to the other-repair segment in earlier
excerpts. For instance, in excerpt [3], the recipient of the repair was
allowed to "eavesdrop" on the dissenters' comments and to reformulate
her statement as a self-repair. Similarly, Chiba's non-participation in
95
excerpts [4] and [6] allows him to listen to the dissenting voices as a
bystander and reformulate his proposal accordingly at the end of the
exchange. The participation framework observed in excerpts [3], [4], and
[6] helps participants avoid direct confrontation and the risk of a grave
face threat.
4.3 Summary
This chapter has examined instances of multiparty disagreement, in which
oppositional stances are displayed collaboratively by more than one
participant. Special attention was paid to the role of second dissenters in
shaping and influencing the co-construction of disagreement. In excerpts
[1] and [2], the first dissenters initiate an incipient disagreement with
neutral expressions; the second dissenters show alignment in a brief turn,
increasing the level of confrontation with linguistic means; and the first
dissenters incorporate this element into their subsequent turns. The
second dissenters manage dual faceworks by showing affiliation and
projecting their accountability for the ongoing disagreement. In this
constellation, first and second dissenters share the weight of offense and
confrontation (cf. "collaborative critique" in Waring's [2001] study of
interactions in academic seminars). In excerpt [3], the second dissenter
builds an alliance with the first dissenter by co-constructing a questionand-answer side sequence, which constitutes a repair. The second
dissenter's turn makes the dissenting stance explicit, but at the same
time it also makes the repair less confrontational by framing it as a side
sequence through the continuous use of the plain form (informal
register). In excerpt [4], the second dissenter stops short of a strong
alignment with the first dissenter, permitting only a weak alliance. This
example suggests that a sequential disjunction in a co-constructed
disagreement can indicate the absence of a strong affiliation among
dissenters. Furthermore, my analysis of excerpts [4] and [6] provided
evidence that affiliation and disaffiliation are also reflected in the
participant framework, i.e. the participation and non-participation (exclusion) of speakers.
As various instances in the analyzed data indicate, the construction of
participant alliance does not rely solely on the linguistic devices listed in
previous studies, such as collaborative completion or repetition of
elements of the prior turn (Kangasharju 2002), but also on other
language-specific register and lexical manipulations. Throughout this
chapter we have seen how the use of masu and plain forms, final particles,
and various adverbial expressions signal different degrees of aligning and
confrontational stances. In excerpts [1] and [2], a second dissenter's short
yet "pronounced" opposition is articulated by a combination of truncated
forms with the final particle ne. The latter, a marker of "affective common
96
ground" (Cook 1992), displays alignment and marks a turn transition

relevant place that enables the current speaker to relinquish his or her
turn. The combination of these two linguistic devices allows the speaker to
present a statement that is suggestive yet forceful. Moreover, the use of the
plain form in excerpt [3] displays alignment among dissenters and frames
the ongoing disagreement as a side comment. The masu and plain forms
are Japanese addressee honorifics, generally considered a typical example
of discernment politeness (their socially appropriate use is defined by
contextual features such as the formality of the setting and the social status
of the interlocutors). Since the masu form predominates in faculty
meetings, the switch from the normative masu to the plain form denotes
an action-oriented variation and points to a more elaborate notion of
discernment.
Collaborative disagreement is a delicate interpersonal process in which
participants project and manage multiple discursive faces. This chapter
has shown that second dissenters do more than merely display alignment
with first dissenters. We have followed their varied facework as they assume
stances of accountability, independence or disaffiliation in the interactional co-construction of disagreement.
The observations in this chapter elucidate the relation between two
types of face - alignment and independence - involved in collaborative
disagreements. While the second dissenter's projected independence
qualifies his or her agreement with the first dissenter (i.e. it is not a
straightforward agreement with the first dissenter), it, at the same time,
strengthens the co-constructed disagreement and therefore leads to a
stronger alignment between first and second dissenter.
Through this practice, the second dissenter presents his or her face as
an independent participant. The fact that most participants in the
collaborative disagreement sequences observed in this chapter register
independent viewpoints may have to do with the existence of a tacit
institutional norm defining the type of contribution participants are
expected to make to the respective community of practice (i.e. statements
which are considered turn-worthy in a faculty meeting). In the case of
collaborative disagreements, a second dissenter's turn may become more
"turn-worthy" if an original thought or observation is added, instead of
simply offering agreement. It is hence possible to propose that within a
specific community of practice, the face of independence is displayed in
accordance with institutionally organized norms of talk.
Chapter 5: Teasing and Humor
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter explored how collaborative disagreement at faculty
meetings is negotiated through interactive multiparty facework. We
looked at the ways in which dissenters display alliance among themselves
and, at the same time, attend to their own and their opponents' face by
employing various sequential and linguistic practices. This chapter focuses
on another interactional activity, conversational teasing, as observed in the
present data set, paying special attention to cases in which several
participants jokingly instigate a verbal attack on another participant
Participants in joint teasing follow a mode of action similar to those
engaged in collaborative disagreement: several teachers form an interactional "team" that challenges the position of another participant or a
group of participants. Despite this similarity, the results of the teasing
sequences documented in this chapter are quite different from those
achieved in collaborative disagreement.
Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism, the
nuanced subtlety of teasing raises certain questions: "Are teases a bonding
experience?" "Are teases face threatening?" To which both layman and
scholar will answer "It depends." Teasing is considered a context-bound
social activity whose interpretation depends on a number of factors.
Instead of relying on contextual variables as explanatory measures, this
chapter highlights various faceworks operative in teasing segments, and
attempts to trace how they are related to the mechanism of affiliation and
disaffiliation in ongoing discourse. Before going into the analysis proper, I
will provide an overview of the available studies on teasing and joking in
the following section.
5.1.1 Conversational humor, joking, and teasing
The pragmatic study of conversational humor encompasses research into

its underlying structure from a cognitively oriented post-Gricean perspective (Attardo 1994, Raskin 1985), as well as of its interpersonal functions
through a more sociologically oriented discourse analysis (e.g. Boxer and
Cortes-Conde 1997, Crawford 2003, Holmes 2000). Humor is conceptualized as a distinct discursive mode, which accepts ambiguity, paradox,
incongruity, and multiple interpretations of reality (Mulkay 1988). Due to
its flexibility and ambiguity, conversational humor cannot only entertain
interactants and create solidarity (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997, Eder
98
1993, Norrick 1993), but can also accomplish various other functions: it
plays an important role in constructing and negotiating different aspects
of identity in interaction (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997, Eisenberg 1986);
it can be used to protect one's own positive face wants or to mitigate facethreatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987, Holmes 2000, Mullany 2004,
Norrick 1993, van Dam 2002); it can foster collegiality in the workplace
(Holmes 2006); it can convey social norms and local moral orders
(Eisenberg 1986, Goldberg 1997, Miller 1986, Tholander 2002, Yedes
1996); and it can challenge social norms or established power structures
(Holmes and Marra 2002, Tholander 2002).
The distinctions among laughter, joking, humor, teasing, and language
play have been "notoriously difficult to address conceptually or empirically" (Osvaldsson 2004: 518). Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) attempt to
sort out the distinctions. According to the authors, conversational joking,
a playful frame created by the participants of talk, is different from joke
telling, a highly conventionalized behavior with formalized cues such as
"I've got a good one." They distinguish three types of conversational
joking: teasing (conversational joking directed at someone present),
joking (about an absent other), and self-denigrating jokes.
In general, researchers adopt a similar and rather broad view of teasing
as "mocking but playful jibes against someone" (Drew 1987: 219), though
some distinguish between teasing and ridicule or insult (Eder 1991). Most
anthropological literature on teasing considers it as a behavior comprising
both friendliness and antagonism. This ambiguity inherent in teasing can
be used to manage social tension. Teasing observed in conversations
among children and adolescents is often discussed as a socializing practice
(Eder 1990, Eisenberg 1986, Schieffelin 1986, Tholander 2002). Teasing
and humor in the workplace has been depicted as repressive humor or as
enactment of power (Grainger 2004, Holmes 2000, Mullany 2004).
Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) maintain that the most important
functions of teasing are identity display and relational identity display both of which are closely related to the notion of facework in my study.
Focusing on the functional aspect of teases, they state "teasing runs along
a continuum from bonding to nipping to biting" (279). According to the
authors, bonding, nipping and biting teases are not mutually exclusive,
and the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear. Whether a
tease bonds (i.e. affirms affiliation and solidarity) or becomes nipping or
biting (i.e. face threatening) depends on a range of variables.
Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) list participants' context and relational
history as crucial factors to distinguish bonding teases from nipping or
biting ones. A conversation between two intimate female friends illustrates
their point:
TEASING AND HUMOR
99
Excerpt [1] (cited from Boxer and Cartes-Conde 1997: 291)

Ellen: I was thinking of a lemon cake for dessert but it's $15.00. Who wants to
spend $15.00 for a cake?
Fran: Oh, you mean you're not going to bake it yourself?
When Ellen complains about the cost of lemon cake, her friend replies in
a mocking manner. According to the authors, this is an instance of
bonding through teasing: based on the interlocutors' shared background
knowledge that neither likes to bake, it creates solidarity "through
relational identity display as well as reaffirmation of shared identity (e.g.
we don't bake)" (291-292). However, their analysis does not clarify which
pan of the data contributes to identity and relational identity display. In
this line of analysis, the evaluation of teasing, especially when it occurs
among intimate friends and family members, relies primarily on information about participants' past relational history and other contextual
factors.
Teasing has been depicted both as face threatening (i.e. nipping or
biting) and as face saving (i.e. bonding). Several studies consider teasing
to be inherently context-bound: they account for teasing behavior by
referring to such social variables as participants' social roles, relative status,
and familiarity. Drew (1987) points out a limitation arising from the
reliance on contextual features as explanatory measure: since there are an
indefinite number of possible identities, one cannot predict which of
these identities become the source of social bonding or conflict. Relying
on contextual variables as an explanatory measure to account for the
functions of humor reveals a bias similar to the "Parsonian bias" Eelen
(2001) discusses in his critique of politeness research (see Chapter 2 for a
further discussion on this topic).
Moving beyond the treatment of identity as an explanatory variable,
Drew (1987) demonstrates that participants' identities or membership
categories are occasioned in talk. Analyzing "pro-faced responses to
teases" in natural telephone conversations among adults, he demonstrates
how teasing ascribes certain deviant actions and identities to the one who
is teased, and how recipients respond to such attribution defensively in a
pro-faced manner. Teasing, he finds, can be "a form of social control of
minor conversational transgressions" such as exaggerated complaints or
bragging (Drew 1987: 219). Drew is mainly concerned with exposing the
sequential context and mechanism of teasing, but toward the end of his
study he mentions the functional aspects of teasing and its hostile
element:
Insofar as recipients recognize that the normal identity/activity applies
to themselves (usually they've laid claim to it in their prior turns), then
they recognize that such is the basis for the deviance ascription
100
conceivably applying also. And therein lies the sense that teases are close
enough to reality to have a hostile element. (247)
The strength of Drew's (1987) analysis lies in its adherence to textual
information. My study follows his approach in its close attention to details
of talk and its consideration of identity categories occasioned in discourse.
In this chapter, I will connect discursive identity occasioned in teasing
segments with the notion of face, or participants' interactional self-image.
I will also explore how evaluations attached to teasing (e.g. solidarity,
hostility, face threat) are related to various aspects such as the content of
the tease, the identity/activity ascription of its recipient, and the faces
displayed in talk.
Institutional discourse, the subject of this study, differs from ordinary
conversation as examined by Drew (1987). How do characteristics of
institutional talk influence teasing behavior? What constitutes a conversational transgression in institutional talk? With these questions in mind,
let us now examine the first teasing segment.
5.2 Analysis
5.2.1 Displaying jovial authority and affiliation

This section examines a case in which several participants make a jocular
jibe on another participant The interactants in this practice assume
opposing stances - of teaser or victim. Excerpt [2] occurs towards the end
of a discussion of supplementary lessons planned for the upcoming
summer vacation. Within the data set of faculty meetings, humorous side
sequences are often observed in topic transition places. Humorous side
sequences mark a slight deviation from the prior talk, and prepare
interactants for the next topic of the discussion. This section provides an
initial analysis of the teasing sequence, with special emphasis on the
teasers' display of jovial authority and the participants' (i.e. both teasers
and the victim) display of affiliation during the teasing sequence.
After a general review of supplementary lessons, Kadota, the moderator
of the meeting and the female head teacher of the group in her 40s,
summarizes the results of the discussion and states that teachers should
spare about three days for supplementary lessons during vacation (lines 1
and 2). At the time this meeting was held, secondary school teachers were
not required to offer classes during paid vacations, despite demands from
parents, principals and local education boards to do so. In the segment
preceding the excerpt, the teachers agreed to set a minimum of three days
of instruction since students were generally not very enthusiastic about this
interruption of their vacation time. Kadota's summary is approved by
others with a minimum response token in line 3.
TEASING AND HUMOR
101
Excerpt [2]
1 Kadota: jaa hoshuu
no hoo
desu kedo jaa mikka
then supplementary-lesson Lk direction Cop but then three-days
2
teedo de [yoroshii deshoo ka ne,

about Cop good Cop Q FP
(Then, as for the supplementary lesson, is it all right to do it for about
three days?)
3 Others:
[umm.
uh-huh
(Uh-huh.)
4 Kadota: jaa saitee mikka

tte iu koto de,=
then at least three-days Qt say Nom Cop
(Then, at least three days ...)
5 Ohta:
=ii
n
janai desu ka,
good Nom Tag Cop Q
(Would be OK, I suppose.)
6 -Kadota: oota sensee wa mainichi.

Ohta teacher T every-day
(Mr Ohta will do it every day.)
7-Doi:
mainichi (.) yonjuunichi ne?

every-day
forty-days
FP
(Every day, for forty days, right?)
8 Ohta:
iya:: hhaha,
no
(Oh, no! [laughter])
9-Kishi:
aa? (.) soo ka (.) soryaa sugoi na.

oh
that Q
that's great FP
(Oh, I see. That's great!)
When Kadota reiterates her summary in line 4, Ohta, a male teacher in his
20s, offers an explicit, audible approval (line 5). Upon Ohta's agreement,
Kadota states that Ohta will offer the supplementary lesson every day. The
condemning nature of this utterance invokes Kadota's superior standing
in relation to Ohta. She displays her authority over Ohta by boldly
assigning a difficult task.
Several linguistic and suprasegmental features suggest that this display
of authority can be interpreted as a jocular one. Previous studies have
102
concluded that suprasegmental features such as intonation and tone of

voice frequently mark a joking frame (e.g. Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997).
The laughing tone of voice in Kadota's turn indicates just such a frame.
Moreover, Drew (1987) states that teases are recognizable as such by
obvious exaggeration and contrast In our case, the unrealistic content of
Kadota's utterance (to offer a supplementary class every day during
vacation) counters Ohta's previous stance and qualifies Kadota's statement
as a tease.
Another language-specific sign of a humorous frame is Kadota's switch
in register in line 6. The preceding interaction is delivered in masu form, a
clause-final form indexing formality, deference, or presentation of the
speaker's public self (e.g. Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1998, Maynard 1993,
Okamoto 1999). Teachers in faculty meetings predominantly use the masu
form, especially in official and planned talk, which is transactional in
nature and whose content is likely to appear in meeting agendas or
minutes (Fujita 2001). The plain form, the clause-final form without masuform endings, is frequently observed in monologues and in casual
conversations among intimates where formality, deference, and the
display of a public self are not necessary. Cook (1998) observes that
plain forms placed with "affect keys" (linguistic and paralinguistic features
such as animated tone and the final particle ne) can create a sense of
solidarity among interactants. Within the present data set, shifts from the
predominant masu form to the plain form are observed in unofficial and
spontaneous talk, which is interactional in nature (i.e. expressing social
relations and personal attitudes) and conveys peripheral content1
Kadota's switch to the plain form, along with her laughing tone of
voice, clearly indicates a joking frame.
In line 7, Doi, a female teacher in her 40s, specifies the number of days
Ohta has to teach. This elaboration of Kadota's turn is delivered in the
plain form, retaining the joking frame. It displays her affiliation with
Kadota in the claim of jocular authority over Ohta.
Upon receiving the joint tease, Ohta responds with the negative token
iya, accompanied by laughter. Laughter is considered the preeminent
contextualization cue of humor (Kotthoff 2000). Ohta's laughter in this
turn may index the continuation of the established humorous frame.
The following assessment ("that's great" in line 9) by Kishi, a male
teacher in his 50s, does not treat the negative token iya issued by Ohta as a
refusal. Instead, Kishi acknowledges Doi's elaboration of the tease (offered
in line 7), by stating "oh, I see," and praises Ohta for his offer to teach the
class throughout the vacation. Providing an assessment presupposes the
existence of something that is being assessed. In other words, the act of
issuing an assessment establishes an assessed entity as a "given" phenomenon. In this case, Kishi's evaluation posits Ohta's teaching as an already
agreed-upon activity. Kishi thereby affirms his affiliation with the teasers,
sending the message that the assignment is already established no matter
TEASING AND HUMOR
103
how Ohta reacts to it. This turn, too, is delivered in the plain form; the
continued use of the plain form by various participants lends cohesion to
the humorous frame.
As we have seen, the head teacher Kadota initiates the teasing sequence
by displaying jocular authority over Ohta. Other teachers take up her
order by elaborating on it (Doi) and by confirming it as an alreadyestablished directive (Kishi). The joint tease of Ohta is accentuated by
suprasegmental features (cf. Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997) (laughing
tone of voice and laughter), by the obvious contrast between Ohta's
agreement and the unrealistic content of the issued demand (cf. Drew
1987), and by the participants'joint and continuous use of the plain form.
Let us now turn to the question of how the contrasting stances
evidenced in this and other teasing sequences can generate a sense of
affiliation. Even though the opposition between Ohta and the other
teachers resembles the relationships observed in joint disagreement, there
is a significant difference in the way affiliation and disaffiliation are
presented in terms of face. In joint disagreement, the participants' display
of alignment within the dissenting team inevitably strengthens the
disagreement and makes it more face-threatening to the one who is
opposed. At the same time, compared with direct opposition, showing
alignment with the partners in the same discursive "team" can be less facethreatening to the one who is opposed (see Chapter 4). Participants use
various modes of facework to cope with this ambivalence.
The opposing stances taken by participants in excerpt [2] are slightly
different. Kadota assigns Ohta an unrealistic task, thereby affirming her
authority over him. The directness of her speech, its unrealistic content,
and the use of the plain form and other affect keys frame it as a tease. Two
other teachers (Doi and Kishi) join in the display of jocular authority. On
a different level, however, all participants including Ohta are coconstructing a joke, in which Ohta plays a central role. In fact, what
makes Ohta a clear co-constructor is the fact that he did not give a profaced response similar to the target of the tease in Drew's (1987)
examples. The joking frame obscures the opposition between affiliation
and disaffiliation: the disaffiliation displayed in the teasing provides the
basis for "making a joke together," affirming alignment among participants. Joint teasing inherently encompasses a mechanism in which the
target of the tease becomes a central figure in the co-construction of
humor. The teasing frame makes it possible to bond through opposition
and to disaffiliate through bonding.
5.2.2 Claiming competence and willingness
This section focuses on the onset of teasing sequences and addresses the
question of how the recipients of the tease are selected. When Drew
(1987) investigated the onset of teasing sequences in telephone conversations, he found that they were prompted by the recipients' "complain-
104
ing, extolling, bragging, etc., in a somewhat overdone or exaggerated

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

about Cop good Cop QFP
(Then, as for the supplementary lesson, is it all right to do it for about
three days?)
3 Others:
[umm.
uh-huh
(Uh-huh.)

tte iu koto de,=
then at least three-days Qt say Nom Cop
5 Ohta:
=ii n janai desu ka,

good Nom Tag Cop Q
6-* Kadota: oota sensee wa mainichi.

Ohta teacher T every-day
(Mr Ohta will do it every day.)
TEASING AND HUMOR
105
After Kadota's summary of the decision concerning the supplementary

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

then Q say thing and homework about T think-in-advance please
amari hutan ni naranai teedo deshoo tte iu koto desu yo ne

not-much burden become-Neg degree probably Q say thing Cop FP FP
106
3->

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
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
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:
tte hi koto de,=
then at-least three-days Qt say Nom Cop
5 Ohta:
=ii
n
janai desu ka,
good Nom Tag Cop Q
Ohta, a young male teacher who is neither the moderator nor the person
in charge of the topic, volunteers more than a minimal response. The
contrast between his explicit verbal approval in line 5 and the other
participants' lack of such responses marks Ohta as the one responsible for
approval in the name of the group. In the terms relevant to this discussion,
Ohta displays his discourse identity as a representative member of the
group.
Ohta's turn is also remarkable in that it syntactically completes Kadota's
prior confirmation (line 4). The expression ... koto de ii n janai desu ka
"wouldn't it be OK to do ...?" is a set phrase used in offering one's
opinion. Ohta's turn ii n janai desu ka (line 5) latches onto the prior
utterance ending with koto de (line 4), providing a natural flow of coconstructed utterances. This syntactic completion frames Kadota's turn in
line 4 as a part of Ohta's opinion in line 5. Even though he is not the
moderator, whose privilege it is to initiate topic shifts, Ohta ends up being
the one who has the last word on this topic.
Ohta's utterance is ambivalent: on the one hand, it is a swift, explicit
approval of the proffered confirmation request; on the other hand, it is an
opinion statement that frames the moderator's confirmation request as
part of his own opinion. In any event, Ohta assumes the discursive identity
of a marked participant, either as a representative voice or as the one who
has the last word.
So far we have concluded that Ohta's conversational transgression
violates the tacit interactional norm concerning the order of speakership:
Ohta offers an explicit approval where it is not necessary, and he ends up
completing the chairperson's statement and has the last word. Through
this deviation, he exposes himself as a marked participant of the meeting
(he stands out in the group).
Next I would like to clarify the relation between the content of the tease
and the committed deviation. The notion of face is the key connective
108
element. Drew (1987) mentions that the deviance ascription of the tease is
based on the content of the claim made by the recipient of the tease;
hence, teases stay close enough to the factual situation to retain a hostile
ingredient. How is the content of the tease (that Ohta teach every day
during summer break) related to Ohta's preceding utterance (his explicit
approval)? Even though they do not appear to be connected directly, the
dynamics of deviance ascription become evident when we consider Ohta's
discursive face.
By offering an explicit approval where it is not necessary, completing
the chairperson's statement, and having the last word, Ohta assumes the
role of a group representative. The institutional face associated with this
identity conveys competence and willingness as an active core participant
of the meeting. The deviant activity the tease ascribes to Ohta is the direct
consequence of the competence and willingness Ohta claimed in his prior
turn. In other words, the face claimed by Ohta as a competent and willing
group member is not straightforwardly confirmed as such by the other
members, and triggers a subsequent tease that plays upon the claimed
discursive face.
Let us turn to excerpt [8], which exhibits a similar mechanism: the
presentation of a marked discursive face (as an active and eager
participant) triggers subsequent teasing. The topic of talk is tookoobi
"going-to-schooklay," a day during summer vacation when students and
their homeroom teacher get together in school. It is one of those school
events that are not very popular among students or teachers. Prior to the
segment, Akiba, a male teacher in his 40s, who is the moderator and head
teacher of the group, explains that setting up tookoobi is optional. Teachers
who want to may do so, but it is by no means obligatory. Several teachers
express their negative feelings about this event. Akiba proceeds to ask if
any of the teachers would like to set up tookoobi (lines 1-2):
Excerpt [8]
1 Akiba:
jaa kono gakunen no tookoobi

o settee (.) zehi
settee-shita
then this grade Nom day-to-get-together O set-up
definitely set-up
hoo ga ii tte iu kata (.) irasshaimasu ka?

better
Qt say person exist
Q
(Then, is there anyone who thinks it is definitely better to set up tookoobft)

(4)
4 Akiba:
inai yoo desu ne, hehe

exist-Neg like Cop FP
(It seems no one [wants to set up], [laughter])
5 Others: hhehe
TEASING AND HUMOR
109
([laughter])
6
(2)
7 Suzuki: jaa kore de,

then this and
(Then, this is it and ...)
8- Akiba:
hai Suzuki sensee hitsuyoo da tte koto de (.) hehe

yes Suzuki teacher necessity Cop Qt thing and
(Yes, Mr Suzuki thinks it is necessary, [laughter])
9 Suzuki: hh yaa omottenai yo hhehe

no think-Neg FP
(Nah, I don't think so. [laughter])
10 Akiba:
jaa gakunen toshite wa tookoobi tte katachijanakute hagaki ka

then grade as T day-to-get-together Qt form-Neg-and postcard or
11
mendan janai kedo dochira ka (.) dochira ka tte iu no mo okashii n

meeting Neg but either Q either Q Qt say Nom also funny Nom
12
da kedo (.) soo iu katachi de kontakuto o toru tte iu koto de ii desu ka

Cop but so say form by contact O take Qt say it-is-good Cop Q
(Then, as a grade, we will not set up tookoobi, but we'll do either post cards
or individual meetings, though it may sound funny to say "either post
cards or meetings," but, we will contact [our students] with these means.
Is it OK?)
13 Others: ha:
uh-huh
(Uh-huh.)
14 Suzuki: watashi mo mochiron hehe
I
also of-course
(I [think so], too, of course, [laughter])
15 Others: hhaha
([laughter])
After waiting for an uptake for four seconds, Akiba asks for confirmation
that no one wants to set up tookoobi. The laughter that concludes his turn
elicits a similar response from the group. The reciprocal exchange of
laughter signals shared sentiment or understanding concerning the topic
of ongoing talk (Jefferson et al 1987). Lack of an affirmative answer to
Akiba's negative rhetorical question indicates clearly that no one wants to
110
have tookoobi. At this point, Akiba could wrap up the segment and
introduce the next topic. After a two-second pause, however, the one who
utters the concluding remark jaa kore de "well then, this is it and ..." is not
Akiba but Suzuki, a male teacher in his 20s. In the present data set of
faculty meetings, the phrase jaa kore de is used as a closing statement by
the moderator or the person in charge of the topic. Similar to Ohta's
explicit approval in excerpts [2], this statement exposes Suzuki as a
marked group member since his appropriation of the moderator's role
does not correspond with his institutionally prescribed status. By
articulating the topic-closing statement, Suzuki, who is neither the
moderator nor the person in charge of the agenda, commits a minor
conversational transgression, which provides a locally occasioned opportunity for a tease.
In response to Suzuki's turn, Akiba initiates the tease, pretending to
accept Suzuki's offer to set up tookoobi. The content of Akiba's utterance
stands in contrast to Suzuki's and hence indicates a teasing frame (Drew
1987). The tease acknowledges the sequential function of Suzuki's
utterance (it treats Suzuki's contribution as an answer to Akiba's question
asked in lines 1 and 2) without paying attention to its content (as a topicshift initiator), and treats Suzuki's utterance as a positive answer to Akiba's
initial question in lines 1 and 2.
Upon receipt of the tease, Suzuki denies his willingness to set up tookoobi
in plain form with laughter (line 9). Thereafter, Akiba reassumes the
moderator's role, summarizing the group's decision one more time (lines
10-12), which Suzuki explicitly confirms in an exaggerated manner,
ending in laughter (line 14).
As we have seen, Suzuki's concluding remark in line 7 exposes him as a
marked member and triggers the subsequent tease. In contrast to the profaced reactions observed in Drew's (1987) study, Suzuki's reaction to the
tease in line 9, especially the use of the plain form accompanied by
laughter, as well as his continuation of the joking frame in line 14,
indicates Suzuki's agency in the tease.
As in excerpt [2], it is possible to connect the content of the tease (that
Suzuki set up tookoobi) to Suzuki's transgression in the prior turn (his
assumption of the moderator's role) by means of the face (i.e. competence
and willingness) claimed by Suzuki. The claimed face is not confirmed by
the other members. Instead, the actual moderator, Akiba, assigns the
unpopular task (i.e. a deviant activity in the sense that only an extremely
diligent and willing teacher would set up tookoobi during summer vacation)
based on the recipient's claimed face. Moreover, similar to the teasers'
display of authority in excerpt [2], Akiba asserts his jovial institutional
authority as a moderator by proving that Suzuki's attempt to assume the
moderator's role is irrelevant, and by treating Suzuki's utterance as a
positive answer to his own initial question.
The analysis of teasing sequences in this section suggests that teasing
TEASING AND HUMOR
111
sequences can be seen as instances in which a tacit norm of appropriateness becomes observable in discourse. In the examples detailed above, the
tacit norm involves the institution-specific turn-taking organization that is
operative in the given community of practice. An investigation of the exact
relationship between appropriateness and politeness is beyond the scope
of this study. Here it may suffice to say that a relation between politeness
and normative behavior does most certainly exist. The description of
instances in which tacit norms of a community of practice are contested
and therefore become observable in discourse points to a possible path
towards a more empirically grounded analysis of politeness.
5.2.3 Displaying lack of responsibility and willingness
In the next data excerpt, the recipient of the tease commits a different
type of conversational transgression. The topic of the conversation is a
cookout scheduled for an upcoming school trip. Kameda, a young male
teacher in his 20s, initiates a question concerning the teachers' meal in
line 1.
Excerpt [9]
1 Kameda: ano.. jaa ky kyooin bun
wa,
well then teacher portion T
(Well, then, as for the teachers' meal ...)
2 Doi:
hai
yes
(Yes.)
3 Kameda: dare ga tsukuru no?
who S make FP
(Who's gonna make it?)
4 Others: he he
([laughter])
5->Doi:
hh minNA-de tsukuru no. ((slow tempo))

all-together make FP
(We'll make it all together.)
6-Murao: otoko sannin de tsukuru no. ((laughing tone))

men three by make FP
(Three of you men will make it)
112
7->Taki:

iya kameda-kun tanomu yo, ((laughing tone))
no Mr. Kameda depend FP
(Well, Mr. Kameda, we'll depend on you.)
8 Kameda: iya: haha

no
(No. [laughter])
9->Doi:
jaa tonjiru?
then pork-miso-soup
(Then [will it be] pork miso soup?)
10 Kameda: iya: minnade.

no all together
(No, [let's make it] all together.)
11 Others: he he he
([laughter])
12 Muto:
tonjiru
de-ii desu yo ne (.) kantan da shi.
pork-miso-soup OK Cop FP FP easy
Cop because
(Pork miso soup will do, right? Because it is easy.)
13 Other:
ii su yo,
good Cop FP
(Good.)
In contrast to earlier excerpts, Kameda, the recipient of the tease in this

segment, assumes neither the role of a moderator nor of a group
representative. Why then does his turn in lines 1 and 3, which appears to
be a simple question about the details of the cookout, trigger the
subsequent tease? Kameda's question ("who will cook the teachers'
meal?") reveals his assumption that cooking is the task of a specific group
of teachers. This type of question is often used to assign tasks to someone
other than the speaker him or herself. Even though I do not claim that
Kameda actually "intends" to exclude himself from the cooking assignment, the assumption contained in his simple question becomes relevant
in the analysis of the subsequent tease.
Kameda's question immediately triggers laughter from other participants in line 4. Their reaction highlights the anomalous quality of
Kameda's prior utterance, and frames it as laughable. Following the
laughter, Doi, the female teacher in her 80s in charge of the cookout,
provides an answer to Kameda's question, slowly, in plain form, with
exaggerated intonation, and with a strong emphasis on the word minNA-de
"all together." Even though the propositional content of her answer is
straightforward and does not include any deviance ascriptions, her
TEASING AND HUMOR
113
manner of speech, reminiscent of a mother talking to her child, indicates

her recognition that Kameda's previous question is anomalous. The strong
emphasis on the word minNA-de highlights the contrast between the
understanding shared by others (that they all cook together) and the
assumption behind Kameda's question (that cooking is the task of a
specific group of teachers). This contrast exposes Kameda as someone
who fails to show willingness to work (i.e. cook) with others.
In line 6, Murao, another female teacher in her 30s, adds an unrealistic
elaboration, proposing that only the three male teachers (including
Kameda) will cook. Assigning cooking to the male teachers, Murao
displays a jocular authority over male teachers. Furthermore, Murao's turn
singles out Kameda's maleness as something that can be ridiculed and
therefore reprimanded. Her teasing, in effect, relates the assumption
behind Kameda's question, that cooking is the task of a specific group of
people, to his maleness. The deviant activity ascription of this teasing is
based on the recipient's failure to display the institutional face of
willingness to cook with others, and Murao's turn connects this displayed
lack of willingness to Kameda's maleness.
Upon hearing Murao assigning the task, Taki, an older male teacher,
expresses his reliance on Kameda in line 7. Both Murao and Taki's turns
are articulated with a laughing tone of voice and employ plain-form
endings, indicating their adherence to the teasing frame. After Kameda's
refusal token with laughter in line 8, Doi inquires about the specific menu
choices in line 9, treating Kameda as the responsible cook. Kameda
refuses again, this time more explicitly with the word minnade "all
together," suggesting that he agrees with the group's original decision to
cook together. Both Taki's and Doi's turns treat Murao's unrealistic
assignment as an already agreed-upon matter (see excerpt [2]), thereby
conveying their affiliation with Murao.
In response to Kameda's question (who will cook for the teachers?), the
participants of the tease jokingly assign this very task to Kameda. Kameda's
conversational transgression (of asking a not-so-sensible question) results
from his failure to display the expected institutional face (of a responsible
teacher willing to share tasks with others). The content of the ensuing
tease centers on Kameda's willingness to cook (or lack thereof).
In the instances of teasing we have examined so far, the participants
who became targets of teasing were always young male teachers. In fact,
the data do not include instances in which an older and more experienced
teacher or a woman teacher is teased. Even though I have thus far
refrained from using preexisting demographic categories as explanatory
measure, I will now consider the relationship between teasing and the
position of young male teachers in the community of practice in which the
data are situated.
Although we cannot reach conclusive results from such a limited
number of examples, the high incidence of young male teachers getting
114
teased may be due to the tendency that different members of a group are
assigned different norms as well as different opportunities for social action
(or reaction) (cf. Mills 2003). For example, teasing is not triggered when a
moderator initiates a topic change.3
Young male teachers' participation in their community of practice can
be best described as peripheral participation: typically they are not yet
considered core members of the group. Before the onset of teasing in
excerpts [2] and [8], they assume the discursive identity of a core member
(e.g. a moderator). At the same time, their practice shows that they have
not yet mastered the norms of talk operative in faculty meetings (e.g. who
is supposed to wrap up a topic and introduce a new one). Equally notable
is the fact that they never react to the tease in a pro-faced manner: they
join in the common laughter and participate actively in the joking frame.
Through these practices, the young male teachers create a jocular "clownlike" self-image in the community of practice. Even though their selfascribed discursive identity as a core member of the group is not
confirmed, they nonetheless become central figures in the ensuing teasing
sequences, in which they participate actively by showing non-pro-faced
reactions. Do these practices affect the interlocutors' participation in their
community of practice over time? Is the probability of being teased
distributed unevenly across different demographic groups? Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to answer these questions conclusively.
5.2.4 Multiple face and voice manipulation
One of the characteristics that help sustain the teasing sequences in the
cited examples is their unrealistic content. The outrageous and improbable content of the exchange creates a safe space, in which interactants are
able to play the discursive roles of teaser and victim, and to exercise
jocular power and disaffiliation. While the practice in the following
excerpt conforms to the general definition of tease - "mocking but playful
jibes against someone" (Drew 1987: 219) - its content is hardly unrealistic.
In fact, it concerns the addressee's past conduct.
In another aspect, too, excerpt [10] differs from the examples observed
so far. The "tease" is not triggered by a previous utterance of the
recipient. In the absence of any sequential prompt, this example may be
better categorized as a deviant case of teasing or a humorous accusation
(hence my use of "tease" in quotation marks).
I will take a look at the facework employed by the participants engaged
in this delicate act. The analysis will reveal a different type of facework - a
display of the participants' shared stance toward the prescribed institutional face.
A related issue I wish to explore here is the relationship between the
contextual information and its relevance in discourse. Since the tease in
[10] refers to the past conduct of the recipient, it may seem impractical to
attempt an analysis without sufficient background information. However,
TEASING AND HUMOR
115
a full reliance on contextual information may compromise the analytical

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

as-you-know sincerely answer for-Neg if actually sincerely Qt Nom
janai kedomo (.) minna yoku ganbarinasai to ne (.) dame

desu
Cop-Neg but everyone
well do-your-best Qt FP
hopeless Cop
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
kotoni haha nattemasu yo ne::, ooki sensee=

Nom
has-become FP FP Ohki teacher
((laughing tone))
(As you know, we should answer sincerely, well, actually, not so

sincerely, but by saying "you all have to do your best," right? It has been
decided that we mustn't say "it's hopeless" to the students at the guidance
session now, right, Mr Ohki?)
5 Ohki:
=ha:i [
yes
hai ((laughing tone)) Qganba[roo:: tte2yes

do-your-best Qt
(Yes, yes, we should say "do your best".)
116
6
1311 8
[.: 8
?
7->
1
?
[1 ] ! 11
1.
1 5
8- 1
1
. 84
fi
? (.)
1--
81 !

8->
8111

1[88
. ((1 ) )
- -1-
!8
(11 , ? 1 1 88 81
$ 1& ]! , !1 \
8 18 "<1
81", 1? 18 !
^1 11.)
9-^ :
[::1. ^ ((1 1)
)
8 18
1
(. I 1811.
)

! 1 8 8^1
,
1
1
!
1
1
8 1 8(11 8 181 1 81
8
! 88818
. ' 811
18
> ^8(^
. 8
!
18 811
(11 188
8 1 1
, 111
: 18
, fi
8 1 !1
1
18
^1 81
: 18
8
. 8 811<1 , 11<
1
8\ 11 1 8 8^
1 11
, : 8 98 811
81 !
1 11 2 8
8 81
18
.
1 11 1, 8\
8 <1
^8^^ 811
1
1
8 8\
8118' ^81^
8 811
, < ^1^
"\!1
, 11, 1 8 811
" 1 1-2. 8 : 8 1
<1 11 2 ( 1
\ I 11
8
1 1 "18
"
8)
, 8' 8 !
98 ( 111
. ^
!
1 1111
, !
, , 8*88, 11 1 1111
8 ^

, !
181
(111
2002).
88108 "!<: 18 188
" !
"
8 fi
! 11 \ 8 8" 18
! ,
81
1 81
8 <1 "188,
" ( ! !)
, !
"8'1. " 1 811(
: 18
fi 1
81,
111
118 ! --
! , ^ 1 !
,
8<88
1 1
, 11
1 84881
&
.
1 8 8111
: !8
18
!: 11 (188
8
8 1
1 - 911 8 18
, 811<
:
(1
1 1
8 (188
. 8181 88
8' 8 18 ,
\8
18
! 1 -
! 8111
. ! !11
,
8188
1 <1
1 !
, 811
^
.
1 1 8 8118 1 8 1<188
,
!8
!11
8 !

811

, 1111:
8
' 8 81
1 811 8 1 !
1 18. 1 ^!8
, 8
TEASING AND HUMOR
117
Ohki as the ostensive recipient of his remark, Hoshi singles out Ohki as
the one who needs to pay most attention to the rules.4
The incipient "accusation" indicated in this turn becomes more overt
in Hoshi's subsequent elaboration (lines 6-7) and request (line 8), in
which she refers to a specific deviation and reminds Ohki to abide by the
rules and regulations. Hoshi's turn displays her institutional authority over
Ohki. We have already observed this relation in earlier examples, but what
is different here is the fact that Hoshi's accusation refers to actual events
(in contrast to the unrealistic contents in earlier examples), even though
the manner of her speech indicates a humorous frame. In line 6, Hoshi
starts her turn with the particle ne, laughter, and the address term sensee
"teacher". The stressed and elongated particle ne at the turn-initial
position solicits attention from Ohki and indicates the continuation of the
humorous frame. During her reference to the deviation and her
reprimand of Ohki, Hoshi continues to employ a laughing, mocking
tone of voice. Despite the absence of a trigger provided by the teased and
the realistic content of Hoshi's accusation, the tease-like nature of the
sequence is rendered recognizable by suprasegmental features (e.g. the
change in voice and the stressed/elongated pronunciation) and the
accusatory quality of the utterance.
Next I will show that the relevant contextual information (i.e. Ohki's
past conduct prompting the tease) can be extracted from the discourse
itself. In analyzing jocular identity ascription, Antaki (1998) denies the
necessity of reliance on psychological speculation or cultural interpretation, stating that it "can (and ought) properly be grasped in its
contemporary 'occasionedness'" (71). Accordingly, I will now attempt to
analyze Hoshi's reference to a specific precedent in terms of its
occasionedness. The focus of analysis is Hoshi's utterance in lines 6 and
7, where he mentions two names, Takada and Hachiooji, stating that "if
Takada says something like Hachiooji, all (we) can say is 'do your best.'
right?" Both Takada and Hachiooji are proper nouns whose situated
meanings are not provided in discourse. However, their relevant meaning
in this sequence can be deduced sequentially.
Takada and Hachiooji could be personal names, place names or names of
high schools (which are often derived from a place name). From the
nominal location in line 6 (that it is a subject of the verb "to say"), we can
assume that Takada is a personal name. Since the description follows
Hoshi's and Ohki's exchange on the regulation that teachers always have
to say "do your best" and should never say "it's hopeless" in guidance
sessions discussing high schools, we can further assume that Hoshi is
referring to a specific case related to that same regulation and that
Hachiooji is probably the name of a high school that Takada had
mentioned. The expression ganbare tte in shika nai "there is no other
way than saying 'do your best'" indicates that Hoshi herself is not content
118
with the range of permissible advice, and that she can imagine a more
desirable or suitable guidance.
How is this incident related to Ohki, the recipient of the statement? The
facts that Hoshi refers to a specific incident in her statement apparently
addressed to Ohki, and that she solicits agreement from Ohki by means of
the affective particle ne, indicates that this incident is related to some past
action of Ohki that Hoshi and Ohki (and maybe others) are familiar with.
Even if we do not know the specifics of this action, we can deduce that it
concerns Takada and Hachiooji High School, and that it may have been in
violation of the rules and regulations. As outlined above, we have arrived
at the point where the relevant information concerning Hoshi's statement
has become observable and analyzable in discourse, despite the use of
proper nouns whose situated meaning is unknown and despite the fact
that Ohki's past action is not explicitly stated.
Let us now examine the ways in which Hoshi and Ohki manipulate
linguistic and paralinguistic resources to simultaneously enact opposition
and alignment in this delicate exchange, and how the content of this
sequence is related to the prescribed institutional face. Similar to the
examples analyzed above, Hoshi displays her authority over Ohki. She
articulates a blunt accusation, which exposes Ohki's lack of face as a
teacher who abides by the rules. In contrast to prior examples, however,
Hoshi's accusation cannot be considered unrealistic or jocular.
While formulating opposition, the sequence simultaneously constructs
alignment by expressing a shared mutual stance toward the institutionally
prescribed face - staying positive no matter what. In lines 1 and 2, Hoshi
articulates her ambivalence toward the requirement to maintain a positive
attitude in guidance sessions at all times. She states that teachers should
answer students' questions (regarding the possibility of getting accepted
by high schools) kichinto "sincerely" or "properly." Hoshi then qualifies
this statement by adding "actually not so sincerely/properly," since
teachers have to say ganbarinasai "do your best" to every student,
regardless of his or her actual prospects. Hoshi's two consecutive
statements are incongruous: teachers should always answer students'
questions sincerely, and teachers should tell students to "do their best,"
even in cases in which their encouragement is not sincere. The cause of
this incongruity is revealed in the subsequent tease, in which Hoshi refers
to the rule that teachers are not to dismiss as impossible the wishes of
students concerning the high school of their choice. Hoshi's dual stance
toward this institutional regulation can be summarized as follows: while it
is her duty as head teacher to promote the institutional face, she is well
aware of the fact that this demand on the teachers is somewhat unrealistic
and that it forces them to be insincere in their student consultations.
The humorous frame of the tease allows Hoshi to express this
incongruity. The open accusation of Ohki, delivered in her turn, is
accompanied by several linguistic and paralinguistic cues, which signify
TEASING AND HUMOR
119
not only a teasing frame but also Hoshi's understanding that the positive
attitude prescribed by the institution is not without drawbacks, an
understanding shared by the recipient of the tease. For instance, Hoshi
uses the particle ne, whose core indexical meaning is a shared affective
stance (Cook 1992), three times to solicit agreement from Ohki (lines 4, 6,
and 7). In addition, as stated earlier, the expression ganbare tte iu shika nai
"there is no other way than saying 'do your best'" implies that there is in
fact a more desirable or suitable advice, and thus indicates Hoshi's
awareness of the limitations of the institutional face's applicability.
Ohki, the recipient of the accusation, assumes a similar dual stance in
his turns: while explicitly accepting Hoshi's accusation, he also registers
his critical assessment of the institutional face. For instance, in line 5 Ohki
articulates his compliance by using the repeated agreement token hai
"yes," followed by the phrase the teachers are supposed to use, ganbaroo
"do your best," appearing in its polite form ganbarinasai in Hoshi's
previous turn. The laughing tone, as well as the repeated use of the same
agreement token, especially with an elongated vowel, conveys Ohki's
attitude toward the prescribed positive attitude. Prototypically, the
repetition of the agreement token indicates the speaker's negative
affective stance (he or she has been told the same thing too many
times). Children use this type of agreement when parents make a routine
command or request (e.g. "do your homework") or reiterate an already
shared rule. Ohki's compliance in line 9 contains yet again the agreement
marker hai, pronounced with an elongated vowel and a laughing tone.
The manner of agreement suggests Ohki's prior knowledge of, and
negative affective stance toward, the institutional face. By employing these
linguistic and paralinguistic cues, Ohki situates himself within the
humorous frame and in alignment with Hoshi's attitude toward the
institutional face of encouraging students' ambitions (her recognition that
blind adherence to the prescribed face may not always be desirable).
Despite a number of similarities to earlier examples (e.g. the institutional authority assumed by the teaser and the use of suprasegmental
features), excerpt [10] does not constitute a typical teasing sequence in
which the recipient's conversational transgression becomes the base for a
subsequent deviance ascription. Furthermore, while the unrealistic content of the earlier teasing sequences foregrounds a "joking" frame
beneath which a conversational reprimand exists, the realistic accusation
in excerpt [10] displays an explicit reprimand beneath which an affiliation
between the accuser and the accused is accomplished. What is ridiculed
jointly by Hoshi and Ohki is the prescribed institutional face, which both
regard with ambivalence. If it is indeed impossible to recommend this face
without qualifications, then Hoshi's command to adhere to it at all times
becomes "unrealistic" and "deviant." The atypical teasing segment in
excerpt [10] contains tacit linguistic manipulations, which act together to
shift the target of the tease.
120
The masu-form structure seems to play an important role in the

establishment of the participants' dual stance. Let us recall that in other
instances of teasing examined in this chapter, the switch from masu to
plain form has served as one of the indicators of a joking frame. In this
example, however, the teasing sequence is delivered in the masu form,
which invests the sequence with an official tone. The accusation sequence
is accompanied by other elements of speech, such as the final particle ne,
laughter, and a laughing or mocking tone.
The use of the masu form in combination with these paralinguistic cues
may create a double-voiced discourse in Bakhtinian (Bakhtin 1981) terms,
which allows the articulation of two differing attitudes at the same time.
Tholander (2002), in his analysis of cross-gender teasing among adolescent boys and girls, illustrates their use of double-voiced discourse to
express two different intentions simultaneously. Fukuda (2005) examines
Japanese young children's use of the masu and plain forms in play scenes
and claims that the plain form indexes the voices of their innate selves,
while the masu form indexes the voice of characters that they play. In the
current example, the participants (i.e. Hoshi and Ohta) do not take up
voices of any particular persons or roles, but they articulate two different
imports concurrently. On the one hand, Hoshi portrays herself as rule
enforcer and accuser, while Ohki accepts his role as the accused. Within
this constellation, the masu form may indicate that this is the speaker's
"official" position. On the other hand, the use of the masu form in
combination with joking elements suggests that the presentation of this
official facade is in itself a joke and that the speakers share the same
critical view of the institutionally prescribed face.
Plain and masu forms are regarded as one of the primary examples of
Japanese discernment politeness, since their use is generally determined
by contextual factors such as the formality of the speech setting or the
social distance between interlocutors. The action-oriented use of the masu
form illustrated in this section suggests a more elaborate notion of
discernment, which is possibly related to Bourdieu's (1977) notion of
habitus.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Bourdieu (1977) defines habitus as a set of
durable dispositions that can function as "principles of the generation
and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively
'regulated' and 'regular' without in any way being the product of
obedience to rules" (72). Eelen (2001), in his work connecting
Bourdieu's idea to politeness, further claims that habitus can function
both as "enabling and constraining forces, defining a set of practical
possibilities which actors unconsciously draw upon in structuring their
behavior" (221-222). The creative use of the masu form in this example is
based on its "regulated" use, and it could be considered an instance of
"structured creativity" (222) or "regulated improvisation" (Bourdieu
1977: 78), which is, as Eelen (2001) states, "a halfway house between pure
TEASING AND HUMOR
121
mechanistic collectivist objectivism and pure creative individualist subjectivism" (222). A similar creative use of masu forms is observed in Fukuda's
(2005) study of play scenes. These observations indicate that the notion of
discernment could encompass such regulated varieties.
5.3 Summary
This chapter has examined the discursive practice of teasing in relation to
participants' face management. It has illustrated teasing as a resource for
displaying jocular authority and affiliation, and for sanctioning unwarranted discursive faces. It has also observed an instance in which a
humorous accusation created a shared stance toward the prescribed
institutional face.
Commonly viewed as a mixture of friendliness and antagonism, teasing
is considered a context-bound social activity whose interpretation depends
on a number of factors. Without relying on contextual variables as
explanatory measures, the chapter documents how the two antagonistic
forces of affiliation and disaffiliation are intertwined in the act of teasing.
According to the findings of the chapter, teasing is initiated when a
claimed face is not confirmed by other group members, and the onset of
teasing can be read as an interactional marking of a deviation from
normative acts.
First, the chapter illustrated the teaser's display of jocular authority in
teasing. It also explored the mechanism of teasing: teaser and teased
establish alignment jointly through a jocular opposition marked by the
tease's unrealistic content and the mutual use of the plain form, laughter,
and a laughing tone of voice.
Second, the chapter noted that the linguistic behavior of the teased
right before the onset of a teasing sequence contains deviations (from the
institution-specific sequential organization), through which he or she
claims a specific discursive face. The claim is not confirmed by others and
triggers the subsequent tease, which functions as a minor social
reprimand.
The final section examined a deviant case in which two participants
employ a humorous joking frame to enact the roles of accuser and
accused, and to register their shared attitude toward the institutionally
prescribed face.
The analytical method employed in the chapter suggests that the
content of the tease is often connected to the recipients' reality at the level
of their claimed face. The notion of face is thus essential in understanding
the interpersonal mechanism involved in teasing. The chapter also
demonstrated that teasing sequences represent instances in which a tacit
norm of appropriateness becomes observable in discourse, and it
delineated the action-oriented use of elements of discernment politeness
122
(the plain and masu forms of clause-final predicates). Finally, it presented

a case in which the marked use of the masu form creates a double-voiced
discourse in Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the simultaneous articulation of two differing attitudes. This last finding suggests a more elaborate
notion of discernment politeness to include instances of regulated
variations.
Chapter 6: Talking about Troubles
6.1 Introduction
In grade-level faculty meetings, teachers frequently discuss past and
ongoing troubles they encounter in classes and extracurricular activities.
Although planning future events and reporting on sub-committee
activities constitute the majority of transactions, troubles talk provides
teachers with an important opportunity to exchange information about
their students.
Brown and Levinson mention troubles talk briefly in their introduction
to the 1987 reissue. Referring to Jefferson's (1980, 1984a, 1984b) studies,
they state that the speaker of troubles talk "may appear to be upset, not in
control, not properly maintaining 'face,'" and that both troubles teller
and recipient attend to "the face implications of A's [= the tellers]
trouble" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 40). Brown and Levinson recognize
the face-threatening potential of troubles talk since it may appear that the
troubles teller does not maintain his or her face. However, they do not
elaborate on these "face implications," and troubles talk appears neither
in their list of politeness strategies nor in their discussion of facethreatening acts, possibly because their framework, largely confined to
speech-act level analysis, is not a suitable tool to analyze troubles talk,
which is usually realized as an extended discursive phenomenon. The
discursive framework of the present study, observing various types of face
occasioned in talk simultaneously, permits a more thorough examination
of this phenomenon.
Contrary to Brown and Levinson's (1987) supposition, troubles talk in
ordinary conversation is generally considered a solidarity-building activity.
Similar to an indirect complaint (an expression of dissatisfaction regarding someone or something absent) among friends, for instance, troubles
talk can build intimacy, show equal alignment, and strengthen a
friendship when broached and received properly (Boxer 1993, Drew
1998, Jefferson 1988, Tannen 1990).
The diverging views of troubles talk (i.e. as face-threatening and faceenhancing) necessitate a closer examination of the ways in which various
face-related considerations interplay in troubles talk segments. Troubles
talk in faculty meetings involves an additional element: the speaker's
institutional face. This chapter focuses on the rhetorical practices
employed by troubles tellers. In the course of analysis, we witness how
participants display, highlight, and undermine various aspects of the
124
trouble in question, and how these discursive practices are related to

participants' multiple faces - the interactional self-image they assert as a
competent teacher, a team player, or a sensible participant in the meeting.
In the following sections, I will first review studies on troubles talk and
indirect complaint, which constitute the reference point for my research,
and then discuss the characteristics of the analyzed data based on my
ethnographic knowledge of the community of Japanese secondary school
teachers. These two sources of information help in the subsequent analysis
of troubles talk segments.
6.1.1 Troubles talk and indirect complaint
6.1.1.1 Structures and elements
Troubles talk has been studied from different perspectives (Barraja-Rohan
2003, Beach 1996, Boxer 1993, Jefferson 1984a, 1984b, 1988, Jefferson and
Lee 1992, Tannen 1990, 1994). In a series of studies on troubles talk in
ordinary conversation, Jefferson (1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1988) conceptualizes this form of discourse as a sequentially organized package consisting
of a series of recurrent, positioned elements. Even though troubles talk
does not always follow this consecutive, structured model, Jefferson's
(1980, 1984a, 1984b, 1988) investigation yields a series of recurrent
components, which, according to her, constitute the rough segmental
order of troubles talk: (1) approach (e.g. initiation, trouble premonitor),
(2) arrival (e.g. announcement of trouble) (3) delivery (e.g. exposition,
affiliation), (4) work-up (e.g. diagnoses, reports of relevant other
experiences), (5) close implicature (e.g. optimistic projection), and (6)
exit (e.g. transition to other topics) (Jefferson 1988: 420).
Jefferson (1988) states that these elements constitute "the standard
candidate troubles-telling package" (419) and that no actual case of
troubles telling entails all elements in their entirety. Nonetheless, the
package is designed to move fluently between two contrasting relevancies
- attention to the trouble, and attention to business as usual (1980).
According to Jefferson, the underlying feature of troubles talk is the
constant tension between these two polar relevancies (1980, 1988).
Drew (1998) outlines the general features of indirect complaints (i.e.
complaints about the behavior of others): they are clearly bounded
sequences, they refer explicitly to the nature of transgressions that another
has committed, and they include an element of grievance on the part of
the speaker.1 While Jefferson (1988) illustrates the overall progression of
troubles-telling sequences without detailing the notion of trouble itself,
Drew (1998) enumerates the constituents of a complaint: the actor's (i.e.
the one who causes the trouble) transgression and the troubles teller's
grievance. These constituents become especially relevant when we discuss
the discursive faces involved in troubles talk (see 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 for a
further discussion).
TALKING ABOUT TROUBLES
125
6.1.1.2 Troubles talk as a solidarity-building activity
Troubles talk in ordinary conversation is generally described as a

solidarity-building activity. Tannen (1990), for instance, claims that
mutual troubles talk is intended to "reinforce rapport by sending the
metamessage 'We're the same; you're not alone'" (53). Similarly,
Jefferson (1988) observes a shifting of alignment "from distance to
intimacy" (428) as troubles teller and troubles recipient progress in the
troubles talk package she examines. Boxer (1993) asserts in her study of
indirect complaint that it "functions as a welding agent between
individuals" (192).
While most researchers agree that the troubles talk sequence as a whole
serves as a means to enhance or build rapport, some have pointed out that
the troubles talk recipient's reaction plays a crucial role as well. Tannen
(1990) describes cases in which women feel frustrated when their male
partners do not show empathy for their feelings but instead offer advice or
solutions for their troubles. Mutual understanding projects symmetrical
relationships, contributing to a sense of rapport Giving advice, on the
other hand, projects asymmetrical relationships and has a distancing effect
since, Tannen writes, "it frames the advice giver as more knowledgeable,
more reasonable, more in control - in a word, one-up" (53).2 The
metamessages Tannen (1990) detects in her data often concern the
speaker's relational (symmetrical or asymmetrical) footing. Even though
Tannen does not refer to the concept of face in her analysis of troubles
talk, her metamessages include indirect pointers to the interactant's face:
the interactional self-image he or she projects in talk (as knowledgeable,
understanding, competent, etc.).
Jefferson and Lee (1992) compare troubles telling with another
convergent activity, service encounters, and state the importance of
emotional reciprocity in the troubles-telling environment. Troubles tellers
accept emotional reciprocity but recurrently reject prematurely proffered
advice, whereas in the context of a service encounter, the advice seeker
accepts advice without hesitation and without much elaboration of his or
her problem. Jefferson and Lee (1992) observe cases in which "the crossenvironment proffering of reciprocity or advice turn out to be problematic" (546).
The failure in getting rapport in troubles talk is depicted as a clash of
speech style (Tannen 1990) or activity contamination (Jefferson and Lee
1992). Tannen explains the rejection of male advice by female troubles
tellers in terms of gendered speech style and metamessages concerning
the interactants' self-image and relational footing. Jefferson and Lee
illustrate the problem as an intermixture of two heterogeneous activities premature advice by troubles talk recipients, who are in a troubles-telling
environment but act as if they were in a service encounter, is recurrently
rejected. Both studies reveal the importance of the troubles recipients'
behavior in creating rapport* the display of appropriate emotional
126
reciprocity enhances solidarity, while the display of "one-upmanship"

does not.
The recipient of troubles talk may demonstrate emotional reciprocity by
recounting a similar experience, or by offering emphatic agreements.
Jefferson (1984b), in her study of laughter in troubles talk, introduces
another way to show empathy: by not joining in the teller's laughter.
Troubles telling is frequently accompanied by laughter, proving the
teller's "trouble resistance" - "although there is this trouble, it is not
getting the better of him; he is managing; he is in good spirits and in a
position to take the trouble lightly" (351). The recipient of troubles talk
rarely joins in the teller's laughter. Instead, he or she tends to take the
trouble seriously to exhibit "trouble receptiveness" (351).
The studies discussed here demonstrate successfully that troubles talk
can build solidarity when acknowledged appropriately by the troubles talk
recipient. Yet they focus primarily on the sequential mechanism of the
troubles talk segment as a whole or on the effect of the recipients'
behavior, without paying attention to the ways in which troubles tellers
formulate their talk. The next section introduces another approach in
order to trace the formation of troubles talk and indirect complaint.
6.1.2 The formulation of troubles talk
Troubles talk and indirect complaint reveal information about the cause
of the trouble as well as the troubles teller him or herself. Drew (1998)
compares indirect complaints with accounts of the speaker's own conduct.
Speakers provide defensive detailing when they describe their own
conduct, whereas in indirect complaints they tend to detail quite explicitly
how others' conduct is at fault. Drew claims that complaints can be
understood as moral work, "providing a basis for evaluating the 'lightness'
or "wrongness' of whatever is being reported" (295), and identifies several
specific devices through which moral condemnation is expressed:
complainers provide circumstantial accounts that invest others' behavior
with impropriety; they describe the committed fault as a deliberate and
hence not accidental act; and their reports frequently include direct
reported speech with particular prosody.
Edwards (1995) examines event descriptions in couples' talk relating
relationship troubles in counseling sessions. He illustrates how a partner's
troublesome conduct is formulated as an instance of a more generalized
pattern (i.e. script), and how this formulation is instrumental in
attributing certain dispositional features (e.g. jealous or flirty personality)
to the partner. These practices portray a situation as a "legitimate
complainable" (Pomerantz 1986). Edwards (2005) lists these and other
practices as objectification methods, and claims that they are related to the
complainer's presentation of subjectivity:
Objectification of a complaint is one way (in fact, a variety of ways) of
127
handling the subjective side: the more a complaint can be built as a

factual description of its object, the less available it is to be heard as
stemming from the speaker's disposition to see, feel, or interpret things
negatively. (6)
The link between objectification and the speaker's subjectivity will play an
important role in our analysis of facework in troubles talk later on.
Edwards specifies how a complainer's subjectivity is displayed and
managed: through announcements of grievance, through laughter
expressing the speaker's attitude (cf. Jefferson 1984b), through displacement of the object of complaint (e.g. complaining about the dirty
footprints a thief has left instead of the theft itself), and through lexical
choices (e.g. moaning) to undermine the complaint's factual grounds or
seriousness.
Edwards' (2005) exploration of subjectivity work (i.e. the display and
management of the speaker's subjectivity) includes mechanisms that can
be referred to as facework within the framework of this study. Studies on
troubles talk and indirect complaint in general introduce various facerelated observations. The troubles teller presents him or herself as a
trouble-resistant individual (Edwards 2005, Jefferson 1984b), as a moral
person who condemns others' transgressions (Drew 1998), or as a
reasonable individual who can afford to admit his or her own faults
(Edwards 1995).
Edwards (2005) points out that complaints can exhibit orientations that
are specific to their setting (e.g. couples in counseling sessions, or
telephone conversations between friends or family members). In complaints in neighborhood mediations, for instance, there is an orientation
to the need for mediation or police action (Edwards 2005).
Because this study examines troubles talk in institutional discourse,
institution-specific requirements and orientations must be taken into
consideration. The next section summarizes the general context of the
analyzed troubles talk data.
6.1.3 Troubles talk in faculty meetings
The examples of troubles talk extracted from the data set are mostly
concerned with students' behavioral problems. They appear at a distinct
location within the faculty meetings. Often, the discussion of a major
problem listed on the meeting agenda engenders reports about other
minor troubles (i.e. in place of "reactive" troubles talk). When no such
issue is on the agenda, the moderator routinely asks toward the end of the
meeting if anyone "has noticed a change" in the students' behavior. These
discourse organizational characteristics facilitate the selection of troubles
talk excerpts for analysis: the boundaries of troubles talk tend to be
institutionally determined. At the same time, the characteristics affect the
sequential organization of the troubles talk itself. For instance, the
128
troubles teller rarely makes an explicit "announcement" of the trouble

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

troubles talk in ordinary conversation in that it is essentially a description
of past and ongoing events, yet it is different in that it rarely includes the
expression of grievance (e.g. "I was boiling," "I was aggravated"). Instead,
troubles tellers tend to claim that they are fulfilling their responsibility and
that they are capable of dealing with ongoing problems. However, the
display of a responsible institutional face can challenge other types of face,
such as the ability to exercise control over the students. This dilemma or
conflict of face is a recurring theme in this and the following sections. The
troubles tellers' interactional practices are oriented towards managing
various conflicting discursive faces.
In this and the following sections, I will focus on one example at a time
for the sake of clarity. A synopsis of similar practices across different
129
excerpts will follow in later sections to support the arguments of the first
analysis.
In the first excerpt, a teacher faces an interactional dilemma in
reporting her trouble: she has to present the trouble as severe and
therefore report-worthy without looking overly incompetent in handling
the trouble herself. I will show (1) that troubles tellers employ various
rhetorical means to frame the troublemakers' behavior as a transgression;
(2) that troubles tellers describe their own involvement in the trouble in
rather vague and general terms; and (3) that these rhetorical practices are
closely linked to the dilemma of conflicting institutional faces.
Nakai, a female home economics teacher in her 40s, complains about
an unruly student in her cooking class. She faces an interesting dilemma.
Her attempt to rein in the recalcitrant student supports her face as a
responsible teacher, yet the fact that she could not stop him calls her
authority into question. Another important aspect is the report-worthiness
of the trouble. As we have seen, all teachers share the understanding that
they must be aware of students' behavioral problems from the very
beginning. They are encouraged to report any sign of incipient
delinquency. Yet if the trouble they report is a benign and insignificant
one, troubles tellers run the risk of being categorized as dispositional
complainers or as being overly critical of students (cf. Edwards 2005). A
troubles teller must therefore show the report-worthiness of the trouble that it is a serious event worthy of sharing in a faculty meeting. Yet the very
severity of the event, while supporting its report-worthiness, carries also
the potential of undermining the troubles teller's authority. As this
excerpt shows, a speaker's projection of one positive self-image can quickly
trigger the loss of another. This type of face conflict seems to occur quite
frequently in troubles talk in faculty meetings.
The incident reported in excerpt [1] was listed in the meeting agenda,
and Nishi, the male moderator in his 30s, prompts the troubles talk in
line 1.
Excerpt [1]
1
Nishi:
jaa tsugi goban (..) ii desu ka?

then next number-five good Cop Q
(1 Then, let's move to number 5 [of the agenda]. Is it OK?)
2 Nakai:
hai (.) ano kateeka no choorijisshuu no kotona n desu kedo

yes well home-economics Lk cooking-class Lk thing Nom Cop but
([unintelligible for 2 seconds])
ano koshoo o ne moo hoka no hito

ni batt batt baaaatt to nagetari
well pepper O FP well other Lk person to splash splash Qt threw
130
heya no naka-ni ne (.) moo hutabin konna ookii no kara-ni shichatta n

room Lk inside FP well
two
this big one empty made Nom
desu yo (.) de (.) chuui shita n

desu kedomo (.) sore demo yatteru
Cop FP and
warning did Nom Cop but
so even doing
no ne (.) sorede jibun shirabakkurete watashi ga miteru noni

Nom FP and himself pretend-not-to-notice I S watching though
moo shimasen shitemasen nante mottemasen toka ne (.) miteru

any-more don't not-doing etc. not-having etc. FP watching
noni ne? hoka no ko wa isshookenmee mushi shite yatte n desu kedo

though FP other Lk child T do-their-best ignore and do Nom Cop but
ne,
FP
(2 Yes, well, it is about the cooking period of the home economics

class.
3 He sprayed pepper onto other students,
4 in the room, until he emptied two of
5 these big jars. I gave him a warning, but he kept doing it,
6 and he pretended not to do anything, though he knew I was
watching,
7 saying that he didn't do it or he didn't have [the pepper jars],
even
8 though I was watching him. Other students ignored him and were
doing
9 their best, but...)
Upon the moderator's prompt, Nakai reports a male student's unruly

behavior in her cooking class. She formulates his conduct explicitly as a
transgression. Her description of the student's behavior (spraying pepper
in the classroom) in lines 3 to 5 includes several objectification methods methods to formulate a complaint as a factual description of its object
(Edwards 2005). For instance, Nakai provides a vivid, graphic description
(cf. Potter 1996, Wooffitt 1992) of the student's handling of the pepper
bottle. Her use of the onomatopoeia batt bait baaaatt to emphasizes the
animated and forceful manner of the student's actions, and she demonstrates the size of the pepper cans (while saying konna ookii no "ones [i.e.
cans] this big"), adding a here-and-now relevancy to her report. Moreover,
the deliberateness or agency of the complainable conduct (cf. Drew 1998,
Edwards 2005) is established by revealing that the student kept committing the transgression after he received a warning from the teacher (lines
5-6) and that he claimed to be innocent in front of the teacher and other
students who had witnessed his blatant misbehavior (lines 6-8). Nakai's
report includes direct quoted speech of the student (shimasen "I won't do
131
anything," shitemasen "I am not doing anything," and mottemasen "I don't
have anything," line 7), which contradicts his committed and witnessed
misconduct. Verbatim quotation with active voicing is a common
objectification method (Edwards 2005, Wooffitt 1992). Drew (1998) states
that through direct quotation, "the complained-about behavior is
animated in such a way that the recipient can appreciate how rude,
unjust, and thoughtless the other was, without the complainant needing to
categorize the particular offense that was thereby committed" (321). In
this turn, Nakai's vivid description highlights the severity of the misconduct and the troublemaker's agency, and presents the trouble as reportworthy.
Contrary to the vivid and detailed description of the student's conduct,
Nakai's own involvement in the trouble is mentioned briefly in general
terms: she gave a warning (chuui shita "warned," line 5) and witnessed
(miteru "watching," lines 6-7) the unruly behavior. The general,
backgrounded description of a troubles teller's own involvement in the
trouble has been reported elsewhere in the literature. For instance,
Edwards (1995) contrasts the generalized and unspecific nature of the
complainer's admission to share blame (e.g. "it's me, too") with the more
detailed and graphic account of the trouble source's actions. In our
example, Nakai's description of her own action (her attempt to stop the
misconduct) projects her face - her interactional self-image - as a
responsible teacher. At the same time, the general nature of the
description shifts the focus of attention away from her and thereby serves
to downplay her ineffectiveness in stopping the student's misconduct. By
adding a remark about the behavior of the other students (who ignored
the troublemaker and participated in the class diligently), she proves that
she was able to manage the rest of the class reasonably well.
From the viewpoint of face, then, the vivid and rhetorically rich
description of student misconduct is an ideal measure to display multiple
and often conflicting faces simultaneously. First, a compelling narrative
accentuating the severity of the offense and the agency of the troublemaker proves the report-worthiness of the trouble, and in turn enables the
speaker to project the interactional face of a reasonable individual (i.e. not
a dispositional complainer). Edwards (2005) observes that "the more a
complaint can be built as a factual description of its object, the less
available it is to be heard as stemming from the speaker's disposition to
see, feel, or interpret things negatively" (6). Objectification can function
as facework - it allows the troubles teller to present him- or herself as a
reasonable individual without negative bias. Second, the vivid description
of the student's misconduct is contrasted with the vague description of the
troubles teller's conduct. In doing so, the troubles teller displays her
interactional self-image as a responsible teacher. Third, by formulating the
student's misconduct as a severe transgression, the narrative frames the
lack of authority on the part of the teacher as "all too human," rendering
132
it understandable and therefore forgivable. Fourth, by stressing the reportworthiness of her trouble, the troubles teller displays her face as being a
considerate meeting participant who does not complain about trifles and
waste others' time.
This section has shown that a teacher's presentation of a trouble case as
report-worthy (supporting the self-image of being reasonable and considerate) conflicts with her face as an effective/competent teacher with
unchallenged authority, and it has demonstrated how specific rhetorical
means of describing events can be deployed to manage these multiple,
conflicting faces.
6.2.2 Projecting vulnerability
Excerpts [2] and [3] are taken from the same meeting as excerpt [1].
After the home economics teacher's complaint about an unruly student in
her cooking class, the teachers discuss this and other behavioral
transgressions. Banno, a male teacher in his 50s who is a member of the
Student Life Division, discloses the trouble he faces with some of his male
students. Sequentially, these excerpts are placed as a "work-up (reports of
relevant other experiences)" after the "delivery" of troubles talk
(Jefferson 1988). It contains some of the same features we have
encountered in the previous section: a graphic description of the
misconduct and the projection of the speaker's sense of responsibility.
An additional feature of these segments includes expressions asserting the
speaker's helplessness and vulnerability (cf. Waring 2001). As we will see,
such admissions are connected to the speaker's interactional face of
reflectiveness and affiliation with others.
At the beginning of excerpt [2], Nishi, the head teacher and moderator
of the meeting, presents his view of the current condition of student
behavior, stating that the teachers need to talk with the students instead of
simply enforcing discipline (lines 1-6). After Nishi's statement, Banno
expresses his tormented feelings (lines 7-10) and by way of illustration
reports an incident in which he failed to control the students (excerpt [3],
lines 12-14).
Let us first explore the first segment of this exchange.
Excerptsml [2]
1 Nishi:
yappari
yurunderu toko ga aru to omou n desu kedo (.)
as-expected getting-loose point S exist Qt think Nom Cop but
kyuu ni gyaagyaa ittemo kawaranai to omou n de

suddenly harshly say-even-if change-Neg Qt think Nom Cop-and
ue kara osaetsukeru bakkari janaku (..) kamioka toka ima

above from suppress only
Cop-neg Kamioka etc. now
daibu ( ) hanpatsushite (.) hoka no ko
mo sonnna kanji

quite
rebel-and
133
other Lk child also this
feeling
ni natteku kanoosee ga aru shi (.) chigau katachi de hanashi o

to becoming possibility S exist and other form with talk O
shite kangaesasete ikanaitoikenai to (.) ne? (

do make-them-think have-to
Qt FP
(1 As we expected, I think some of them are getting loose, but

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

da kedo hatashite d- dooyuufuuni
so FP raising-voice T easy
Nom Cop but at-all
how
shitara ii
no ka na tte yuu koto de (.) komatte n
da yo ore (.)
do-if good Nom Q FP Q say thing and in-trouble Nom Cop FP I
ore mo jibunde kurushiku nacchau kara sa (.) de anmari sorede

I too on-my-own suffering become so FP and so-much then
10
okotte bakari iruto (.) jibun no jugyoo ga dame-ni nacchau shi.

scolding only if
own Lk class S bad
become and
(7 So, well, raising my voice [at students] is easy, but [when I think]
what
8 I should do, I am at a loss.
9 I am suffering on my own, too. And then
10 if I'm constantly scolding them, my own class would collapse.)
11 Nishi:
uuun
uh-huh
(11 Uh-huh.)
In his first turn in lines 7 to 10, Banno laments that he does not know how
to respond to students' misbehavior. His admission that he is at a loss even
though "raising his voice is easy" (line 7) reflects the moderator's earlier
assessment in lines 1 to 6. Nishi, the moderator, indicates that forceful
enforcement of discipline is no longer effective and that the teachers
should find alternative means to control the students. Banno's use of the
verb donaru "raising one's voice" (line 7) is a concrete example of the
practice of osaetsukeru "suppress (students)" advanced by Nishi (line 3).
By stating that it is easy for him to raise his voice at students (line 7),
Banno at first projects his face as a capable teacher with some authority
(who is able to handle one measure of student control - raising his voice -
134
with ease). Yet in the same turn he explicitly admits his vulnerability by
mentioning that he is "at a loss" (line 8), that he is "suffering" (line 9),
and that he is aware of the fact that such an approach would eventually
ruin his class (line 10). These pronouncements resemble the way in which
complainers express how they are affected by the issue that causes their
irritation (Drew 1998, Edwards 2005). These statements are usually
phrased as first person assessments (e.g. "I am boiling," "I was
disgusted"), and they tend to appear before the elaboration of a
complaint or at its end. In Drew's (1998) data, they are interpreted as
expressions of moral indignation.
In contrast, Banno's emotional outburst in lines 8 and 9 speaks not of
indignation against student misbehavior, but rather of internal distress
concerning his own educational practices. Banno's admission is unequivocal: he does not know what step to take beyond just raising his voice at
students (lines 7-8). He characterizes the manner of his suffering asjibunde "on my own," ascribing it to internal causes rather than to the external
cause of student behavior.
Banno's admission of vulnerability projects several different yet interrelated faces. First, it supports Banno's affiliating stance toward Nishi (the
moderator who diagnosed student misbehavior as a growing problem) and
Nakai (the home economics teacher whose troubles talk precedes
Banno's) by indicating that Banno has similar troubles and concerns.
Within the extended troubles talk sequence (starting with Nakai's troubles
talk and continuing with Banno's turns as instances of reactive troubles
talk), Banno is at first a recipient of Nakai's troubles talk. By showing
empathetic reciprocity (Jefferson 1980, 1988, Tannen 1990), Banno
acknowledges that Nakai's problem is a common one shared by all
teachers, thereby reducing Nakai's potential loss of face as a competent
teacher. Second, as stated above, Banno ascribes his vulnerability not to
his helplessness as a teacher, but to a distress of a higher order,
experienced by a teacher who could easily exercise force and authority. By
asserting vulnerability in this manner and at this sequential location,
Banno acknowledges the initial troubles teller's face, demonstrates
affiliation to others, and projects his standing as a capable yet reflective
teacher.
In his next turn, Banno reports another trouble he encountered
recently (lines 12-14).
Excerpt [3] (continuation of excerpt [2])
11 Nishi:
uuun
uh-huh
(11 Uh-huh.)
12 Banno: yamada ya satoo ni mo kyoo chuuishita n da kedo (.) ore ga

Yamada and Sato to also today scolded Nom Cop but
135
I
13
miteru toki heekide rokkaa no ue

o nikai mo
watching time indifferently locker Lk on at twice as many as
14
sankai mo tobiagatte
three-times as many as jumping
abaremakutte n
da na
acting-rough
Nom Cop FP
(12 Today I scolded Yamada and Sato, but while I

13 was watching, they didn't care [that I was watching] at all and
14 jumped on top of the locker as many as two/three times.)
15 Nishi:
16 Abe:
kocchi o mushi-shiteru n da.

this-side O ignoring Nom Cop
(15 They are ignoring us.)
yurunderu ne,
getting-loose FP
(16 They are getting loose.)
17 Nishi:
maa (.) jikitekini yurumu jiki mo am daroo shi? (.) satoo dake
well period-wise get-loose period also exist Cop and Sato onlv
18
to wa kagiranai to omou n da kedo (.) anoo maa ... onaji yoona

Qt T limited-Neg Qt think Nom Cop but
eh well
same like
19
reberu de mada hokani mo iru shi ne,

level at still other also exist also FP
(17 Well, it is also the period when they get loose, and I think
18 it is not only Sato [who is causing trouble], but, well, there are
19 also others who are as bad as him, right?)
Banno's trouble is similar to Nakai's in excerpt [1] in that the students

continued their misconduct in front of the teacher even after being
scolded. The facework follows a similar pattern. Banno describes the
students' misdeeds in vivid terms, emphasizing their deliberate nature and
recurrent performance (nikai mo sankai mo "as many as two or three
times"). The repeated use of mo "as many as" in lines 13 and 14 denotes
the persistence of the students' offenses as excessive. Banno uses the
dispositional term heekide "indifferently" or "without caring" (line 13),
indicating the students' agency in their misconduct The outrageous
behavior is summed up with the forceful verb abaremakutte (line 14), which
can roughly be translated as "acting out as much as one likes." In contrast,
Banno's own involvement is encapsulated in the general term chuuishita
"gave warning" or "scolded" (line 12) - exactly the same verb Nakai used
to relay her disciplinary measures (excerpt [1], line 5). The vivid
illustration of the students' misconduct, when contrasted with the general
136
description of Banno's reaction, renders Banno's failure to manage those

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

material T how should-do well I T this-school at experience no
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
(.)

-8
80
137
(

,
? (.) & 8-8

(.) ^

8 3
1111
N -

(.) (
-

N 8
N

1
=
^ N
(1 \

\
? \11, 1

2 8
,
1\\
, ...
3 8
, , \^

4
. 5
, 8
8< ^
5
18 '
8

6 \( 88 , [^
] ...)
7
=
\ ,
1-

(7 81

, ^?
)
8
: ^

?
\^

1-
(8 \? ?)
.. \5 (.2)
10
\ -

8

[

5
^^
(9 , ...

,
10 ^ .)
11 :
[

(11 11.)
12 8:

[1(..)
8 -
8
881
(12 8

,881.
)
138
13 Honda:
[aa soo
oh so
(13 Oh, is that so?)
14 Kubota: sennen
bun gurai aru
n
da yo ne
thousand-years worth about there-is Nom Cop FP FP
(14 She has about a thousand years' worth.)
15 Sano:
juumannen
hundred-thousand-years
(15 A hundred thousand years.)
16 Others: hhehheh
(16 [laughter])
At the end of her turn, Miki mentions that Sano, a male teacher from
another grade, has offered to show his materials to her (lines 4-5). Tsuji, a
female teacher in her 40s, responds by stating in truncated form that one
should keep at least one copy of the materials. Her comment implies that
whoever had been in charge of sessions previously should have kept the
records and given them to Miki. In the following question (line 8),
Kubota, a male teacher in his 30s, expresses surprise that Miki received
only a few records from her predecessor. In response, Miki speculates that
the home economics teacher may have kept all the records. Upon Miki's
insertion, other participants engage in a collaborative construction of
indirect complaint. The objections against this particular female teacher
continue and escalate into a joke. Kubota quips that she has kept materials
for the past thousand years (line 14). Sano elaborates on this joke,
exaggerating the number of years to a hundred thousand (line 15).
Independent corroboration by other victims or witnesses is considered a
method of objectification (Edwards and Potter 1992), giving a speaker
license to complain without being considered a dispositional complainer.
Miki's contemplation of her own trouble is taken up by the group in the
form of a corroborative complaint The use of plain forms along with the
exchange of relatively short turns and the presentation of mutually
supportive content creates the sense that the griping sequence is the
common effort of several participants.
Miki's initial assertion that she lacks knowledge and experience serves
several functions. First, it gives her the license to initiate the troubles talk,
since it is natural for an inexperienced teacher to have difficulties
planning an event without the proper materials. Waring's (2001) study of
graduate students' behavior in an academic seminar describes similar
cases in which new students assert vulnerability (e.g. "I'm new in this
class," "I don't know much about this") to ease their way into the
discussion. Second, Miki's statement of vulnerability qualifies the content
139
of her troubles talk. Note that her inidal turn - consisting of the claim that
she has only last year's material, the self-directed question "I wonder if
they discarded the materials from before?" and a short account of how she
obtained last year's material - includes neither a vivid description of
anyone's misconduct, nor an expression of grievance. In other words, up
to this point her contribution is formulated as a talk about her own
trouble rather than a complaint about someone else. By professing
inexperience and by presenting the trouble as her own, Miki reduces the
risk of engaging in an unwarranted complaint, which might threaten her
own or someone else's face (e.g. if one of the teachers had forgotten to
give the materials to her, or if it was customary in the school to keep only
the previous year's material).
Tsuji and Kubota's turns (lines 7-8) confirm that Miki's not receiving
enough material is indeed considered unusual in this community of
practice. These confirmations give Miki the license to issue a complaint.
Miki formulates a more specific speculation about the possible troublemaker in lines 9 and 10, which the other participants take up and develop
into a joint complaint.
This section has explored several functions of asserting vulnerability in
managing multiple face wants. Teachers assert vulnerability to display
empathy and alignment with others, to avoid face threats to others, to
project their face as caring, concerned, reflective teachers as well as
reasonable troubles tellers, and to gain license to initiate troubles talk.
6.2.3 Claiming sensibility while fulfilling responsibility

The troubles teller in the excerpt discussed in this section faces a
dilemma. She has been involved in a case in which students used foul
language. A detailed account of the event is bound to compromise her
interactional self-image as a sensible participant in the meeting. Yet at the
same time, all faculty members are encouraged to report any sign of
emergent student misconduct. Her dilemma is reflected in the discursive
practices she chooses to broach and explicate her trouble: she avoids any
explicit description of the troublemaker's conduct and modulates her
statement with extensive qualifications. Before the onset of excerpt [5],
several teachers are talking about recent incidents with disorderly
students. In the first turn of the excerpt, Kanda, a female teacher in her
40s, reports her encounter with a group of unruly male students, inserting
multiple self-qualification segments:
Excerpt [5]
1
Kanda:
kyoo yojikanme ni sankumi no > sankumi chotto konotokoro

today fourth-period in class-three Lk class-three a-little recently
140
2
815
1
) 15
fi
? < (.) 1
-

3
(.) ^

11
1 1
1-
1 185
(11

* --
fi (.) & <;1

(.) (.)
\!1
5*
1 111
> <

! 51
(.) (.)
1- 1
1
!-5
1 .1 >( ) 1(
( )
1)1 1<: ? < (.) (11 (.) ]!

fi
1 1
10
51 *
(1 11
<
> 1 ,
5\(.2)
1 1-111 (1(->-(1 1
1
9
51 (
1 1
8
1 (.) \18 ^ > ( ) ]!

\^<;-1
511
(1(1

(.)
1 111
1
. !
1
\1-111;

\!1
\^!1
^.
\
11:
: .

0<; 11 1
\!1 1-1! 1 $ 1 1-\
(1 fi, fi
, fi 1
3 - 1
3 1
2
111
, 1 11? -
* \^ 51111
! 1 1
,
3 <1 ^ I 1
[ 15
]
11 \ fi
4 1
fi
, \^11 1. 1 , 1 1 '
,

! 1 <111

>{ \11
6

, fi, II 1 (; ! 1
7 111
1, 1, 11 !
! 1
,
8 1115 ! > 111 ... !! 1 111 ... I 111, 1,
9 [11] . 8, \^11, I 111

^,
10 1.. . \\^!1, ^' \^1 !.
)
1 5118 (18
8 \ \
1 & !88
1
8
(1
8 1-4). 8
118 1 8 !
1 1 ! 1
1
1 . 1
111 !
8 !1
88881 (1.. "") !88 \ 8 1

,
!
18
1 .
11
8
1
188

( 1996):

"811 <1\"
(
11 3), 81
!
"811
<1\," 11:
8 ^
. 118
!
,
"
8 " 18
811\ 8 . 1 11 4,
!
--
141
shinai in kikyashinai "wouldn't listen" (a truncated form of kiki wa shinai)

implies the speaker's frustration (a form of grievance). In sum, this
portion encompasses several elements of troubles talk pointed out by
Drew (1998) - description of transgression and troubles teller's grievance.
However, the first part of Kanda's report is formulated as background
information to the subsequent narrative through the clause-final use of
kedo "but." Researchers claim that kedo, inserted into the onset of a
narrative sequence, frames the preceding clause as a peripheral comment
or background to the ensuing narrative (Nakayama and IchihashiNakayama 1997). In this segment, the use of kedo in the middle of line 4
designates the preceding portion of the talk as background information.
The core of Kanda's account starts in line 5. Here we find that her mode
of narration deviates from canonical troubles talk (i.e. vivid description of
the misconduct and expression of grievance). Kanda's first portrayal of the
students' misconduct is quite brief and oblique. She alludes to the
controversial exchange in general terms in lines 5 and 6: the talk went in a
"strange direction," or henna hookoo. The next description in line 7
contains the phrase seetekina hanashi "a sexual talk," with the hesitation
marker koo "thus," "this manner," or "this kind of." Her third and most
specific attempt to depict what happened contains a direct quote (albeit
unintelligible in the data), followed by the mitigation marker mitai "like."
The brief quote is delivered in a low tone and more quickly than the
surrounding utterance. Moreover, even though the dispreferred features
characterizing Kanda's delivery highlight the severity of the transgression,
the deliberateness and agency of the misconduct is not highlighted but
undermined by a qualification statement toward the end of the turn, with
which she registers her impression that one of the students, Goto, was just
joking (lines 9-10).
In contrast to the paucity of narrative content, we encounter several
expressions of speaker subjectivity in Kanda's talk. In lines 6 and 7, she
states that the topic of her report is not suitable for a meeting.3 In line 8,
expressions such as iizurai "it is hard to tell," iinikui "it is difficult to tell,"
and ienai "I cannot tell" indicate the degree to which the speaker is
affected by the transgression.
In view of the improper nature of the students' misconduct, the troubles
teller's reluctance to provide a detailed description, as well as her repeated
declarations of embarrassment, project the teller's face as a decent and
considerate meeting participant. Yet these rhetorical practices fulfill a
double function - they also function to stress the severity of the committed
offense (it was so improper that one cannot even dare to mention it).
Kanda's assessment that Goto was just joking could be further indication
that his misconduct was indeed a serious one (it was so improper that one
cannot even think he was serious). In other words, treating the
misconduct as a joke displays the troubles teller's stance toward the
142
misconduct as beyond her wildest imagination, thereby accentuating her

face as decent, sensible, and far above vulgarity.
In her report, Kanda relies on an important linguistic device - the
contrastive particle kedo "but," or its variant kedomo.4 Her expressions of
embarrassment (lines 6-8) as well as the qualification "I think it is mostly a
joke" (lines 9-10) end with this contrastive particle. In other words, her
reservation toward the content of the initiated troubles talk was delivered
in the form of a kedo clause (a clause ending with kedo).
The particle kedo frames the preceding clause as a peripheral comment
in a narrative (Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama 1997) and introduces
qualification segments in oppositional discourse (Mori 1999). A kedo
clause is syntactically subordinate and therefore backgrounded, and it
prepares the addressee for an upcoming main clause.
In Kanda's turn, the statements of embarrassment and hesitation are
delivered in kedo clauses, while the descriptions of the students' troublesome behavior (even though only touched upon in a brief and implicit
manner) are syntactically placed as the main clause. Through this practice,
she presents her declarations of embarrassment as background information and foregrounds her description of the students' offenses. This
structural feature allows Kanda to repeatedly display her face as a sensible
participant of the meeting without digressing from the main issue of the
troubles talk (i.e. student misconduct), thereby preventing the potential
loss of a concurrent face - that of a responsible teacher who does not fail
to report noteworthy student misbehavior.
The analysis of excerpt [5] provides a starting point for a discussion of
the discursive construction of politeness and appropriateness. Drew
(1998) claims that indirect complaints (and reports in general) perform
moral work - they provide a basis for evaluating something as right, wrong,
appropriate, and so forth. Any troubles talk, regardless of whether it
contains explicit moral evaluations or not, points toward a tacit norm,
which the troubles teller seeks to share with other interactants by
depicting the behavior of a third party as a transgression. This mechanism
of norm construction resembles the way politeness and appropriateness
are conceptualized as a discursively constructed normative predisposition
(Eelen 2001).
The impropriety in excerpt [5] concerns the verbal behavior of a group
of students. Kanda's troubles talk, her depiction of this impropriety,
discursively constructs the impoliteness/inappropriateness in her community of practice - or better communities of practice, for there are two
different communities involved in this evaluative practice: the school
community (including teachers and students) and the community of
meeting participants. By making the students' foul language the focus of
her troubles talk, Kanda discursively constructs their misconduct as clearly
inappropriate within the school community. On the other hand, the
qualified and oblique presentation of her troubles talk discursively
143
constructs her own manner of reporting the impropriety as borderline

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

overall troubles talk segment of the faculty meeting from which it is
extracted, but it exhibits practices considerably different from other
troubles talk examples. These deviations, I will try to prove, are related to
the ambivalent faces projected in discourse.
In excerpt [6], Ono, a female teacher in her 20s, reports that a broken
mop was found in her class. In the preceding segment, the teachers had
addressed small behavioral problems observed in their classes. In lines 1, 3
and 5, Hieda, a male teacher in his 20s, asks Ono about a broken mop
found in her class. After they exchange several turns, the head teacher in
his 30s, Ando, who is also the chair of the meeting, interrupts the
interaction and prompts them to explain the incident to the whole group
(lines 6-7).
Hieda's initial question (line 1) occurs within a segment of the meeting
in which issues of student behavior are discussed. This sequential location
suggests that Hieda assumes that his question is related to a potential
behavioral problem. As mentioned, teachers are encouraged to notice and
share any traces of incipient delinquency. Abuse of school equipment (e.g.
graffiti, broken chairs) is considered an early warning sign. Seen in this
context, it is not unreasonable to interpret the broken mop as evidence of
some abusive behavior. On the other hand, a mop, as one of the more
basic school supplies, can be just as easily ruined from normal use, in
which case a different interpretation of the incident would apply (i.e. one
that would not hold student misbehavior responsible). Ono's report in
lines 8 to 17 vacillates between these two interpretations.
144
Excerpt [6]
1
Hieda:
ano kyoo sa mo- moppu no sa

well today FP mop
Nom FP
(1 Well, today, the mop ...)
Ono:
saishoni=
first
(2 At first...)
Hieda:
=are wa=
thatT
(3 That was ...)
Ono:
=saishoni oreme ga haitteta no wa sore wa watashi mo mitete0

first
crack S hold
Nom T that T I
also see-and
(4 At first there was a crack that I saw and ...)
Hieda:
nande oreta no?c

why
broke Nom
(5 Why did it break?)
6 Ando:
ano sooiu toko chanto minna ni wakaru yooni (.)

well that-kind point properly everyone to understand so-that
suimasen kedo
excuse-me but
(6 Well, about that point, [could you state it] properly, so that
7 everyone would understand?)
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
soojidoogubako
o mita toki kigatsuita n desu kedomo (.) rookayoo
box-of-cleaning-tools O look time noticed Nom Cop but hallway
10
no moppu ga moo bokkiri-orechattete (.) de (.) mae kara chotto oreme ga

Lk mop S well broken-into-two-pieces and
before from a-littie crack S
11
haitteta-no wa sore wa ano

inserted T that T well
12
kyoo wa asagakkatsu no mae-ni dotabata-shitete (.) sono toki

today T morning-assembly Lk before play-around-and that time
13
orechatta n da to omou n desu kedo (.) de kono ga shitteru mitaina

broke Nom Cop Qt think Nom Cop but
and Kono S know look
14
n
de ja
seebiiin
dakara chanto
jijyoo
o itte
Nom Cop then in-charge-of-tools so
adequately circumstances O say-and
moo daibu maena n

desu kedomo de
already long ago Nom Cop but and

15
011 11
--
(.) 81
----11
. !

16
(.)
0,
- <1
<1 & ^V1

^ (1<1

\-!-

17
145
\\ 8 , 1\- & 1 -$<

1 \-11-(
1
(1 (.)

11
.
-1-
1 1 <1 0, !
# N
(8 11 , I
! 1 1 1--111-<1

\\ I
fi
9 !8
! \ 1 11
11.
10 \^
^ !
. 11\ 11 1 <,
11
! \ , fi
12 \ !
^
1

!111 11 ^1
1
13 . [
] 1<1 1 1^
14
, I 1
^ 1
15 1
1
, \!1,
1 1 ^
11
11
1
, fi
16 \ I
, \ [ 1 ] 11 \ ! ! \'<1
11,
17
1, <1 11
1
1 \.
)
! 1 1 8 ^
^^^ <$
{

1 1 1118
! 1 1 8 1:
. 81,1 1 8 1
!1
!1
1
!811:
. 8118' 1
18
<
1 !

8 <111-$11
"( \
) !
!''
"!
^ 11:
" ( 12), ^
! 1 !18 <11:
. 1
1, 111 1<18 !
^ 8
!<
1 <11! 81
. 181<1, 8 8 8 181
!8 115
: "(^
) 18" 1 1
( 10) !
(1 13), <1 "(^
) 18 !
" 1
"11 1
" (1
8 10-11). 8 ^ 8
8
^
( 8118) ! :8 1 81
1
! 1 . 1 8
, 8 !
8 1
8(118 '
81
1 !
(1 12) ! 8118 \88
81
188 1 11\1
<1 (1 17).
II1 8 1 1 8118' ,

, 18
!8
1 <1111.1 8 8 10,
1\ 8
! '
\ ( 11
1
8 !
,
!
1 ). 8 <1<18 11 1 ! !1
1 !
1
(1
8 10-11) <1 811
8 118111
1
88 (8 12-13). , ,
146
incident is portrayed not as a case of student misconduct, but as a case of

equipment failure.
These rhetorical practices are congruent with the corrective measures
Ono took when she encountered the problem: she sent the student in
charge of equipment (each Japanese school class has one or two students
who are responsible for classroom supplies) to make a report to the
teacher managing the school's equipment (lines 13-16). Ono's step is a
reasonable one, if she is indeed just dealing with the case of a broken mop.
Her framing of the incident in her report at the meeting is congruent with
her handling of the case at the time it occurred, and serves to justify it. In
other words, the troubles teller's rhetorical practices project her face as a
competent teacher who took appropriate measures to solve a problem.
However, Hieda's question and Ando's invitation to share the story,
coming as they do within a larger review of student misconduct, seem to
imply that Ono's case does in fact involve disciplinary issues. Ono risks
appearing incompetent if she chooses to ignore the version of events
hinted of by Hieda and Ando. Her need to display conflicting faces creates
a paradoxical situation: the equipment-failure scenario allows her to
present her face as a competent teacher who handled the problem
properly, yet it also poses a threat to that very face, rendering her
incompetent for having overlooked an early warning sign of student
misbehavior; if she, on the other hand, admits the possibility that the
problem was indeed a behavioral one (e.g. that the mop had been broken
by a student intentionally and that nobody, including the culprit, had told
the teachers about it), then Ono's corrective measures look suddenly less
than adequate (having done nothing to identify the culprit).
Ono conveys her ambivalent stance through the way she reports the
incident As we have seen, she treats it mainly as a case of equipment
failure, yet her report contains several hints supporting the alternative
view. In lines 12 and 13, Ono mentions the students' unsettling behavior
and connects it to the time when the mop broke in two. She relates the
advice of the school's equipment administrator (to find the culprit) and
states her plan "to do something about it tomorrow." By acknowledging
the possibility that she is faced with a case of student misconduct and by
showing her willingness to treat it as such, Ono projects her face as a
flexible and competent teacher.
The time references in Ono's report further indicate her as yet limited
involvement in the incident, justifying her (lack of) response. Ono opens
her turn by pointing out that she had noticed the broken mop right
before the endof-the-day class assembly (lines 8-9), and closes it by stating
that she plans to do more about the problem tomorrow (line 17). Framed
this way, Ono's account conveys that she has not had time enough yet to
resolve the issue and that she will try to do so the following day.
By conveying her ambivalent stance, Ono is able to justify her handling
of the incident, while simultaneously proving her intent to take the
147
necessary disciplinary steps. Overall she is able to maintain her face as a

competent and flexible teacher.
6.3 Summary
This chapter has examined several troubles talk sequences in faculty
meetings, and the various interactional faces presented by the participants. Throughout their talk, troubles tellers attempt to display an
interactional self-image (as responsible teachers, as competent problem
solvers, and so on). However, the display of one type of institutional face
can quickly challenge another type of face. In one example, a participant's
presentation of a problem case as report-worthy (in so doing displaying
her self-image as a reasonable and considerate teacher) threatens her face
as an effective and competent teacher who is exerting authority. In
another case, a teacher's display of face as a responsible teacher, obliged
to report student problems, conflicts with the concomitant face as a
sensible individual and a considerate meeting participant. This dilemma
or face conflict experienced by troubles tellers is the recurring theme of
this chapter.
We have observed how troubles tellers' interactional practices orient
toward managing various discursive faces, including sensibility, authority,
and affiliation with others. Rhetorical practices examined in this chapter
include different types of objectification, formulation of actor agency,
expression of grievance and vulnerability, and explicit or implicit
formulation of speaker's involvement in the trouble.
The rhetorical practices of meeting participants often revolve around
the question: what is considered "trouble" within the context of a
meeting? Teachers are encouraged to report the smallest signs of deviant
student behavior in order to detect potential trouble sources early on,
before they escalate. On the other hand, to maintain their face, troubles
tellers have to evaluate the report-worthiness of a trouble. By engaging the
question "what is trouble?" and by formulating transgression and
deviation, troubles tellers and troubles recipients discursively construct
the limit of normative behavior and of politeness/appropriateness within
their communities of practice. Despite the risks it entails, or perhaps in
part because of them, troubles talk constitutes an essential component of
facework in faculty meetings.
Chapter 7: The Meeting: Facework in Description

and Discourse Organization
7.1 Introduction
The preceding chapters described how face is displayed in distinct
discursive actions: Chapter 4 illustrated a range of facework performed in
the co-construction of collaborative disagreement; Chapter 5 looked at
teasing segments in which a claimed face is not acknowledged by others;
and Chapter 6 described how participants manage conflicting faces while
talking about their troubles.
The examination of these discursive actions brought to light several
important principles: (1) one linguistic practice can accomplish several and sometimes conflicting - types of facework; (2) what is considered a
positive self-image is negotiated discursively (and may not be shared by
other participants); (3) the participation framework of interlocutors plays
a crucial role in the study of facework in multiparty discourse.
During the review of the recorded data it became increasingly clear that
an analysis focused solely on discrete segments of discourse could not
capture the whole range of facework occurring in Japanese faculty
meetings. All of the discursive actions investigated in this study are
embedded in the larger discourse of the faculty meeting, which in turn is
embedded in the discursive history of the pertinent community of
practice. Under these circumstances, it seemed advisable to expand the
scope of examined discourse to an entire faculty meeting.1 Instead of
examining one type of activity across several meetings, then, this chapter
maps the enactment of varied and at times conflicting facework in the
course of a single faculty meeting.
The meeting in question was scheduled to address a specific incidentseveral students' unruly behavior had caused a commotion at school.
Because of the overall objective of the meeting (to share information
about the incident and decide on the next step), many of the sequences
examined in this chapter take the form of an event description. As a result,
the types of facework accomplished in event description will be one of the
main topics discussed in this chapter. In Brown and Levinson's (1987)
framework, description is included neither as a politeness strategy nor as a
face-threatening act. Chapter 7 examines how several participants tell their
version of the incident and how they manage their face while engaged in
this seemingly face-neutral (neither face-threatening nor face-enhancing)
150
act Section 7.1.1 outlines the relevant research on event description,

which informs the analysis conducted in this chapter.
7.1.1 Description and its action orientation
Brown and Levinson's (1987) list of face-threatening acts does not include
event description, but the authors mention "raising a safe topic" as a
positive politeness strategy to seek agreement (112). They state that this
type of talk can be introduced before the face-threatening act of making a
request, as a way of assuring that the speaker has a general interest in a
relationship with the hearer (apart from just making the request).
Elsewhere in their study they present examples from India, in which
descriptions (e.g. of expenses that must be met) substitute for requests
(e.g. for a massive loan). These entries indicate the authors' awareness of
the action orientation of narratives and descriptions.
In his comprehensive work on description, Potter (1996) illustrates the
procedures for fact construction and for fitting descriptions to activities.
He states that description is a practical and rhetorical accomplishment
that plays a role in activities. Several exemplary ways of executing an action
through description include ontological gerrymandering (categorizing in a
way that includes certain issues while excluding other potentially relevant
considerations), extrematization and minimization (the practice of building
description to emphasize and de-emphasize), and normalization and
abnormalization (a scheme to present something as normal and commonplace or, conversely, as strange or deviant).
We have encountered some of these practices in our discussion of
troubles talk sequences in Chapter 6. Edwards (1995) discusses normalization through script formation in troubles talk sequences. Drew (1998)
demonstrates how complainers' formulate others' conduct as deviant.
There is a fine line separating the rhetorical practice of description (with
its action orientation) from other actions (e.g. complaint, troubles talk,
account, request). In fact, data from a relational counseling session
discussed as description by Potter (1996) are examined as relational
troubles talk by Edwards (1995).
The speaker's subjective involvement (e.g. stake, footing) needs to be
minimized or managed to create the facticity of the description (Potter
1996). The more subjectivity is observable, the less a segment tends to be
categorized as factual description. Most descriptions are more or less
action oriented (cf. Potter 1996) and it is beyond the scope of this study to
draw a clear distinction between description and other actions.
The action-oriented nature of description points to the possibility that
some kind of facework can be achieved through this rhetorical practice.
With this possibility in mind, we will examine several versions of an event
as described by different participants (in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2).
Before turning to the analysis of the facework enacted by the meeting
participants, I will give a short outline of the incident (section 7.1.2),
FACEWORK IN THE MEETING
151
introduce the participants (7.1.3), and provide a content summary of the

meeting (7.1.4) to clarify its context At this stage, a word of caution is in
order: I am aware of the subjective nature of my "descriptions" of the
incident, of the participants, and of the segments of discourse (and
indeed the act of segmentation itself): they are selective, and they reflect
my view of the data and their analysis. Since it is not feasible to reproduce
the entire, extensive data set, I decided to provide these preliminary
accounts which, I believe, will aid in the understanding of the analysis.
However, the reader may go directly to the analysis section 7.2 and return
to the introductory sections 7.1.2 to 7.1.4 at a later point whenever
necessary.
7.1.2 The incident
The meeting recorded in the data was held after an incident in which
several students' unruly behavior escalated to such a degree that a male
student and his homeroom teacher almost came to blows.
In the morning of the day of the incident, Kato, a troubled ninth-grader
in Aoki's class, did not appear in his classroom. Instead, he "visited" the
school with two other unruly students from a nearby school. They rode
bicycles in the hallway and yelled from the veranda and schoolyard at
other students participating in class. Several teachers confronted the
troublemakers and managed to remove them from the premises. In the
meantime Seki, the head teacher of the ninth grade, asked the principal to
contact the local police, a request with which the principal did not
comply."
In the early afternoon, the trio returned. Several teachers tried to
remove them again, and Seki still could not persuade the principal to call
the police.
Later, the students came back a third time and entered Kato's
classroom.3 Aoki, the homeroom teacher, confronted Kato in front of
other students. The altercation threatened to escalate into a physical fight.
Both opponents were pulling each other by the collar when other teachers
stepped in to separate them.
Upon being informed of the incident, teachers from the nearby school
arrived to apprehend the two students accompanying Kato. Aoki and
another teacher had a talk with Kato shortly after the incident.
7.1.3 The meeting participants
Six teachers were present at the meeting. This section gives a short
personal profile of each participant and details their involvement in the
incident based on the recorded data, a biographical questionnaire, and an
interview.
Aoki is a male teacher in his 40s who has been at the school for about
ten years. Kato has been in his homeroom for approximately three
months. During the incident, Aoki confronted the students each time they
152
appeared on the school premises. As we have seen, he came close to

exchanging blows with Kato.
Seki is a female teacher in her late 40s. An experienced instructor, she
has been active in the school for more than eight years. As head teacher of
the ninth grade, she chairs the grade-level faculty meetings. Seki also
confronted the group of troublemakers each time they appeared. Her
requests to contact the police were ignored by the principal.
Baba is a male teacher in his 30s who has served at the school for six
years. He is the homeroom teacher of another troubled student (not
involved in the incident), whose behavior has improved under his
supervision. He was one of the teachers confronting the students.
Miki is a female teacher in her late 30s. She came to the school only
three months ago, though she has been a teacher for more than ten years.
She is a member of the Student Life Division, which is in charge of student
discipline. She witnessed the third confrontation between Aoki and Kato.
Nakai, a female teacher in her early 40s, has been part of the staff for
about three years. She did not witness any part of the incident.
Sato is a male teacher in his 20s with three years of work experience,
who is also a member of the Student Life Division. He witnessed the third
confrontation between Aoki and Kato.
7.1.4 The content of the meeting
The analyzed segment can be divided into six discernable sub-segments:
the head teacher introduces and summarizes the incident (segment 1);
Aoki talks about Kato, the main culprit (segment 2); Seki argues that it is
necessary to seek police assistance (segment 3); the teachers debate how to
deal with Kato's parents (segment 4); the discussion turns to problems
with other students (segment 5); official closure of the meeting (segment
6). Here is a short outline of the segments.
Segment 1
Seki, the head teacher and meeting chair, takes the floor to open the
session. She states that she would like to talk about students' behavioral
problems in the manner of zatsudan "an informal chat without any specific
topics or objectives." In her following brief description of that day's
incident, Seki lays out the sequence of events, describing the three
different altercations that took place, and listing the names of the teachers
involved. Seki adds that all teachers should work together and share the
same level of understanding regarding student behavior. In any given
group of teachers, she asserts, there has to be one with a firm hand, and
she is just the one to play such a role. She finishes her turn with another
appeal to begin with zatsudan.
153
Segment 2
After Baba and Miki state their opinion about the incident, Seki asks Aoki
about Kato, the troublemaker. Aoki asserts that he was able to communicate with Kato to some degree after the incident, and that Aoki is willing
to continue the dialog despite all difficulties and despite the risk that his
efforts may be in vain. When Miki wants to know if Kato has calmed down,
Baba and Aoki describe Kato's condition after the incident, concluding
that they do not expect him to return to normal behavior any time soon.
Segment 3
The second and third confrontation could have been avoided completely,
Seki argues, if the teachers had treated the first confrontation, in her
words, "mechanically." Had they called the police immediately when the
first altercation occurred, the students would have simply run away, never
to return. It is important that teachers tackle a problem together, Seki
stresses, but it is equally important to know when to depend on outside
help. Aoki agrees that the second and third confrontation with Kato could
have been avoided. Baba contends that incidents of this nature, especially
when they occur repeatedly, have a detrimental influence on other
students. Baba states that he had asked Kato several times to leave the
school, only to make him more irate and uncontrollable. Seki, Baba, Miki,
and Nakai next air their view that some of the staff involved, including the
principal and the teachers from the other school, had not succeeded in
restraining the students. Seki asks Sato and Miki, both members of the
Student Life Division, if the division would take responsibility for
contacting the police in the future. When Sato and Miki hesitate, stating
the need to consult with the division and the principal, Baba complains
about the principal's lack of commitment.
Segment 4
Miki describes Kato's character: he is extremely rude and cannot control

his temper. She thinks that it would be a good idea to get Kato's family
involved and that he should stay home until he is ready to participate in
school life in an appropriate manner. Yet, Miki admits, it might be
unrealistic to suggest such a course of action. Seki seconds the idea of
contacting the parents. After Aoki issues an account of the physical
confrontation between himself and Kato, Seki suggests that they meet
Kato's father, known to be very strict. Aoki expresses his reservations about
such a meeting, but after a renewed discussion concerning the best way to
improve Kato's behavior, he agrees to contact the student's parents.
Segment 5
The teachers turn to behavioral problems involving other students and the
role of group dynamics in student behavior. They agree that Kato is the
leading figure at the moment. Miki mentions Yamada, the second in line
154
in the student hierarchy, and tells the story of his mother's unsuccessful
consultation with a counselor. The teachers laugh and comment on the
poor quality of the counseling. Seki inquires about another problem
student, Kikutani. Baba, Kikutani's homeroom teacher, says that he
became interested in an extra-curricular activity and subsequently was able
to extricate himself from the group of undisciplined students.
Segment 6
In the last segment, Seki reiterates the need to maintain control over the
student body and to rely on police help in severe cases of misbehavior. She
then covers some minor transactional items, and after all relevant
information has been passed around she announces the closure of the
meeting.
We can now begin our investigation into the participants' facework: to
display competence, show alliance, and manage potential face threats by
employing linguistic and sequential practices. The first section (7.2.1)
examines Aoki's efforts to display and manage his face - the positive
institutional self-image of a teacher who is responsible, motivated,
knowledgeable, and fair. The second section (7.2.2) charts the discursive
establishment of alliances among teachers. The third section presents a
case in which participants' conflicting face ascriptions create tension in
discourse (7.2.3).
7.2 Analysis
7.2.1 Displaying competence and motivation while expressing
difficulty
As described in the overview above, the participants of the faculty meeting

discuss first the incident itself and then possible corrective measures to
prevent similar cases in the future. Among the six participants, Aoki is the
one who was directly engaged in a physical confrontation with the student
A standoff between teacher and student is a rare event that can threaten
the teacher's positive self-image as a competent professional. As the
meeting develops, the prospect of a potentially grave face threat ignites
various interactional moves intricately related to the participants' stance
towards the incident.
While it is possible to view the whole debate as a talk about Aoki's
trouble (his altercation with Kato), it differs in several aspects from the
troubles talks examined in Chapter 6. First, although Aoki was most
directly involved, some other participants also witnessed the incident firsthand. Second, the main narrator of the incident is not Aoki, but Seki, the
head teacher. Despite these differences, Aoki's retelling of the challenging
affair contains facework similar to that of the troubles tellers in the
previous chapter.
In excerpt [1] (from meeting segment 2) Seki solicits Aoki's view on the
155
incident. Aoki replies by admitting that it is difficult for him to deal with
the troublemaker, Kato. In the following, I will focus on three different
aspects of the segment: (1) how the membership categorization of tannin
"homeroom teacher" is occasioned and how it affects the subsequent
description; (2) how the ascribed membership category affects facework;
and (3) the linguistic practice of subordination and its function in
description.
Excerpt [I] (part of meeting segment 2)

1
Seki:
tannin
toshite tatoeba
kondo no baai
wa [doo ( )
homeroom-teacher as
for-example this-time Lk situation T how
(How, for example, [ ] this situation as a homeroom teacher?)
2 Aoki:
[uu::n nee
let's-see FP
(.) muzukashii tokoro da to wa omou n da keredomo (.) moosukoshi

difficult situation Cop Qt T think Nom Cop but a-little-more
ne (.) mada boku mo kato-kun to sonnani ne, koo kimochi ga

FP not-yet I also Kato
with not-so FP like feeling S
tsuujiru tte koto wa sonnani nai

n
de (.2) tada (.) ano(.)ano ko
connected Qt Nom T not-so exist-Neg Nom Cop only
er that child
mo kattonatta ato sono sukoshi ochitsukeba ne, hanashi o suru yochi

also got-angry after er a-little calm-down-if FP talk
O do room
mo aru (.2) dakara (.2) maa sore itsu made donna katachini naruka tte
also exist
so
well that when until what form
become Qt
no wa wakaranai n desu kedo nee

Nom T know-Neg Nom Cop but FP
(2 Well,
3 I think it is very difficult, but [I will do] a little more,
4 my feelings and Kato's aren't
5 connected so well yet, but,
6 after getting angry, if he calms down, then there's room for
7 talking to him, so, well, I don't know when and how
8 I can talk to him, but...)
(.5)
10 Seki:
uu::n
uh-huh
(Uh-huh.)
11
(1)
156
12 1:
155
18
1
\
(.5)

-- \-<1 * 1

13
81
1 1 8
) -
1 8
!
(.)
* ; -
N
(1
1 ^
! ^^ 1 1
1
15
181
8
$( \]1
1811 11

14
^ ^^ 8
\V 81
\
018
(12 I 1
1 ! 111
. II ! 1 1
13 1 \!11 181
8 ,
14 1 1181; \\1 ; 18
fi 1 1...,
15 I [ ] 11 \.)
16 81:
-
(
17
. )
(5)
?? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ? ??? ?????? ???

\!1 811 1 8
! N
(11,1 I 111 1 81118,
1... )
19
20 1:
(3)
fi
1?
\
(\ 18 11?)
1 1, \ 8 81118 1'8 !\ ,
1
1

"
1"
. 1211
11 8 111 ' 111

: 15 1'8
1
.

1 3, ^
!

1
"
1
" 18 111

! 8!1
1 811
8118
. 1 ^
1 8 111 (1..
1

1
) (118

, !
, 1 1 \8
1
81
1 1 !1
. 1
81'8 811111
!

, ' 8
1
81 !
8
! fi'
811 !(
1 81
8
' 111
. 1
,
8
11 18 (111 8(1 ( 181
1
11
:
1
.
,
811 ^
1

! 81118
1 8
8
11. \
, 81
! (.. \ 11 811
1
157
evolved) is not brought up in an explicit manner. This practice recalls

Potter's (1996) observation that "one realm of entities is constituted in the
description while another is avoided" (184).
Aoki's description of the situation includes several terms of emotion.
His and Kato's feelings "aren't connected so well yet" (lines 45), the
standoff was caused by the student's outburst (kattonatta "got angry" in
line 6), and Aoki will be able to talk with the student "if he calms down"
(ochitsukebain line 6). The focus on emotional matters is especially notable
since it stands in contrast to the physical nature of the confrontation
between teacher and student. The occasioned membership categorization
and the description of the student's state of mind project Aoki's face as a
homeroom teacher who is willing to cope with the student's emotional
issues. The teacher who came close to trading blows with his student is at
least for now not the focus of attention.
Aoki's turns (lines 2-8, 12-15, and 18) include a number of expressions
of difficulty and uncertainty. While most of Aoki's talk details the adversity7
of the situation, his intention to persist is articulated vaguely in a
truncated form. Through the repeated use of subordinate constructions
he backgrounds the trouble and foregrounds his good intentions. By
doing so, he conveys his intention to continue the dialogue despite the
challenges involved. Aoki's statement also shows persistence as well as the
willingness and ability (or at least claimed ability) to take on difficult
problems. This practice is similar to the troubles talk sequence examined
in Chapter 6, excerpt [5], in which a female teacher qualifies her report
including inappropriate language with several subordinate clauses.
Waring (2002), in her study of graduate students' expressions of noncomprehension, observes a similar practice: students take pains to provide
accounts of their attempts at understanding.
In line 3, Aoki asserts that the situation is very difficult. This evaluation
is followed by keredomo, a variant of kedo "although" or "but," which turns
this unit of speech into a subordinate clause. As mentioned in Chapter 6, a
clause ending with kedo is considered a subordinate clause preceding the
main clause of an utterance, and kedo expresses a contrastive relationship
between the proposition expressed in the kedo clause and the one in the
successive main clause. The following adverbial phrase, moosukoski "a little
more," implies the existence of a verb phrase that would complete the
main clause. At this point, however, the adverbial phrase is actually
followed by another qualifying clause, elaborating on the predicament
introduced in line 3: the situation is difficult since, as Aoki states in lines 4
and 5, his and the student's feelings are not connected yet After this
assessment, Aoki names one condition that would enable him to talk with
the student, namely that the student calm down (lines 5-7). At this stage,
the main clause that began with moosukoshi has still not been completed.
Dakara "so" in line 7 is a causative connective reintroducing the main
point of an argument. In this case, the use of dakara creates the
158
Table 7.1 Development of Aoki's turns in lines 2 to 20

Line
Gist of the segment
Translation of the segment
line 2-3
statement of difficulty
well, I think it is very difficult
line 3-4
line 4-7
(potential main clause)

elaboration on difficulty
line 7
(attempts to issue a main

clause)
uncertainty of time frame
and result
(main clause)
a little more,
I really don't understand
Kato's feelings so well yet, but
if he calms down after getting
angry, I will be able to talk to
him,
so ...
kedo,
line 7-8
I don't know when and how

it will be kedo.
I have the intention to do a
line 12
little more.
it will not be the case that he
line 12-13 limitation of the potential
will obey our instructions
result
automatically keredomo,
line 14-15 clarification of the potential but at least I ( ) what is good
and bad . . .
result
well, if I talk about small
statement of difficulty
line 18
things, there are many kedo.
anticipation that Aoki will reintroduce his main idea (moosukoshi "a little"
from line 3) and specify what he is going to do. However, after the marker,
another qualification clause with kedo implies that he does not know
"when and how" he will talk to Kato (lines 7-8). By the end of his first
turn, Aoki has presented two qualification clauses: the situation is difficult
(line 3), and he does not yet know how to resolve it (lines 7-8). He has
indicated that he wants to take some form of corrective action by using the
adverb moosukoshi "a little more" (line 3) and the connective dakara "so"
(line 7), without actually proposing specific steps.
In line 12, Aoki repeats the word moosukoshi "a little more" and
completes the main clause of the proffered qualifications by indicating his
intention to do "a little more." This statement is followed by another
qualification embedded in a kedo clause, maintaining that it cannot be
taken for granted that the student will obey the teachers' orders (line 13).
After this qualification, Aoki spells out a concrete corrective measure - he
may be able to make the student understand "what is good and bad"
(lines 14-15) - in a mitigated sentence containing hedging expressions
such as ichioo "at least," kana "I wonder," and an unfinished ending with
the quotation marker tte iu.
159
In line 18, Aoki returns one more time to the difficulties he has to face
("small things, there are many"). His statement is encoded in a kedo
clause. After another long pause with no uptake from anyone else, he
invites others to take a turn. The phrasing of his question, doo desu ka "how
is it?" (line 20), is ambiguous in this location. Semantically ambiguous as it
is, his conversational intention to yield the turn to others is clear and
unmistakable.
The development of Aoki's turns is schematized in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 shows that Aoki's intention "to do a little more" is introduced
only once in a mitigated manner (in line 12). Beyond that he supplies
hints only in the adverbial phrase "a little" (line 3) and in a connective
"so" (line 7). On the other hand, before and after the proclamation of the
speaker's intention in line 12, kedo clauses and their elaborations are
placed as qualification segments, calling attention to the difficult situation
(lines 2-3), the uncertain time frame (lines 7-8), and the limited results
one has to expect (lines 12-13).
The sequential structure outlined above allows the speaker to highlight
the adverse circumstances that make a swift solution of the problem next
to impossible, while at the same time maintaining his self-image as a
teacher who is concerned, motivated, and able to take on challenges. Even
though the speaker displays his face in a vague and truncated manner, it is
foregrounded through its structural placement within a main clause. In
contrast, the statements of difficulty, limitation and uncertainty are
embedded in subordinate kedo clauses and are thereby structurally
divested of strong emphasis, despite the speaker's lengthy and detailed
enumeration of such qualifications. By framing the negative qualifications
in a subordinate clause, which typically presents background information,
and placing his initiative and motivation in a main clause, the speaker's
face is structurally enhanced.
7.2.2 Displaying alignment by creating opposition
The previous section outlined how Aoki, the main teacher involved in the
incident, presents his face as a teacher who is concerned, motivated, and
able to take on challenges while admitting adversity. This section turns to
the other participants of the meeting. It demonstrates how they use
collaborative facework to display alignment with each other and Aoki. In
general, the formation of alignment among group members presupposes
a shared common ground, which acquires more defined contours when it
is perceived in contrast to an outside entity. In the following example, we
examine how participants establish alliance among themselves discursively
by creating a sense of "us versus them". Participants display a shared
discursive face, by referring to others who are different and by
emphasizing that difference.
The first discursive face relates to a person's physical presence at the site
of the incident. When a problem occurs, some teachers hurry to the scene
160
to take part in a joint effort to resolve it, while others hesitate to take
action and prefer to stay in their offices. From the onset of her report in
excerpt [2], extracted from meeting segment 1, Sato employs a curious
rhetorical scheme: she takes pains to name all teachers present at the
locations where the various stages of the incident took place. In the
following transcripts (excerpts [2] and [3]), teachers' names are italicized
to highlight the frequency of their occurrence.
Excerpt [2] (part of meeting segment 1)
l-> Seki:
kyoo chotto taihen datta no wa mazu ookawa sensee ga itte kureta

today a-little troublesome Cop Nom T first Ohkawa teacher S went for-us
2-
n desu kedo (.) sono ikkai ni... de (.) nikaime

ga shimizu sensee ga
Nom Cop but well first-floor to
and second-time S Shimizu teacher S
watashi o yobi ni korarete (.) sangai

ni sono takoo
no seetotachi
I O call
to come-and
third-floor to well other-school Lk students
4->
ga iru to iu koto de itta n desu ne (.) eeto ooki sensee to

S exist Qt say Nom and went Nom Cop FP well Ohki teacher and
5->
isobe sensee
to sannin-de itta no kana? ... watashi wa shita
Isobe teacher with three-of-us went Nom FP I T downstairs to
orite-kite (.) hokano sensee yonde yo tte itta n desu ne (.)

go-down-and other teacher call FP Qt said Nom Cop FP
ni
(1 What was troublesome today was, first, Mr Ohkawa went

2 to the first floor ... And at the second time, Ms Shimizu came to
3 tell me that there were students from another school on the
4 third floor, so I went, with Mr Ohki and
5 Mr. Isobe, were there three of us? ... I went downstairs
6 and asked to call other teachers.)
In lines 1, 2, 4 and 5, Seki lists the names of the teachers who were actively
involved in the incident and describes their roles. When making a
description, Potter (1996) maintains that it is common practice to "pick
out a particular range of phenomena as relevant and ignore other
potential ones" (184). Seki presents the names of the teachers taking
initiative as a relevant piece of information. The treatment of this evident
priority stands in marked contrast to the lack of detailed description of the
students' misbehavior. Moreover, at the end of her report Seki states that
she "asked to call other teachers" (line 6), indicating that she thought
other instructors' help was necessary. Elsewhere during the meeting, she
stresses that teachers should co-operate and confront troubles collectively:
minna de kyooryoku shite ikanai to "all teachers should cooperate," and
minna ichido wa deteiku tte koto de "everyone should go out at least once"
161
when a problem occurs. In the case in question, Aoki clearly played a

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

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
yo ne (.) sorede kamada sensee to (.) eeto miyaji sensee to.

FP FP then Kamada teacher and well Miyaji teacher and
(... and at last, [they came] the third time, well, again, they went upstairs,
and Mr Kamada and Ms Miyaji and ...)
3-* Baba:
oka sensee nanka mo ita kanaa,

Oka teacher such-as also there-were FP
(Mr Oka was also there, it seems)
4 Seki:
oka sensee mo,

Oka teacher also
(Also Mr. Oka...)
5-^ Baba:
ita
to omou yo,
there-were Qt think FP
(I think he was there, too.)
By providing information that he acquired as a direct witness of the

incident (lines 3 and 5), Baba draws attention to the fact that he was
present at the trouble site, thereby projecting his face as an active,
committed member of the school's faculty.
In segment [4], Miki states explicitly that she went to the site of the
incident when it took place and reports what she saw there (lines 1-2).
Her vivid description of Kato's behavior also serves as a reminder that she
was one of the teachers present in the last phase of the altercation.
162
1 -*11 :
18115
[4] (1 /^
^11)
1(> \ & 1
1 \&
1 !
1-1\
(^ \!1 I
5 ^ 1
1511 1 $( !
-
81
0,1 511
1
.
(^1
!
1-
(&{. !
1\
\^
? \ I \1,1 !
\ 1
11
81
, ...)
3
^ \ (.)
1!

1 (.)
^!
1 1-11 1 (1 1
4
<1
1$ 8 !
- N
11
.
(^1 1 1 1 , 1 (1 ( 15 , 1... )
-+ :
fi
^1
]
1 > \ 1\1 !5
, !
!.
=
1 11 1151

5- 1
(1 1

, !(1 , 1 , 1?)
6-> 1:
=

1
11-15
( 1 \
.
!
1
('
. [ \!(1
] \^ ! fi.
)
1 118 5 ! 6, ! ^ 1 1!
8 <11
'
511 !
! 11
. !
! (1111

: "1, "
! "1
" 1
5; " 1 : ' 6. ! fi111
88108 \11
"" (.. , , , ) 11
8
9
1(1(8
! 1\11
1/
81
!

&
8 888 . 11<1
88 8 1
, 8
8
1 -
fi
,
^^^
^ ( 1 811
.
5 \ 8
, 5' 8 1
1 !
; 1
8
!
11
1 fi<18 1
8 1 ^
8 (
881). ^11
1 8 8
, , 8 , 1
8 ^ 1
1
1 81
(fi 88! 1 !
"
"
118 88!:1 !1 - 11 1 8
1
8 1
. 811811
8 ^
]
8 81181
: 11 8
8 '
8111
8-1
; 11 1<1 111

111
8
8 "1.
"

1111
8 1
! 81
!81
1 - 8
1
(1..
!
! !
163
principal).4 As recorded in excerpt [5], Seki mentions in her report that

she asked the principal to call the police after the first stage of the
incident
1 Seki:
watashi wa kooyatte koochoosensee ni keesatsu ni renrakushite kudasai

I
T this-way principal
to police to contact
please
tte itta n desu ne, (.) takoo

no seeto ga kitemasu n
de
tte
Qt said Nom Cop FP other-school Lk students S are-here Nom Cop
Qt
3
ittara maa maa koohunshinaide toka iwarete moochotto yoosu

said-when well well don't-get-upset etc. was-told little-more state
mite
tte yuu kotoni nachatte ...
look-and Qt say Nom became
(1 I asked the principal to call the
2 police, saying that students from another school were here,
3 and I was told "well, well, don't get so upset," and it was decided that
4 we should wait and see how things turn out a little longer, and ...)
By advancing the need to call the police, Seki displays her positive selfimage as judicious problem-solver who knows exactly what to do in
emergency situations. However, the principal, Seki relates, told her to
calm down (line 3), and it was decided that they should wait and see how
things develop (lines 3-4). Seki uses a verb in the passive form, which
often indicates the speaker's negative, suffering sentiment toward an
action, and the auxiliary chau, conveying regret. The passive verb iwarete
"was told" (line 3) signals Seki's adverse reaction to the principal's request
to calm down. The auxiliary chau (in its gerund form chatte) in ... tte yuu
koto ni nacchatte "it was decided that..." (line 4) expresses her reservations
about the decision to wait and see without taking action.
In Seki's opinion, the lack of response by the school representatives
aggravated the situation. In excerpt [6], she openly criticizes their
indecision.
1 Seki:
chotto ne kyoo no jookyoo wa (.) arasowanakutemo ii

bamen ga nikai
a-little FP today Lk situation T confront-Neg-if
good scene S twice
164
2
1515
(.) &
181
1
3
\ 118
18
(1 <14
<1 8

<
-\
<1 \
8 ^!
1 1-11
? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??

????????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ???
? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???
-1-18
1
! 1\15-8
1
(1 <1, \ ^ 81(1 8 \
!1
1
2 & [ 1 81(5], 1? 1 [] \^( : []
8811
(11
, 1
8
3 ^!(1 11 11, 1 ^^
!
4
^1 8
,
! \^1' 8
, ^^! 80
1 \111 .
^ 1 .
)
6
1:

<1
18-8
.
( , ^ !
8 .)
7
81:
1
(1' 8 \11 . )

11 1 8
1 1 11 818 1111
:

!(1
fi 1 8
1 81<1
8 < 1
"\1: \
88<
1 !,
" !
,
! ^ 11
8
fi 1 8
1
(1
8 1~5). \\^1 1 81 11
8 8
!
18 1 1
1 1 8<11 ,
818
'
8111(11
, \ 81
!1
8 " !
8
" 1 11 5. 1
81
1
81 !81
!
! !-1
, 81'8
1
8 (:
8 \ fi
( 11 8
,
8 1112
8 ' 8 881
.
( : 8 1\ 8 \1
!
8 1 11 8 (
811
. 1 11 6,
81'8

1 1 11<
1 "!
8
.
"

! 81
!81 8(
8 18 8181

1
]!
, !(1<
1 1
1 [7]. 1 8 1 ! 3,
8111 88 !
8
, !11
1 18 ^8 1 1 81
8 fi

1
.
165

1 Baba:
kyonen mo hora itsumo gotegoteni itsumo [mawacchau deshoo?

last-year too Int always reactor
always become
Cop
(Last year was the same. [They/we] are always just reacting, right?)
2 Seki:
[un soo soo.

uh-huh right right
(Uh-huh, that's right)
3 Baba:
de saigo nee kocchi ga okorarechau kara nee (.) mada sooiu

and at-last FP we S scolded since FP yet that-kind-of
koto wakattenai
n
da yo nee sugu
denwana n
da
thing understand-Neg Nom Cop FP FP immediately telephone Nom Cop
yo (.) hontoni dame da yo nee,

FP really no-good Cop FP FP
(And, in the end, it is us who get scolded. They don't understand that sort
of thing yet, right? [What they have to do is to] make a phone call
immediately. Really, they are no good!)
6 Miki:
kondo wa tte itta noni

nee,
next-time T Qt said although FP
(Even though they said [they'd do it] next time, right?)
Baba's comment includes the expression itsumo "always" in line 1. It

formulates the representatives' hesitation as one recognizable instance of
a repeating pattern or routine (as "scripted") (Edwards 1994, 1995). His
turn can also be viewed as an example of extreme case formation
(Edwards 2000, Pomerantz 1986), the use of extreme terms to defend or
justify a description or assessment, or to make a complaint. Baba's
accusation is reinforced through his use of the extreme case- and scriptformulating term itsumo.
In line 3, Baba's statement "in the end, it is us who get scolded,"
includes the expression kocchi "us" or "this side," assuming an opposition
between school representatives and ordinary teachers. Upon receipt of
Baba's accusation, Miki aligns herself with Baba by voicing a truncated
clause elaborating the accusation. Even though Miki does not quote the
principal's statement in its entirety (the predicate that is supposed to
follow kondo wa "this time" is missing), the use of the contrastive topic
marker wa indicates that the principal had promised to act differently the
next time. In addition, the contrastive connective particle noni in the same
utterance conveys the speakers' disappointment or frustration.
Towards the end of the meeting, Seki reiterates the main results of the
discussion and the preferred course of action should problems occur.
166
Returning to the principal's remark "well, well, don't get so upset"

(excerpt [5], line 3), she registers her discontent
1 Seki:
maamaa tte iu no dake wa yamete hoshii hehe tte iu

calm-down Qt say Nom only T stop want
Qt say
ki-ga-shite (.) maa sonnani hhehe koohun shinaide toka tte iu

have-a-feeling-and hush so-much
excite don't
etc. Qt say
no wa (.) koohun shite-iin desu. hehh ne::.

Nom T
excite can-do Cop
FP
(What I want them to stop saying is "calm down," that's how I feel, saying
something like "calm down, don't get so excited." It is OK to get excited,
right? [laughter])
4 Aoki:
soona n desu yo. ne:. hheh

so Nom Cop FPFP
(That's right, right? [laughter])
5 Seki:
ne:. hheh (..) demo ninensee no-hoo mo taihen

rashikute
FP
but
second-year Lk
also troublesome seems-and
(Right [laughter] But the second year teachers also seem to have a lot of
trouble and ...)
Seki specifies another difference between herself and the school representatives: while the principal had told her to "calm down" and to not
'"get excited," she feels that there is nothing wrong with getting
emotional. Elsewhere in the meeting, Seki had mentioned that she gets
angry with unruly students and that teachers have to be extra-strict at
times. The eyewitness accounts delivered in the meeting suggest that Aoki
had almost lost his temper in his confrontation with Kato. In her
statement in excerpt [8], Seki approves such conduct and aligns herself
with Aoki by admitting that she, too, gets emotionally charged in difficult
situations. In line 4, Aoki agrees emphatically, as evidenced by the final
particle yo, indicating the speaker's assertive stance, the elongated affective
final particle ne, signifying a shared affective stance, and laughter.
Seki and Aoki's strong alliance is bolstered by shared laughter and their
use of the final particle ne with falling intonation and germinated vowel,
which indicates strong co-solicitation and granting of agreement (Fujita
2001), and can be compared to a tag question with falling intonation in
English.
In excerpts [5] to [8], the teachers build alliance by framing the school
representatives as the common target of their complaint. This practice
achieves dual orientations in terms of facework. First, the opposition
167
against a clearly defined party strengthens the alliance among teachers.

Especially by stressing the representatives' responsibilities in maintaining
student discipline, the active teachers bond through the shared understanding that they have been hampered in their efforts by the principal's
indecisive attitude. Second, the teachers prove that they have the ability to
cope with emergency situations in a judicious manner.
Joint complaint or griping about others builds solidarity among
interlocutors (Boxer 1993). The next example, in which the teachers
complain about an outside counselor, gives us another look at this
phenomenon. Excerpt [9] is taken from segment 5, where the focus of the
meeting shifts from the incident involving Kato to problems with other
students. Before the onset of the excerpt, Miki recounted her experience
with the mother of a troubled student in her class who had sought advice
from a counselor. The mother had left the counseling session discouraged
and relayed to Miki what she had been told there. Miki conveys in line 1
how surprised she was when she heard the mother's story, spurring a series
of emphatic agreements from other teachers.
1 Miki:
... sonna koto o iwareta tte iu no ne (.) de HEEE? tte omotte

that-kind thing O be-told Qt say Nom FP and what? Qt think-and
(The mother said she was told that kind of thing, and I thought "whaaat?"
and ...)
2 Seki:
mattaku [ne::.
completely FP
(It's completely ..., right?)
3 Nakai:
[okaasan komacchau janai ne::.

mother be-in-trouble Tag FP
(The mother must be in trouble, right?)
4 Aoki:
kyooikusoodanni
nattenai
yo ne:.=
educational-counseling become-Neg FP FP
(You can't call it educational counseling, right?)
5 Miki:
=soko itte sooiuhuuni iwaretanja nanna no tte ne::.

there go-and that-way be-told-if what Nom Qt FP
(When she goes there and is told that sort of thing, she would think "what
is it?," right?)
6 Seki:
sekkaku
itta noni
ne::.
with-trouble went though FP
(Even though she took the trouble to go there, right?)
168
7 Miki:

[ne::.
FP
(Right)
8 Aoki:
[jikan no muda da yo ne:.

time Lk waste Cop FP FP
(It is a waste of time, right?)
Miki:
10
kekkyoku mukoo mo soodan sum hoo mo yoku wakattenai

after-all they also counseling do side also well understand-Neg
n
janai ka tteNom Tag Q Qt
(I wonder if, after all, they, the counselors, also don't understand very
well.)
11 Seki:
hakkiri itte ne:.

frankly say-and FP
(Frankly speaking, right?)
12 Aoki:
mukoo mo ne:.
that-side also FP
(They also, right?)
13 Miki:
un
wakattenai
desu yo ne,
uh-huh understanding-Neg Cop FP FP
(Yeah, they don't understand, do they?)
Miki expresses her opinion three times (lines 1, 5, 9 and 10). The
corresponding aligning turns are proffered as an elaboration, a paraphrase, or a supplementary remark. Miki expresses her surprise in line 1
by using the interjectoiy expression HEEE "whaaat?" with rising intonation. Seki's agreement in line 2 consists of the intensifier mattaku
"completely" and the final particle ne. The subsequent two turns (lines 34) by Nakai and Aoki explicate the reason for Miki's surprise. After Miki
rephrases her opinion the second time (line 5), taking the viewpoint of
the mother, the other two teachers jointly elaborate her statement: Seki
emphasizes the effort it takes to visit a counselor (line 6), while Aoki hints
that these sessions are a waste of time (line 8).
Miki's third opinion statement in lines 9 and 10 speculates on the
reason for the counselor's incompetence, surmising that he or she lacks
proper understanding of the problems students face. The following three
turns, including Miki's own in line 13, rephrase Miki's speculation from
lines 9 and 10 in a forceful manner with the intensifier haKkiri itte "frankly
speaking" and the final particle 310, marking the speaker's resolution.
169
The tightly structured co-construction of this sequence indicates a

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

suggestion, a statement registering non-compliance with the suggestion,
and a move supportive of the partially rejected suggestion. The last of
these actions functions to support the speaker's own face as the one who
issues a sensible suggestion, but since its content implicitly puts the hearer
at fault, it results in a threat to the hearer's face. The excerpt is taken from
segment 4, in which the teachers discuss how to respond to the incident.
In line 1, Seki suggests that they should invite the student's parents to
school to discuss the matter.
1
Seki:
nandattara oyagosan ni kiteitadaitemo ii

desu kedo ne,
if-necessary parents to come-for-us-if good Cop but FP
(If necessary, we can ask the parents to come to school.)
(3)
3 Aoki:
sore dakara dooiu huuni

that so how
way
maa sayoosureba ii n da kedomo (.) gyaku no hookoo ni ne

well affect-if good Nom Cop but opposite Lk direction to FP
honnin ga ne, (.) ii

hookoo ni chichioya ga
he-himselfS FP
good direction to father
S
170
natta baaini \va mata chigau tenkaini

nacchau (2) daa sono hen
become case T again different development become
so that around
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 ...)
Seki:
uuun. ano ko jishin wa hh bookoo sum yoona ko janai

to omou
uh-huh that child himself T violence do like child Cop-Neg Qt think
n desu kedo ne, (..) dakara tte maa kyoo wa tsuyoku deta kamoshirenai
Nom Cop but FP
so
Q well today T strong act probably
kedomo (.) kochira ga uwamawatteireba hhh ( ) ko janai

tte
but
this-side S exceeding-if
child Cop-Neg Qt
10
handanshiteru n
desu kedo ne (..) kocchi ga amakusureba sore ni
judging
Nom Cop but FP
this-side S spoil-if
that of
11
nokkacchatte
ookiku deteshimau no
kana tte hhe iu ban dan o
take-advantage-and big act
Nom FP Qt say judgment O
12
shiteru n desu kedo ne,

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

nandattara "if necessary" in the utterance-initial position qualifies the
illocutionary force of the statement Among the structural choices
reserved for issuing a suggestion, the one employed here, -temo ii
(equivalent to English "may" or "can"), is not as forceful as other
possible options would be, for instance, -ta hoo ga ii "it is better," or -tara
doo "why don't you." Taken together, the linguistic means employed bv
Seki turn her suggestion into a mitigated one.
After a long pause, Aoki registers non-compliance. His reluctance to
accept Seki's suggestion is formulated as an account in lines 3 to 6 (cf.
Waring 2005). Providing an account is associated with dispreferred
seconds (Pomerantz 1984). Aoki states the reason for non-compliance unpredictability of the outcome. He qualifies his epistemic stance by
171
stating are mo yoku wakaranai "I don't know, either," and by adding the
insertion particle n^as an emotional checkpoint (Maynard 1993).
Upon receiving Aoki's reply, Seki evaluates Kato's temperament in lines
7 and 8. The interactional function of the statement is to provide support
for her own suggestion: if the student is not the violent type, as Seki seems
to indicate, the problem can be resolved by following her advice to call in
his parents. However, given that a physical confrontation between Aoki
and Kato had taken place, Seki's assessment that Kato is not the violent
type can put the blame on the other party of the conflict - Aoki.
The double nature of face - saving the speaker's face (as the one who
has made a sensible suggestion) while implying a threat to the hearer's
face - becomes increasingly evident as Seki continues her speech. In line
8, she turns to the physical confrontation and describes the student's
behavior with the relatively vague expression tsuyoku deta, equivalent to
"acted strong" in English.
In lines 9 to 12, Seki suggests that Kato would not be as unmanageable if
the teachers were "better (literally 'above' him)," and that he would "act
strong" if they "spoil" him. These arguments are potentially facethreatening, for they cast doubt on the teachers' (and especially Aoki's)
ability7 to discipline the students.
Several linguistic practices attenuate the assertive edge of her potential
blame, however: the placement of the contrastive particle kedo and the
interpersonal final particle ne at the end of the argument units in lines 10
and 12, and the use of place deixis kochira ("this side" or "here") and
kocchi (an informal variant of kochira) in lines 9 and 10. In Japanese, place
deixis is conventionally used to substitute for a personal pronoun. In this
case, kochira stands in for the first-person pronoun "we." Referring to the
group of teachers as kochira, the speaker signals her alignment with them,
including Aoki.
7.2.4 Facework and overall structure of the meeting
The previous sections examined the role of various types of facework in
the unfolding procedure of the meeting. Taking a wider viewpoint, I will
now consider die sequential order of the instances of face display within
the meeting as a whole. By doing so, I hope to demonstrate that the order
of events may in itself function as a broader type of facework, weaving, in
our case, face-threatening actions into the overall frame of strong alliance
and solidarity. Below, I will review segments 1 to 6 in the order of their
occurrence (with references to the analyzed excerpts).
At the onset of the meeting, Seki, the head teacher, defines its
conversational style as zatsudan "an informal chat without any specific
topics or objectives." The choice of zatsudan emphasizes the off-record
nature of the talk and makes it easier for the participants to share their
candid opinions. In segment 1, Seki recounts the incident, reporting that
her request to call the police was rejected by the school principal (excerpt
172
[5]). Seki and other participants (namely Aoki, Baba and Miki) build
alliance by claiming that they belong to the group of teachers who took an
active role in the incident (excerpts [2], [3] and [4]).
In segment 2, after the basic alliance is established, Seki and other
teachers ask Aoki questions about the incident and the ensuing altercation
between him and Kato. Aoki asserts his positive self-image as a responsible,
dedicated teacher while acknowledging the difficulties he has to face
(excerpt [1]).
In segment 3, Seki takes an oppositional stance against the school
representatives. She frames the incident with Kato as a consequence of the
principal's reluctance to contact the police (excerpt [6]). Other participants second her indictment of the school representatives (excerpts [6]
and [7]), strengthening the alliance among teachers.
In segment 4, the teachers discuss if they should contact Kato's parents.
When Aoki expresses reservations about contacting Kato's father, Seki's
attempt to convince Aoki turns into a face threat (excerpt [10]). In the
end, they agree to contact Kato's parents.
In segment 5, the participants exchange information about other
disciplinary problems. Aoki gives repeated proof of his intimate knowledge of the hierarchy and the relationships among troubled students.
When Miki mentions a recent meeting between the mother of one of her
students and a counselor, revealing the latter's apparent incompetence,
other teachers elaborate on her story and engage in collaborative griping
(excerpt [9]).
In segment 6, Seki summarizes the discussion and reaffirms the need to
maintain control and to rely on police help when necessary. She also
covers some minor transactional items and announces the closure of the
meeting.
This summary highlights the following points: (1) the alliance between
participants is established at the onset of the meeting; (2) potential face
threats to Aoki (segments 2 and 4) are frequently followed by a strong
display of alliance (segment 3) or by talk about subjects that are not facethreatening (segment 5); and (3) the meeting ends with a conversation
about minor problems with little direct connection to the main incident
involving Aoki (segments 5 and 6). The latter practice distracts attention
from the face-threatening incident and simultaneously allows Aoki to
display his knowledge regarding the student body. It is important to
consider that the recorded meeting was held a short time after that
incident and that it could therefore be highly face-threatening to Aoki,
who was directly involved in the confrontation. The order of events
outlined above is well suited to achieve dual facework objectives: to
maintain Aoki's face, and to build alignment among participants. This is
not to claim that the course the meeting takes is consciously regulated by
any one participant. Nevertheless, the sequence of data segments does
indicate that facework is accomplished not only through local manipula-
173
tion of linguistic elements but also on a larger scale, for instance through
the order of segments.
7.3 Summary
This chapter took a more detailed look at one single meeting, with the
objective of investigating types of facework accomplished in description
and in an extended stretch of discourse. After providing contextual
information, it showed how Aoki displays his interactional self-image as a
responsible, motivated and knowledgeable teacher, how teachers build
alliance and solidarity, and how the display of face by various participants
can lead to conflicts. Regarding description, we have observed how a
speaker's invoked membership categorization, as well as the foregrounding of certain aspects of an event can be instrumental in displaying his or
her interactional face.
The observation of facework throughout the meeting shows the
participating teachers' conception of face within their community of
practice. The discursive practice of event description reveals what kind of
teacher behavior and attitude receive positive evaluation in the case of a
school emergency. This evaluation is linked closely to the discursive
construction of face. For instance, the teachers' "rushing to the scene" is
discursively formulated as desirable by several participants, along with the
display of their face as courageous and supportive.
To this chapter's results we may add the findings that facework can be
dispersed over different segments of a unit of discourse, that the
participants' face can be displayed in speech actions such as reports or
question-and-answer sequences, which have not been treated as facethreatening or face-saving in previous studies, and that the order of
segments itself can be considered as a type of facework.
Chapter 8: Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
Brown and Levinson's (1987) influential study on linguistic politeness has
spurred great interest in the sociopsychological phenomenon of politeness and its language-specific realization. Their seminal theory was later
criticized as static and categorical, failing to account for the varied and
dynamic enactment of politeness. Eelen (2001) points out that earlier
politeness researchers (including Brown and Levinson) blur the distinction between their own and the participant's evaluation of politeness, and
that such analytical practices carry the risk that "politeness theory
becomes largely based on the very common-sense commonplaces it sets
out to examine, and thus fails to provide any original insights beyond
those already available on the intuitive level" (246).
Even when it observed politeness in continuous stretches of discourse,
the dominant strain of politeness research simply assigned linguistic
behavior into categories such as face-threatening acts and negative and
positive politeness strategies, focusing primarily on a handful of obvious
face-threatening acts (e.g. requests, apologies, or disagreements).
The present study charts a different path: it revises the notion of face
and employs conversation and discourse analytic approaches (as used in
discursive psychology) and ethnographic information in its analytical
practice. Revisiting the Goffmanian concept of face, it analyzes discursivel
constructed facework in Japanese institutional multiparty interaction.
Through this respecification of face and facework it becomes possible to
tease out nuanced aspects of face in delicate interactions such as
collaborative disagreement, teasing, and troubles talk, all of which have
rarely been discussed in relation to politeness or face.
The linguistic behaviors mentioned above seem to be simultaneously
face-threatening and face-enhancing, and therefore pose rather complex
interactional challenges. The interplay of these apparently conflicting
notions is the topic of this study. Adopting a conversation/discourse
analytic framework, it focuses on details of talk that facilitate the
simultaneous construction and display of distinct discursive faces. It also
captures a variety of facework in a seemingly face-neutral action (i.e. event
description) and in the course of an entire meeting, expanding the unit of
observed discourse to a larger organization of talk.
In addition to its focus on face and facework, the study explores the
relationship between facework and politeness. Previous research
176
considered these concepts as either identical or distinct, rarely clarifying

their correlation. The present study contends that the evaluation of
politeness encompasses assessments of face and appropriateness. In other
words, these two interrelated types of assessment are at the core of
politeness evaluation. The study also records evaluative moments of
politeness/appropriateness in teasing and troubles talk sequences, which
could be the subject of future politeness research.
Furthermore, the study contributes to the research on Japanese
linguistic resources (lexical, grammatical and discursive) and their
function in facework. In contrast to previous studies, in which they were
enlisted as politeness markers or strategies, this study treats them as
resources of action accomplishment, and investigates the connection
between their lexical and grammatical characteristics and their sequential
and pragmatic functions.
This concluding chapter reviews briefly the main findings, which are
then synthesized and situated within the framework of past and current
research on politeness and facework.
8.2 Major Findings
8.2.1 Collaborative disagreement
Collaborative disagreement, in which two or more participants form a
dissenting "team," occurs frequently in multiparty discourse. By applying
a simple classification scheme limited to the dual opposites of facethreatening and face-enhancing, we can dissect this practice into two
components: disagreement (face-threatening to the one who is being
opposed) and agreement (face-enhancing to the members of the
dissenting team).
A closer look at second dissenter turns reveals, however, that the
facework involved in collaborative disagreement is not always that simple.
Examples in Chapter 4 illustrate how a second dissenter's turn can present
a short and truncated, yet rather strong, opposition to an offered
proposal. In this type of sequence, the first dissenter's turn lacks explicit
oppositional elements; it is only through the second dissenter's turn that
both first and second dissenters' turns are framed as a continuous
disagreement.
Reminiscent of agreements in a second-position assessment presenting
epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond 2005), second dissenting
turns of this kind convey that the speaker holds him or herself accountable
for the ongoing disagreement, even though his or her disagreement
follows sequentially the first dissenter's turn. The first dissenter continues
to co-construct the disagreement by incorporating elements of the second
dissenter's opposition into his or her subsequent turns. In another case
examined in the chapter, the second dissenter's turn frames the
CONCLUSION
177
corroboratively constructed disagreement as a side comment by using the

plain form (i.e. the informal register).
The examination of collaborative disagreements concludes with an
extended excerpt, the first half of which deviates from the pattern
observed in the earlier examples. The first dissenter's turn triggers several
question-and-answer sequences, in which the first dissenter elicits relevant
information in support of her opposition, which she articulates in a final
statement. Despite the proffered agreement and the release of information supportive of the dissenting position, the speaker who answers the
first dissenter's questions assumes a neutral stance by offering relevant
information at sequentially disjunctive positions, and by providing no
notable elaboration. As a result, little alignment is displayed between the
two speakers. Equally significant is the lack of linguistic contribution by
the opposed party throughout the long exchange. This observation may
indicate that the overall participation framework within a stretch of
discourse can operate as a type of facework: rather than engaging in direct
oppositional talk, thereby increasing the face threat, disaffiliation is
demonstrated through non-participation and exclusion. Positioned in this
way, the opposed party is able to listen to the dissenting voices as a
bystander, and to reformulate his proposal accordingly towards the end of
the exchange.
Several linguistic resources are at work in accomplishing this course of
action. First, the second dissenter's short yet "pronounced" opposition is
articulated by a combination of truncated forms (e.g. adverbs, die first half
of an "if-then" construction) and the final particle ne. The latter, a marker
of "affective common ground" (Cook 1992), sequentially marks a turntransition relevant place, sets the stage for relinquishing the turn, and
solicits others' agreement (cf. Tanaka 2000). The combination of these
two linguistic devices allows the speaker to present a statement that is
suggestive yet forceful.
Another linguistic resource examined in Chapter 4 is the plain form,
used in a disagreement framed as a side comment. The masu and plain
forms are Japanese addressee honorifics, generally considered a typical
example of discernment politeness (their socially appropriate use is
defined by contextual features such as formality of the setting and social
status of the interlocutors). In the analyzed faculty meetings, the masu
form predominates. The switch from the normative masu to the plain form
denotes an action-oriented variation and indicates a more elaborate
notion of discernment.
8.2.2 Teasing and humor
In theoretical terms, teasing has been interpreted as a mixture of
friendliness and antagonism - in other words, as a means to attend to
positive face wants (in Brown and Levinson's [1987] terms) and to a
simultaneous face threat. Teasing has also been described as a context-
178
dependent relational activity, placed on a continuum ranging from

bonding to nipping to biting (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1997). Instead of
relying upon contextual features as explanatory measures, the analysis
performed in Chapter 5 traces the workings of affiliation and disaffiliation
displayed in talk, and calls attention to the discrepancy between selfclaimed and other-ascribed face in the course of teasing.
The first teasing sequence we encounter in the data introduces the
mechanisms of teasing: teaser and teased establish alignment through
jovial opposition. In the analyzed examples, the onset of a teasing
sequence is frequently marked by a sudden change in tone of voice and a
switch from the masu to the plain form; its subsequent construction is
achieved by the mutual use of the plain form, laughter, and a laughing
tone. The deployment of linguistic and other resources frames the
achieved polarization as jocular. The shared use of the same resources
affirms the co-constructed nature of this special frame.
Following Drew's (1987) observation that teasing is often triggered by a
deviant action of the one who is teased, Chapter 5 examines the linguistic
behavior of the teased immediately before the onset of a teasing sequence.
In several excerpts, the conversational transgressions recorded in the
transcripts constitute deviations from the institution-specific sequential
organization. In one case, the teased discursively assumes the moderator's
role by offering a concluding remark; in another, the teased offers a
clearly audible, explicit response when it is not necessary in the underlying
turn-taking structure of the faculty meeting. Their attempts to claim the
discursive identity of a moderator or of a representative speaking for the
group, linked to the discursive face of competence, are not confirmed by
the other participants. Instead, they trigger teasing sequences that
function as a minor social reprimand (i.e. a coercive measure). The
discrepancy between the face claimed by the teased and the face ascribed
by the teasers allows us a glimpse of the evaluative and argumentative
nature of facework.
In the examples reviewed in Chapter 5, the content of a tease is
connected to its recipient's reality at the level of his or her claimed face.
For instance, the discursive identity of meeting moderator, assumed by a
teased participant, is associated with the institutional face of competence
and willingness. The content of the ensuing tease (e.g. that the teased
teach one class daily during the entire summer break) often proceeds
from the displayed face category. In these cases, the notion of face is
essential in understanding the interpersonal mechanisms involved in the
practice of teasing.
The last section of the chapter presents a different scenario, in which we
encounter utterances of an accusatory nature, delivered in a jocular
manner. In contrast to earlier examples, this deviant sequence is not
triggered by a conversational transgression on the part of the tease
recipient. Instead, it hints at an event in the recipient's past, which is not
CONCLUSION
179
explicitly named but which, as I have attempted to show, can be inferred

directly from the discourse. "Accuser" and "accused" employ a humorous, joking frame to enact these roles in order to register their shared
attitude towards accepted conventions.
The findings of this chapter suggest that teasing sequences represent
instances in which a tacit norm of appropriateness becomes observable in
discourse. By examining the practices that trigger teasing, the analysis
elucidates the underlying institutional normative turn-taking organization.
Even though a recipient's transgression may be too trivial to be assessed as
"impolite" by participants, the fact that it is followed by a subtle discursive
reprimand indicates that participants did perceive a transgression. This
observation points toward the possibility of a more empirically grounded
observation of appropriateness and politeness.
Equally relevant in terms of politeness research is the chapter's
discussion of the two Japanese registers - the masu and plain forms - in
teasing sequences. While the masu form predominates in the general
proceedings of the recorded meetings, we frequently encounter switches
to the plain form at the onset of teasing sequences (marked at the end by a
switch back to the masu form). These instances represent yet another
example of the action-oriented use of the elements of discernment
politeness.
Lastly, Chapter 5 presents a case in which the marked use of the masu
form in combination with other paralinguistic cues creates a doublevoiced discourse in Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the simultaneous
articulation of two differing attitudes. If we consider this case a prominent
example of "structured creativity" (Eelen 2001: 222) or "regulated
improvisation" (Bourdieu 1977: 78), it may lead to the integration of
action-oriented and creative applications into an expanded concept of
discernment politeness.
8.2.3 Talking about troubles
Within the context of ordinary conversation, successfully received troubles
talk is considered a solidarity-building activity. In the setting of a faculty
meeting, however, a speaker who discloses troublesome experiences may
run the risk of threatening his or her institutional face. Chapter 6
examines the rhetorical practices involved in describing troubles, paying
special attention to the ways in which speakers relate their own and other
participants' involvement in reported incidents, and exploring the
conflicting faces displayed in such rhetorical operations.
Most of the troubles talk recorded in the data is concerned with
students' behavioral problems. In their reports, the teachers usually
include a vivid description of the problem in question and an account of
their own attempts to resolve it. Not infrequently, these projections create
an intriguing dilemma: they reinforce the speaker's face as a responsible
and caring teacher who addresses student misconduct and who brings
180
report-worthy cases to other meeting participants' attention, while at the

same time disclosing the fact that the speaker him or herself had not been
able to control the situation, calling his or her authority into question.
Projecting one positive self-image can easily endanger another type of
face. The chapter explores how rhetorical practices such as objectification,
formulation of actor agency, and expression of grievance contribute to the
simultaneous display of multiple and at times conflicting faces.
Occasionally, teachers assert vulnerability in reactive troubles talk. As
observed in the context of ordinary talk, the recipient of troubles talk can
show alignment and understanding vis-a-vis the troubles teller by relating
his or her own trouble. One example in the chapter illustrates how a
speaker asserts vulnerability at this sequential location. Utilizing various
rhetorical practices, the speaker acknowledges the initial troubles teller's
face, demonstrates affiliation with others and, simultaneously, displays his
face as an experienced and reflective teacher. In another example, a
female teacher registers her inexperience and presents a trouble as her
own problem, thereby reducing the risk of engaging in an unwarranted
complaint.
In an excerpt later in the chapter, a female teacher has to report an
incident involving a group of unruly students who had used improper
language. She repeatedly qualifies her statement by making clear that she
is well aware of the inappropriate nature of its content, that she is not
willing to spell out certain words, and that she cannot elaborate in detail.
Through these qualifications, she presents herself as a sensible meeting
participant familiar with the limits of appropriateness, which she is forced
to transgress against her will. By formulating the students' language use as
transgression, the teacher discursively constructs (in) appropriateness.
This case, in which the impropriety of the used language is explicitly
stated, hints at a possible direction for future research in the discursive
analysis of politeness and appropriateness.
In another excerpt in the same chapter, a teacher presents a
challenging situation in two competing frames (as a minor case of
equipment replacement and as a more serious behavioral problem) in
order to justify her past handling of the problem (as a minor one), and to
affirm her willingness to tighten discipline.
Chapter 6 demonstrates that not only specific markers, but also
rhetorical devices, can function as facework. By foregrounding and
backgrounding certain aspects of troubles (e.g. the use of intransitive
verbs in describing a broken equipment to distract from the possibility
that behavioral problems exist among students), these devices contribute
to the projection of the speaker's positive self-image.
As evidenced in the analysis, different and at times contradictory faces
are displayed during the disclosure of troubles. Teachers engaging in
troubles talk risk their face as a competent educator able to exercise
control over the students. At the same time, sharing troubles is an
CONCLUSION
181
important initial step toward joint problem-solving. To this end, openness

to trouble-sharing may be a more valued aspect of face within this
community of practice than other qualities such as competence or
authority.
The findings suggest furthermore that the formulation of others'
conduct as transgression can elucidate a tacit norm of appropriateness. It
is possible to view troubles talk as a discursive practice of norm
construction (cf. "moral work" in Drew's [1998] terms). One example
in the chapter, in which a speaker refers to the inappropriateness of
language use, may provide a starting point for a more data-based study of
politeness and appropriateness.
8.2.4 The meeting
The final analysis chapter examines facework sequences situated within an
entire meeting and illustrates facework in event description, a practice
usually considered face-neutral. While recent discursive politeness studies
expanded their object of study from isolated and decontextualized
sentences to the discourse level, they rarely explored a discourse event
in its entirety (with the exception of Locher [2004]).
The meeting's single agenda - to discuss a confrontation between an
unruly student and his homeroom teacher - makes the meeting itself a
face-threatening event to the homeroom teacher. The chapter illustrates
the rhetorical practices of the participants as they co-construct versions of
the incident, accomplishing varied facework in the process.
In the first excerpt, the homeroom teacher describes his relationship
with the disorderly student. The membership categorization invoked in
discourse (homeroom teacher) and the speaker's focus on the student's
psychological state present the speaker as a homeroom teacher willing to
deal with the student's emotional issues. The fact that the same teacher
was engaged in a physical confrontation with the troublemaker remains
unmentioned. A series of truncated phrases further affirms the speaker's
face as a competent, motivated, open-minded teacher, while at the same
time stressing the extremely difficult and uncertain circumstances
surrounding the incident. The linguistic resource that enables the speaker
to perform such pragmatic gymnastics is the contrastive connective
particle kedo, which grammatically frames the preceding elements as a
subordinate clause and as background information. In quantitative terms,
the teacher's turns consist mainly of statements emphasizing the severe
nature of the altercation. These lengthy statements are always followed by
the connective particle kedo, subordinating the preceding utterance
grammatically under a main idea. The teacher's remarks claiming positive
qualities (e.g. initiative and motivation), on the other hand, are delivered
in a brief and vague manner without the subordinate particle kedo,
elevating them to the grammatical status of a main clause. Through the
interplay of sequence length, manner of presentation and particle usage,
182
the speaker's turns present a positive self-image while painting a vivid

picture of the encountered difficulties.
In the subsequent segment, the meeting participants, especially the
head teacher, build alignment with the homeroom teacher by presenting
their view of the incident. In doing so, they employ a curious rhetorical
practice: they take pains to name all the teachers, including themselves,
present at the locations where the various stages of the incident took
place. This operation divides the teachers into two groups - those who
were present and those who were absent during the altercation. Most of
the participants of the meeting, including the homeroom teacher, belong
to the first group. Later in the meeting, the head teacher stresses the
importance of dealing with disturbances as a team, communicating her
appreciation of those teachers who took an active role in the confrontation, even at the risk of becoming directly involved. In sum, the rhetorical
practice of name-listing, as well as other discursive means to convey one's
active participation, frames most meeting participants as members of the
preferred group (of teachers rushing to aid in joint problem-solving).
The head teacher's report draws yet another dividing line, separating
regular teachers from "the (school) representatives" (principal and viceprincipal) . The teachers' involvement at various stages of the incident is
contrasted rhetorically with the lack of initiative on the part of the
principals, and with their unwillingness to take necessary action. This new
polarity is reinforced by the claim that it was precisely the principals'
inertia at the early stages of the incident that allowed it to escalate. In this
way, the weight of responsibility is shifted from the teachers to the school
representatives.
Later in the meeting, a comment by the head teacher issued to support
her own proposal turns into a threat to the homeroom teacher's face. To
her suggestion that teachers should contact the troubled student's family,
she adds a characterization of the student's temperament (he is, in her
estimation, not the violent type). Given that a physical confrontation
between the student and his homeroom teacher had taken place, the head
teacher's assessment implicitly puts the blame on the other party of the
confrontation - the homeroom teacher.
The chapter tries to exemplify that facework can be accomplished
through the overall progression of a meeting. Even though both facethreatening and face-enhancing sequences appear at several stages of the
proceedings, these are sequenced in such a manner that they protect the
homeroom teacher's face against threats originating from the deliberated
event. The meeting starts with a report of the incident, in which alignment
is established by separating first active and inactive teachers, and later
regular teachers and school representatives, into opposing camps. The
representatives are blamed for letting the situation get out of control.
After strong alignment is established, the homeroom teacher suffers face
threats, which are frequently followed by displays of alliance - small talk
CONCLUSION
183
about other students and griping concerning the school counselor, in

which the homeroom teacher, now no longer the focus of attention, finds
opportunity to assume the role of an experienced teacher knowledgeable
of student affairs.
By expanding the analytical scope to include the entire meeting, the
chapter is able to observe at several different levels how certain linguistic
resources accomplish facework. We have already mentioned the roles
played by the connective particle hedo and by the overall organization of
the meeting in the realization of facework. Similarly, alignment can be
achieved through apparently face-neutral rhetorical practices (e.g. name
listing) and sequences (e.g. event description).
The exploration of extended stretches of discourse provides the
opportunity to reconsider the distinction between text and context.
Elements that, within the narrowed focus of a short excerpt, appear
contextual and external to the talk may resurface in references made by
participants at other points of the discourse. To assess these elements, I
expanded the scope of analysis to include longer stretches of speech. In
the meeting discussed here, the head teacher's report of the incident
appears much earlier in the meeting than her appreciation of the teachers
who took an active role in the confrontation. If we were to analyze her
report as an isolated excerpt, the interpretation of the rhetorical practice
of name-listing would have to rely solely on the researcher's contextual
knowledge of the particular community of practice. Since the praising
sequence appears within the same extended data segment, I was able to
present it as supporting evidence. What would happen if we expanded the
scope of analysis further, to include a longer history of communication
within this group or of each individual participant? The division between
text and context is, ultimately, an artificial one, created by the researcher's
act of data selection; the two categories gradually blend into each other as
we extend the length of examined discourse.
8.3 Facework in Interaction
Although this study takes a different approach to facework than earlier
politeness studies, considering it as a discursive and evaluative entity, it
intends to continue the discussion within the established framework
instead of creating an analytical disjunction. After summarizing the major
findings chapter by chapter, I will now try to integrate them into a more
complete picture, paying special attention to the question of how they
contribute to issues of facework and politeness discussed in the literature.
8.3.1 Politenessl and politeness2
This study shares a number of premises with recent discursive approaches
to politeness (e.g. Eelen 2001, Watts 2003), which stress the importance of
184
politenessl, the layperson's conceptualization of politeness. It views

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

enactment of politeness. This study departs from the view that context can
be employed as an explanatory measure and that it can be considered
stable and pre-determined in any straightforward way. Instead, it focuses
on participant orientation to particular contextual information.
Information about the institutional and interactional setting was taken
into account when it was made relevant by participants, or when it seemed
integral to the interpretation of segments of talk or to the description of a
particular discursive face. Linguistic practices are not explained by
drawing unreflexively on information about the speaker (e.g. gender,
age), but by working with categories such as "inexperienced teacher" or
''moderator" when they were oriented to by participants.
From this perspective, it is possible to view facework as an argumentative
process in which an interlocutor's face ascription can be contested and
altered. For instance, when a young male teacher discursively assumes the
role of a moderator or a group representative, the claim is refuted by
means of a teasing sequence.
Even though demographic characteristics are not used as explanatory
measures in the analysis of teasing sequences, Chapter 5 does mention the
observation that young male teachers served invariably as targets of the
tease. This may be due to the facts that different norms are assigned to
different members of a group, and that different opportunities for certain
CONCLUSION
185
social actions (or reactions) are attached to different group members (cf.
Mills 2003). However, it is not possible to generalize from such a limited
number of examples.
Before the onset of the tease, these young male teachers, who are not
yet considered core group members, assume the discursive identity of a
core member (e.g. a moderator). Their behavior reveals that they are not
yet fully versed in the norms of practice. Even though their self-ascribed
discursive identity as a core member of the group is not confirmed and
triggers the subsequent tease, they nonetheless become central figures in
the ensuing teasing sequence. What is more, they participate actively in
the tease by reacting in a non-pro-faced manner. How these practices
affect the young teachers' participation in their community of practice
over time, and whether the probability of being teased is distributed
unevenly across different demographic groups - these questions require
larger, longitudinal studies.
The analysis of an entire meeting outlined in Chapter 7 draws attention
to the fact that a researcher can manipulate the distinction between
context and text, and questions the transparency of the context-text
dichotomy. While the study is not directly concerned with contextual
"variables," it shows how one's own view of text and context may affect the
description of facework.
8.3.3 Japanese linguistic resources: discernment and regulated creativity
One major purpose of this study is to illustrate how a range of Japanese

linguistic resources accomplish facework in interactionally delicate
social actions. It observes linguistic resources at different levels,
including some not yet discussed in politeness literature: lexical or
phrasal resources (e.g. adverbial expressions in collective disagreement), discourse markers (e.g. the final particle ne), rhetorical practices
(e.g. name-listing in reporting), and discourse organization (e.g. topic
progression within a meeting). Among these, three discourse markers the final particle ne, the contrastive particle kedo, and the plain and
masu forms of the clause-final ending - are of particular interest. As for
the two particles ne and kedo, the study delineates their role in
accomplishing particular facework, and examines the connection
between their linguistic/sequential functions and action-specific facework mechanisms. Another important topic is the operation of plain
and masu forms in facework, since these forms are considered primary
examples of discernment politeness.
In the literature, the marker n^is treated both as an interpersonal affect
marker (to indicate a shared affect and/or a speaker's friendly attitude)
(e.g. Cook 1992) and as an informational state marker (to indicate that
the hearer has more access to the content of speech than the speaker)
(e.g. Maynard 1989). It is often used in utterance-final or intrasentential
positions to solicit and/or grant agreements. As observed in the research
186
data in Chapter 4, the combination of a short adverbial phrase and the

final particle ne can voice a brief yet strong second disagreement. The
particle's sequential function to mark a turn-transition relevant place, the
study argues, puts the speaker in the position to relinquish the turn even
after a brief contribution. In some cases, the strong opposition articulated
in a second dissenter's turn can retroactively frame the prior turn, too, as a
disagreement sequence, designating the second dissenter as the accountable agent of the opposition. Within this practice, the final particle serves
a dual purpose: it allows the second dissenter to make a brief contribution,
and to show alignment to the first dissenter.
The contrastive connective particle kedo is attached to a verb, an
adjective, or a copula in a clause-final position. Traditionally, a clause
ending with kedo ("kedo clause") is considered a subordinate clause
preceding the main clause of an utterance, and kedo expresses a
contrastive relationship between the propositions expressed in the two
clauses. The study illustrates the workings of kedo in the process of
presenting two or more conflicting faces. In Chapter 6 a female teacher
qualifies her report, which contains indecent language, by explicitly
stating her reluctance to discuss the delicate matter in the public setting of
the meeting. Her numerous qualifications are offered as kedo clauses,
subordinate to the main clauses constituting the report. Through the
placement of kedo9 the speaker frames the qualifications as a backgrounded concern. With this qualification measure in place, she can now
tackle the sensitive issue without endangering her self-image. In addition
to proving her familiarity with the implicit code of decency governing
faculty meetings, her rhetorical practice has also managed to convey the
speaker's compliance with the principle that teachers share observations
openly with their colleagues.
Chapter 7 discusses another case in which a teacher uses kedo clauses
to display his face as a motivated and open-minded teacher, and to
simultaneously emphasize the difficult nature of the situation he has
encountered. His turn consists of lengthy statements elaborating on the
extreme challenges he had to face, all offered in kedo clauses, while his
affirmations of initiative and motivation are presented as main clauses,
albeit in a truncated and vague manner. The teacher succeeds in
maintaining his positive self-image while at the same time highlighting
the severity of the situation, by exploiting subtle nuances in the
interplay of sequence length, manner of presentation, and particle
usage.
Plain and masu forms - morphological markings in the clause-final
position that indicate informal and formal registers - are of particular
importance since they are regarded as among the primary examples of
discernment politeness. Previous research has treated them as different
registers or styles, whose use is determined by contextual factors such as
the formality of the speech setting or the social distance between
CONCLUSION
187
interlocutors. The dominant use of the masu form in the current data set
corresponds with the formality of the speech setting (faculty meeting).
There are, however, instances in which speakers switch from the normative
masu to the plain form, which can be interpreted as an action-oriented
variation and point toward a more elaborate notion of discernment. In
one of the examples of collaborative disagreement discussed in Chapter 4,
speakers frame their utterances as a side comment through the use of the
plain form. In Chapter 5, the onset of a teasing sequence is marked by a
switch to the plain form, and its end by a switch back to the masu form. In
another case in Chapter 5, interlocutors use the masu form in combination
with other paralinguistic cues such as affective particles or animated tone
of voice. Such marked usage is reminiscent of a double-voiced discourse in
Bakhtinian (1981) terms, allowing the articulation of two differing
attitudes at the same time. The action-oriented use of the plain and
masu forms, the study argues, can be considered prominent instances of
"structured creativity" (Eelen 2001: 222) or "regulated improvisation"
(Bourdieu 1977: 78). The present analysis of the plain and masu forms
supports the possibility that the notion of discernment includes such
regulated varieties. Taking this view, the distinction between social index
(discernment) and volitional politeness may be dispersed, since the tacit
rules of discernment politeness form a part of habitus that allows and
encourages regulated improvisation.
8.3.4 Ambivalent face
This study is primarily concerned with multiple facework in interaction.
Aiming for a data-driven analysis of face and facework, it adopts a
conversation/discourse analytic approach. The notion of face is respectified as the participant's interactional self-image, constructed and displayed
in discourse and closely tied to various aspects of interlocutors' discursive
identity. Through the implementation of this framework, multiple face
ascriptions become analyzable in discourse.
The study treats the notion of face not as "universal human wants," but
as a discursively created, and hence argumentative construct. This
respectified notion of face, as well as the analysis in which it is applied,
offers an alternative view of issues associated with Brown and Levinson's
(1987) notion of face (i.e. the universality of the notion of face and the
relationship between positive and negative face).
As we have seen, the tension between context-specific and collective (i.e.
universal) characteristics of politeness is a pressing issue. Christie (2004)
states:
It is also worth noting that this pull away from a single, general notion of
politeness is an indication of an increasing tension between, on the one
hand, the recognition ... that the social and linguistic phenomena
under investigation are actively and disparately constructed as politeness
188
within specific contexts of use, and, on the other, the recognition that in
order to be described as politeness, there must be some quality that
these phenomena share if they are all to be categorized as manifestations of politeness. (10)
My study makes no claim to either the universality or the cultural
specificity of face, but touches upon both. It aims to present a reasonable
and shareable interpretation of discursive practices, achieved through a
vacillation between details of talk, the researcher's knowledge of the
community of practice, and the review of politeness-related concepts in
the literature. While the need for a detailed knowledge of the community
of practice seems to presuppose a culture-specific notion of face, the
search for reasonable and shareable interpretations hinges on the
assumption that there is indeed a common ground for the evaluation of
face. The study, then, considers universality and cultural specificity not as
contrasting but as complementary characteristics of face, both of which
are indispensable in the analysis of face in interaction.
In more concrete terms, which new insights does my analysis offer,
beyond the initial understanding of the institutional face in this specific
community of practice provided at the end of Chapter 3? In preparation
for this study, my personal familiarity with and general knowledge of the
community of practice in question (i.e. teachers at Japanese secondary
schools) enabled me to set up a list of face categories (e.g. competence,
cooperation, motivation) which, as it turns out, corresponds by and large
with the Japanese government's own description of what constitutes a
"good teacher." In the course of analysis, it became possible to specify a
concrete set of behaviors that invokes these face categories in the
respective community of practice (e.g. in Chapter 7 "co-operation" is
described in terms of rushing to the scene in the case of an emergency).
In other words, the linguistic inquiry connects abstract face categories to
concrete sets of behaviors that are described and negotiated in talk.
Furthermore, the analysis illustrates how facework is performed in
settings where not every face ascription remains unchallenged (e.g. in
Chapter 5 a self-ascribed face is not confirmed and triggers a
subsequence tease). A related issue, which emerged during the analysis,
concerns the questions how institutional norms are created and negotiated through various actions, and how these norms are tied to
participants' institutional face. Institutional norms of this type concern,
for instance, the turn-worthiness of a second disagreement (Chapter 4),
the institutional order of speakership (Chapter 5), and the reportworthiness of troubles (Chapter 6). The analysis provided in these
chapters illustrates a strong linkage between institutional norms and
participants' face ascriptions.
This study's conceptualization of face departs significantly from the
notion of positive and negative face in Brown and Levinson's (1987)
CONCLUSION
189
terms. Brown and Levinson present a parsimonious socio-cognitive model

of interpersonal communication, in which the dichotomous notions of
positive and negative face as universal human wants play a central role.
Oftentimes positive and negative face wants are considered opposite
orientations to solidarity and independence.
In order to connect this study's conceptualization of face with the
positive/negative dichotomy, I would like to go back to Durkheim's (1995)
remarks on the relationship between positive and negative cults. He
maintains that these two types of cults are not mutually exclusive:
One might think that the negative cult is more clearly separated from
the positive cult, yet we have seen that the negative cult can nonetheless
bring about positive effects identical to those of the positive cult. ...
Thus, the practices no more fall into two separate genera than the
beliefs do. (417)
According to Durkheim (1995), negative and positive religious rituals
bring about similar effects. What is more, the inner essence of religious
life is simple and "one and the same" despite its complex manifestations.
Its object is "to lift man above himself and to make him live a higher life
than he would if he obeyed only his individual impulses" (417). If the
ritual practice of human communication is derived from religious
practices, as has been claimed, one might infer that, despite its complex
and diverse manifestations, the inner essence of human interaction is
"one and same." In everyday conversation, the force "to lift man above
himself' takes the shape of a force to bring about a better image of oneself
and others. Talk is a ritualistic practice through which participants can lift
themselves "above themselves." In this sense, the Goffmanian respectification of face as "the positive social value a person effectively claims for
himself (Goffman 1967: 5) may be regarded as the essence of human
interaction. Thus, without directly addressing the positive/negative
dichotomy, this study's conceptualization subsumes both the positive
and the negative aspects of human interaction (i.e. solidarity and
independence).
In contrast to Brown and Levinson's (1987) parsimonious orientation,
this study aims to depict the subtlety and richness of interpersonal
communication. It details the simultaneous display of interactional faces
and the moment-by-moment progression of facework as the conversation
unfolds. In the course of analysis, we have uncovered the delicate
mechanisms of talk involved in collaborative disagreement, teasing,
troubles talk, and event description; we have encountered cases in
which various, sometimes conflicting, faces co-exist, in which one type of
face entails another, and in which displays of face by multiple speakers
interact and influence one another; and we have found that institutional
norms and presentations of face are closely related and continually
190
negotiated in talk. By observing how diverse manifestations of face are

constructed and manipulated in talk, this study offers a complex view of
facework and underscores the importance of the notion of face as a link
between various approaches to discourse and politeness.
Notes
Chapter 1
1
Studies of politeness in relation to the use of honorifics, address terms

and so on are not restricted to such speech acts.
Chapter 2
1
3
4
5
6
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), these two types of "mixture"

are motivated by the need to establish a satisfactory interactional balance,
or by the speaker's momentary mood change (at times the speaker feels
close to other interactants, at other times alienated).
Later adaptations of Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory seem to
highlight the distance scale as well, employing such terms as "solidarity
politeness" or "involvement" for positive politeness equivalents, and
"deference politeness" or "independence" for negative politeness
equivalents (Scollon and Scollon 1981, 1995).
The philosophical notion of "speech act" was introduced by Austin
(1962) and elaborated by Searle (1969, 1971, 1975, 1976).
This review does not include a discussion of critical discourse analysis.
Critical discourse analysis and politeness are linked through the observation that power, historicity, and norm creation are involved in the
evaluation of politeness. See Mills (2003) for a further discussion.
For instance, disagreements in legal discourse are sequentially preferred
yet face threatening nonetheless.
Discursive psychology also utilizes a type of discourse analysis developed in
the social study of science (Gilbert and Mulkay 1984) and in social
psychology (Potter and Wetherell 1987). See Chapter 3 for the comparison between conversation analysis and discourse analysis.
The distinction between politic and polite all but dissolves if we
incorporate these considerations into the category of appropriateness
evaluation. However, the focus of this study is not to weigh the
practicability of the politic/polite distinction, but to explicate the nature
and role of face evaluations.
192
Chapter 3
1
Conversation analysis does not assume that any interaction occurring in

an institutional setting is "institutional talk." Conversation analysts
attempt to link details of interaction with the institutional setting in
which they occur.
I have worked as a teacher in two Japanese secondary schools for nine
years in total, serving both as homeroom and non-homeroom teacher.
During that time, I participated in numerous grade-level faculty groups
and divisional groups.
Chapter 4
1
Ne is a final and intrasentential particle that most frequently appears in

verbal interactions. Since the particle ne as well as most of the other
sentential particles in Japanese do not contribute to the referential
meaning of an utterance, the linguistic property of the interactional
particle ne may reside in its non-referential meanings. More specifically, it
can be either a type of information state marker or an affect marker.
A number of studies have found that the particle ne is used to indicate
the speaker's agreement with the addressee or to solicit the addressee's
agreement with the speaker on particular information (Kamio 1979,1990,
Kuno 1973, Tanaka 1971, Tsuchihashi 1983, Ueno 1971). Researchers
claim that the final particle ne asks for compliance and creates rapport
(Ueno 1971), solicits confirmatory responses, and indicates the speaker's
lack of confidence in his or her information (Tsuchihashi 1983). Kamio
(1979) states that ne marks the information that the speaker assumes is
shared with the addressee (speaker and addressee's shared territory of
information), or that is held only by the addressee (addressee's territory of
information); ne is not used when the information is held only by the
speaker (speaker's territory of information). Similarly, Maynard (1993)
states that ne is used when the speaker feels that he or she has relatively
low access to the given information.
Another frequently discussed characteristic of ne is marking the
speaker's positive affect or friendly attitude toward the addressee.
Researchers have found that ne can function to create rapport between
interlocutors (McGloin 1984, Ueno 1971), and to mark a speaker's
friendly or co-responding attitude (Kamio 1990), positive affect (Clancy
1986) and social role (McGloin 1990, Ueno 1971), and the "affective
common ground" between speaker and addressee (Cook 1992).
NOTES
193
From the conversation analytic perspective, Tanaka (2000) explores the

turn management function of the particle ne.
Strictly speaking, the disagreement would not directly challenge Seki
personally since she is not the author of this statement in the Goffmanian
sense. Seki is merely reporting the decision made by the committee she
belongs to.
The plain and masu forms in Japanese are morphological markings on the
noun, adjective, and verb stem appearing in the clause-final position. In
speaking and writing Japanese, one must almost always choose one of
these two forms. The term "masu form" includes both present and past
tense endings of verbs (-masu and -mashita), and the copular present and
past tense forms (desu and deshita), as well as their negative endings. The
plain form is the clause-final form without these endings.
Traditionally, grammarians refer to the masu form as the addressee
honorific and formal style ending, and to the plain form as abrupt and
informal. These references reflect the general belief that the masu form is
used in formal and polite social settings, that the plain form is used in
informal and intimate settings, and that the non-reciprocal use of the two
forms indicates status difference. Analogous to the European T-V system,
researchers also argue that the masu form is a marker of social distance
between interlocutors (Hinds 1978, Ikuta 1983, Shibatani 1990).
Recent studies of these two forms in socially situated speech events have
pointed out that speakers use both forms even while addressing the same
hearer in a single speech event (Cook 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998, 2002,
Maynard 1993, Okamoto 1998, 1999). Cook claims that the masu form
indexes public self-presentation and addressee deference and that the
interpretation of the plain form depends on the presence and absence of
co-occurring affect keys and other social variables. Other researchers
associate the masu form with speech to others, and the plain form with
speech addressed to oneself (Kindaichi 1982, Makino 1983, 2002,
Maynard 1993).
Chapter 5
1
Brown and Yule (1983) distinguish between transactional and interpersonal languages, stressing that they mirror other functional dichotomies
such as "ideational vs interpersonal" (Halliday and Hasan 1976), and
"descriptive vs social-expressive" (Lyons 1977).
We do not know whether the participants give non-verbal approvals (e.g.
nodding) since the data were audiotaped. However, observation of similar
194
faculty meetings reveals frequent occurrences of non-verbal approvals and

agreement tokens (un "u-huh").
It would be interesting to see if a similar conversational practice (e.g. to
initiate a topic shift) by an experienced teacher or a female teacher would
trigger a subsequent tease. However, my data do not include such
instances.
Even though Ohki is chosen as the ostensive addressee, Hoshi's comment
is heard by other meeting participants, who might share the same
sentiment toward the prescriptive guidelines.
Chapter 6
1
Even though Drew (1998) points out the difference between troubles talk
and indirect complaint (troubles talks end in a gradual stepwise manner,
indirect complaints in a topically disjunctive fashion), other researchers
(e.g. Boxer 1993, Edwards 2005) acknowledge that it is difficult to make a
clear distinction. Since the face considerations involved in troubles talk
and indirect complaint appear to be similar, I use a wider definition of the
term "troubles talk," which includes troubles talk as such as well as
indirect complaint.
According to Tannen (1990), women tend to expect symmetrical
responses when they talk about troubles, whereas men tend to exchange
asymmetrical turns to achieve a symmetrical footing. In other words, men
achieve solidarity by taking turns in projecting both superior and inferior
positions. Tannen's portrayal of gendered conversation styles has been
expanded by other critical approaches to language and gender (e.g.
Cameron 1997, 1998).
In other words, Kanda admits the imposition and indicates reluctance to
perform the act, modes of conduct which, according to Brown and
Levinson (1987: 188), can be categorized as negative politeness strategies.
Kedo is a contrastive subordinate connective particle, which can be
translated as "although" or "but" into English. Kedo has three variants,
keredo, kedomo, and heredomo, which function similarly in conversation.
(This study treats kedo and its variants in the same manner.)
Japanese has two structurally different types of connective expressions:
setsuzoku-shi (independent "connectives") and setsuzoku-joshi (attached
"connective particles"). Japanese connectives function in the same
manner as those in English. They are free forms usually used in the
initial position of a clause or utterance. The other type (to which kedo
belongs) are the connective particles. These are attached to a verb, an
adjective, or a copula in the clause-final position. Traditionally, a clause
NOTES
195
ending with one of these particles is considered a subordinate clause

preceding the main clause of an utterance. The contrastive connective
particle kedo expresses a contrastive relationship between two propositions, one in the preceding subordinate clause (kedo clause), the other
one in the succeeding main clause. The linguistic properties of kedo are
readily deducible from its grammatical and semantic characteristics. In
this study, subordination and the contrastive meaning of the particle are
regarded as its core linguistic properties.
Recent studies on the particle kedo have observed that in spontaneous
spoken discourse kedo clauses appear after the corresponding main clause,
despite its canonical position preceding the main clause. This type of kedo
clause is interactionally motivated (Mori 1999) and has been characterized as an afterthought (Clancy 1982, Hinds 1982). In addition, a kedo
clause and its main clause may be produced by different speakers in
ongoing discourse. Researchers have also observed instances where the
kedo clause appears independently without a corresponding main clause.
Other studies assert that kedo can frame preceding elements as a
background situation in narratives (Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama
1997), and that kedo in utterance-final position exerts a mitigating effect
(Maynard 1989, Mori 1999, Nakayama and Ichihashi-Nakayama 1997,
Ohori 1995).
Chapter 7
1
It is not within the scope of this study to explore the extensive discursive
history of the community of practice of teachers at Japanese secondary
schools.
The implications of contacting the police merit a short explanation. On
the one hand, the severity and frequency of school violence and student
delinquency were generally considered excessive around the time the data
were collected; cooperation between schools and local police was
encouraged. On the other hand, calling the police turns the incident
into a public affair, with potentially adverse consequences for the school's
reputation.
In Japanese secondary schools, a group of about 40 students forms a
"homeroom" unit. Students of that unit take the same classes, they are
supervised by the homeroom teacher in charge, and they have an assigned
classroom where they take most of their classes.
Elsewhere in the data, several teachers, including Seki, call the principal
and vice-principal kanrishoku "(school) managers" or "(school) representatives" when commenting on their lack of response.
Bibliography
Antaki, C. (1998), "Identity ascriptions in their time and place: 'fagin' and 'the
terminally dim'," in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in Talk.
London: Sage, pp. 71-86.
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998), Identities in Talk. London: Sage.
Arundale, R. B. (1999), "An alternative model and ideology of communication
for an alternative to politeness theory," Pragmatics, 9 (1), 119-153.
Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979), Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal
Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (1984), Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Attardo, S. (1994), Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin, J. L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. S. (1993), "Learning the rules of academic
talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic change," Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15, (3), 279-304.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003), "Face and politeness: new (insights) for old
(concepts)," Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10-11), 1453-1469.
Barraja-Rohan, A-M. (2003), "Past troubles-talk in nonnative-native interviews,"/0wraaZ of Pragmatics, 35 (4), 615-629.
Beach, W. A. (1996), Conversations about Illness: Family Preoccupations with
Bulimia. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beebe, L. and Cummings, M. (1996), "Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act
performance", in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures:
Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 65-86.
Beebe, L. and Takahashi, T. (1989), "Do you have a bag?: social status and
patterned variation in second language acquisition," in S. M. Gass (ed.),
Variation in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
pp. 103-125.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T. and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990), "Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals," in R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen and S. D. Krashen (eds),
Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York:
Newbury House, pp. 55-73.
Bergman, M. L. and Rasper, G. (1993), "Perception and performance in
BIBLIOGRAPHY
197
native and nonnative apology," in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds),

Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 82-107.
Bilmes, J. (1996), "Problems and resources in analyzing Northern Thai
conversation for English language readers," Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (2),
171-188.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982), "Learning to say what you mean in a second language:
a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second
language," Applied Linguistics, 3 (1), 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1983), "Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second
language: a cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English," in N. Wolfson
and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987), "Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or
different?," Journal of Pragmatics, 11 (2), 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989), "Playing it safe: the role of conventionality in indirect
requests," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural
Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37-70.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1990), "You don't touch lettuce with your fingers: parental
politeness in family discourse," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 259-288.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992), "The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society,"
in R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in
its History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255-280.
Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. (1989), "Cross-cultural and situational variation
in requestive behavior," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds),
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.
123-154.
Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. (1984), "Requests and apologies: a crosscultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP)," Applied
Linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B. and Gerson, R. (1985), "The language of requesting
in Israeli society," in J. P. Forgas (ed.), Language and Social Situations. New
York: Springer, pp. 113-141.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boggs, S. T. (1978), "The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian
children," Language in Society, 7 (3), 325-344.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Boxer, D. (1993), "Social distance and speech behavior: the case of indirect
complaints," Journal of Pragmatics, 19 (2), 103-125.
Boxer, D. and Cortes-Conde, F. (1997), "From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display," Journal of Pragmatics, 27 (3), 275-294.
198
Brouwer, D. (1982), "The influence of the addressee's sex on politeness in

language use," Linguistics, 20 (11-12), 697-711.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983), Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1979), "Universals in language usage:
politeness phenomena", in E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness:
Strategies in Social Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
56-311.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960), "The pronouns of power and solidarity," in
T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253276.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1989), "Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four
major tragedies," Language in Society, 18 (2), 159-212.
Cameron, D. (1997), "Performing gender identity: young men's talk and the
construction of heterosexual masculinity," in S. Johnson and U. H.
Meinhof (eds), Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47-64.
Cameron, D. (1998), "'Is there anv ketchup, Vera?': gender, power and
pragmatics," Discourse and Society, 1998, 9 (4), 437-455.
Christie. C. (2004), "Introduction," Multilingua, 23 (1-2), 1-11.
Clancy, P. M. (1982), "Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives," in D.
Tannen (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 55-76.
Clancy, P. M. (1986), "The acquisition of Japanese," in D. Slobin (ed.), The
Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.
373-524.
dayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002), The News Interview: Journalists and Public
Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1981), "Developing a measure of sociocultural
competence: the case of apology," Language Learning, 31 (1), 113-134.
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M. (1990), "Rules versus relationships in small
claims disputes," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic
Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 178-196.
Cook, H. M. (1992), "Meanings of non-referential indexes: a case study of the
Japanese sentence-final particle ne" Text, 12 (4), 507-539.
Cook, H. M. (1996a), "The Japanese verbal suffixes as indicators of distance
and proximity," in M. Putz and R. Dirven (eds), The Construal of Space in
Language and Thought Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3-27.
Cook, H. M. (1996b), "Japanese language socialization: indexing the modes of
self," Discourse Processes, 22 (2), 171-197.
Cook, H. M. (1997), "The role of the Japanese masu form in caregiver-child
conversation," Journal of Pragmatics, 28 (6), 695-718.
Cook, H. M. (1998), "Situational meanings of Japanese social deixis: the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
199
mixed use of the masu and plain forms," Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
8 (1), 87-110.
Cook, H. M. (2002), "The social meaning of the Japanese plain form," in N.
Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 150-163.
Cook, H. M. (2006), "Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement:
academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities," MuUilingua, 25
(3), 269-291.
Coulmas, F. (1981), "Poison to your soul: thanks and apologies contrastively
viewed," in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in
Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague:
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69-93.
Crawford, M. (1995), Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage.
Crawford, M. (2003), "Gender and humor in social context," Journal of
Pragmatics, 35 (9), 1413-1430.
D'Amico-Reisner, L. (1983), "An analysis of the surface structure of
disapproval exchanges," in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics
and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 103-115.
Doi, T. (1971), Amae no kozo. Tokyo: Kobundo.
Drew, P. (1987), "Pro-faced receipts of teases," Linguistics, 25 (1), 219-253,
Drew, P. (1998), "Complaints about transgressions and misconduct," Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 31 (3-4), 295-325.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1995), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (new edn). New
York: Free Press.
Eckert, P. (1990), "Cooperative competition in adolescent 6girl talk."'
Discourse Processes, 13 (1), 91-122.
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999), "New generalizations and
explanations in language and gender research," Language in Society, 28
(2), 185-201.
Eder, D. (1990), "Serious and playful disputes: variation in conflict talk among
female adolescents," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic
Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 67-84.
Eder, D. (1991), "The role of teasing in adolescent peer group culture," in S.
Cahill (ed.), Sociological Studies of Child Development, 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, pp. 181-197.
Eder, D. (1993), " 'Go get ya a French!': romantic and sexual teasing among
adolescent girls," in D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-31.
Edwards, D. (1994), "Script formulations: an analysis of event descriptions in
conversation," Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13 (3), 211-247.
Edwards, D. (1995), "Two to tango: script formulations, dispositions, and
200
rhetorical symmetry in relationship troubles talk," Research on Language

and Social Interaction, 28 (4), 319-350.
Edwards, D. (1997), Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, D. (2000), "Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and
doing nonliteral," Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347373.
Edwards, D. (2005), "Moaning, whinging and laughing: the subjective side of
complaints," Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 5-29.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992), Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2001), "Discursive psychology," in A. W. McHoul
and M. Rapley (eds), How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Setting: A Casebook
of Methods. London: Continuum, pp. 12-24.
Eelen, G. (1999), "Politeness and ideology: a critical review," Pragmatics, 9 (1),
163-173.
Eelen, G. (2001), A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
Egbert, M. (2004), "Other-initiated repair and membership categorization:
some conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization," Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (8), 1467-1498.
Eisenberg, A. R. (1986), "Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes," in B.
B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language Socialization Across Cultures.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-198.
Eisenberg, A. R. and Garvey, C. (1981), "Children's use of verbal strategies in
resolving conflicts," Discourse Processes, 4 (2), 149-170.
Ellis, R. (1992), "Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two
language learners" requests," Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14
(D, 1-23.
Emihovich, C. (1986), "Argument as status assertion: contextual variations in
children's disputes," Language in Society, 15 (4), 485-500.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976), "Is Sybil there?: the structure of some American
English directives," Language in Society, 5 (1), 25-66.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (1996), "Practices in the
construction of turns: the TCU' revisited," Pragmatics, 6 (3), 427-454.
Fraser, B. (1981), "On apologizing," in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational
Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and
Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 259-271.
Fraser, B. (1990), "Perspectives on politeness," Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2),
219-236.
Fraser, B. and Nolen, W. (1981), "The association of deference with linguistic
form," International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
Fraser, B., Rintell, E. and Walters, J. (1980), "An approach to conducting
research on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second
language," in D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis in Second
Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 75-91.
Fujita, N. (2001), "Politeness in interaction: a discourse approach to Japanese
BIBLIOGRAPHY
201
politeness markers." Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,

New York.
Fukada, A. and Asato, N. (2004), "Universal politeness theory: application to
the use of Japanese honorifics," Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (11), 1991-2002.
Fukuda, C. (2005), "Children's use of the masu form in play scenes," Journal of
Pragmatics, 37 (7), 1037-1058.
Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. J. (1984), Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological
Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gofrman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books.
Goldberg, D. (1997), "Joking in a multi-disciplinary team: negotiating
hierarchy and the allocation of 'cases,'" Anthropology and Medicine, 4 (3),
229-44.
Goodwin, C. (1981), Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and
Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1987), "Concurrent operations on talk:
notes on the interactive organization of assessments," IPrA Papers in
Pragmatics, 1, (1), 1-54.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1990), "Interstitial argument," in A. D.
Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in
Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-117.
Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. (1990), "Conversation analysis," Annual Review of
Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
Goodwin, M. H. (1983), "Aggravated correction and disagreement in
children's conversations," Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (6), 657-677.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990), He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black
Children. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Grainger, K (2004), "Verbal play on the hospital ward: solidarity or power?,"
Multitingua, 23 (1-2), 39-59.
Grice, H. P. (1975), "Logic and conversation," in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan
(eds), Syntax and Semantics, 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.
41-58.
Gu, Y. (1990), "Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese," Journal of
Pragmatics, 14 (2), 237-257.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982), Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Halliday, M. A. K and Hasan, R, (1976), Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Haugh, M. (2004), "Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English
and Japanese," MuUiUngua, 23 (1-2), 85-109.
Held, G. (1989), "On the role of maximization in verbal politeness,"
Multilingua, 8 (2-3), 167-206.
Herbert, R. K (1989), "The ethnography of English compliments and
compliment responses: a contrastive sketch," in W. Oleksy (ed.),
Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3-35.
202
Heritage, J. (1984), "A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential

placement," in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 299-345.
Heritage, J. (1987), "Ethnomethodology," in A. Giddens andj. Turner (eds),
Social Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 224-272.
Heritage, J. (1989), "Current developments in conversation analysis," in D.
Roger and P. Bull (eds), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 21-47.
Heritage, J. (2004), "Conversation analysis and institutional talk," in D.
Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London:
Sage, pp. 222-245.
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005), "The terms of agreement: indexing
epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction," Social
Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1), 15-38.
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986), "Universals of
linguistic politeness: quantitative evidence from Japanese and American
English," Journal of Pragmatics, 10 (3), 347-371.
Hinds, J. (1978), "Conversational structure: an investigation based on
Japanese interview discourse," in J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds), Problems
in Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 79-121.
Hinds, J. (1982), Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
Holmes, J. (1986), "Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand
English," Anthropological Linguistics, 28 (4), 485-508.
Holmes, J. (1988), "Paying compliments: a sex-preferential politeness
strategy," Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (4), 445-465.
Holmes, J. (1989), "Sex differences and apologies: one aspect of communicative competence," Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 194-213.
Holmes, J. (1995), Women, Men, and Politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. (2000), "Politeness, power and provocation: how humour functions
in the workplace," Discourse Studies, 2 (2), 159-185.
Holmes, J. (2006), "Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humour and gender
in the workplace," Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (1), 26-50.
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002), "Over the edge: subversive humor between
colleagues and friends," Humor, 15 (1), 1-23.
Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (1999), "The community of practice: theories
and methodologies in the new language and gender research," Language
in Society, 28 (2), 173-183.
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2005), "Politeness, humor and gender in the
workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation," Journal of
Politeness Research, 1 (1), 121-149.
Holtgraves, T. (2005), "Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic
politeness," Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 73-93.
Houck, N. and Gass, S. M. (1996), "Non-native refusal: a methodological
perspective," in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds), Speech Acts across Cultures:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
203
Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 45-64.
House, J. and Rasper, G. (1981), "Politeness markers in English and German,"
in F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized
Communication Situations and Prepattemed Speech. The Hague: Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 157-185.
Hu, H. C. (1944), "Chinese concepts of'face,'" American Anthropologist, 46 (1),
45-64.
Ide, S. (1977), "Eigo keigo no rikai to hon-yaku" [Understanding and
translating English honorifics], Eigo Bungaku Sekai.
Ide, S. (1982), "Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women's language,'"
Lingua, 57 (2-4), 357-385.
Ide, S. (1989), "Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of
universals of linguistic politeness," Mutiilingua, 8 (2-3), 223-248.
Ide, S., Hill, B., Games, Y., Ogino, T. and Kawasaki, A. (1992), "The concept of
politeness: an empirical study of American English and Japanese," in R. J.
Watts, S. Ide and K Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its
History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. pp. 21-41.
Ide, S., Hori, M., Kawasaki, A., Ikuta, S. and Haga, H. (1986), "Sex differences
and politeness in Japanese," International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 58, 25-36.
Ikuta, S. (1983), "Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese
discourse," Language Sciences, 5 (1), 37-53.
Jary, M. (1998), "Relevance theory and the communication of politeness,"
Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (1), 1-19.
Jefferson, G. (1980), "On 'trouble-premonitory' response to inquiry7,"
Sociological Inquiry, 50 (3-4), 153-185.
Jefferson, G. (1984a), "On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to
inappropriately next-positioned matters," in J. M. Atkinson and J.
Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Jefferson, G. (1984b), "On the organization of laughter in talk about
troubles," in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 346-369.
Jefferson, G. (1988), "On the sequential organization of troubles talk in
ordinary conversation," Social Problems, 35 (4), 418-441.
Jefferson, G. and Lee, J. R. E. (1992), "The rejection of advice: managing the
problematic convergence of a 'troubles-telling' and a 'service encounter,' " Journal of Pragmatics, 5 (5), 399-422.
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987), "Notes on laughter in the
pursuit of intimacy," in G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and Social
Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152-205.
Kakava, C. (1993), "Conflicting argumentative strategies in the classroom," in
204
Georgetown University Round Tabk on Languages and Linguistics. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 402-420.
Kamio, A. (1979), "On the notion speaker's territory of information: a
functional analysis of certain sentence-final forms in Japanese," in G. D.
Bedell, K Inoue, E. Kobayashi and M. Muraki (eds), Explorations in
Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, pp. 213231.
Kamio, A. (1990), Joho no nawabari riron: gengo no kinoteki bunseki. Tokyo:
Taishukan Shoten.
Kanagy, R. and Igarashi, K. (1997), "Acquisition of pragmatic competence in a
Japanese immersion kindergarten," in L. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and
Language Learning, 8. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois,
Division of English as an International Language, pp. 243-265.
Kangasharju, H. (2002), "Alignment in disagreement: forming oppositional
alliances in committee meetings,9' Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (10-11), 14471471.
Kasper, G. (1990), "Linguistic politeness: current research issues," Journal of
Pragmatics, 14 (2), 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1994), "Politeness," in R. E. Asher andJ. M. Y. Simpson (eds), The
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp.
3206-3212.
Kasper, G. (2004), "Speech acts in (inter)action: repeated questions,"
Intercultural Pragmatics, 1 (1), 125-133.
Katriel, T. (1985), "Brogez: ritual and strategy in Israeli children's conflicts,"
Language in Society, 14 (4), 467-490.
Kemper, S. (1984), "When to speak like a lady," Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
10 (5-6), 435-443.
Kindaichi, H. (1982), Nihongo seminaa [A seminar on the Japanese language].
Tokyo: Kenkyuusha.
Kochman, T. (1981), Black and White Styles in Conflict. Chicago IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kotthoff, H. (1993), "Disagreement and concession in disputes: on the
context sensitivity of preference structures," Language in Society, 22 (2),
193-216.
Kotthoff, H. (2000), "Gender and joking: on the complexities of women's
image politics in humorous narratives," Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (1), 5580.
Kubota, T. (1990), Keigokyooiku no kihon mondai [Fundamental issues in the
teaching of honorifics]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo.
Kuno, S. (1973), The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Labov, W. (1972), Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English
Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977), Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as
Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
205
Lakoff, R. T. (1973), "The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's," in
C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds), Papers from the Ninth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, R. T. (1977), "What you can do with words: politeness, pragmatics, and
performatives," in A. Rogers, B. Wall andj. P. Murphy (eds), Proceedings of
the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implkatures.
Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 79-105.
Lakoff, R. T. (1979), "Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style," in J.
Orasanu, M. Slater and L. L. Adler (eds), Language, Sex, and Gender: Does
La Difference Make a Difference? New York: New York Academy of Sciences,
pp. 53-80.
Lakoff, R. T. (1989), "The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom
discourse," MuUilingaa, 8 (2-3), 101-129.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990), Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives.
Scranton, PA: HarperCollins.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lebra, T. S. (1976), Japanese Patterns of Behavior. Honolulu: University Press of
Hawaii.
Leech, G. N. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lerner, G. H. (1996), "Finding 'face' in the preference structures of talk-ininteraction," Social Psychology Quarterly, 59 (4), 303-321.
Levinson, S. C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locher, M. A. (2004), Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral
Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005), "Politeness theory and relational work,"
Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 9-33.
Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makino, S. (1983), "Speaker/listener-orientation and formality marking in
Japanese," Gengo Kenkyuu, 84, 126-145.
Makino, S. (2002), "When does communication turn mentally inward?: a case
study of Japanese formal-to-informal switching," in N. Akatsuka and S.
Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 10. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, pp. 121-135.
Manes, J. (1983), "Complimenting: a mirror of cultural values," in N. Wolfson
and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA:
Mao, L. R. (1994), "Beyond politeness theory: 'face' revisited and renewed,"
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
Matsumoto, Y. (1989), "Politeness and conversational universals: observations

from Japanese," Multilingua, 8 (2-3), 207-221.
Maynard, D. W. (1991), "On the interactional and institutional bases of
asymmetry in clinical discourse," American Journal of Sociology, 92 (2), 448495.
Maynard, D. W. (2003), Bad News, Good News, II: Conversational Order in
Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, S. K. (1989), Japanese Conversation: Self-Contextualization through
Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Maynard, S. K. (1993), Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the
Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McGloin, N. H. (1984), "Some politeness strategies in Japanese," in S.
Miyagawa and C. Kitagawa (eds), Studies in Japanese Language Use.
Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research, pp. 127-145.
McGloin, N. H. (1990), "Sex differences and sentence-final particles," in S.
Ide and N. H. McGloin (eds), Aspects of Japanese Women's Language. Tokyo:
Kuroshio, pp. 23-41.
Meier, A. J. (1995), "Defining politeness: universality in appropriateness,"
Language Sciences, 17 (4), 345-356.
Miller, P. (1986), "Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a White
working-<:lass community,", in B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds),
Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 199-212.
Mills, S. (2003), Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2003),
"Miryokuaru kyooshi" [Good teacher], http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/
shotou/miryoku/03072301 .htm
Moerman, M. (1988), Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mori, J. (1999), Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective
Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mulkay, M. (1988), On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mullany, L. (2004), "Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: humour
as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings,"
Multilingual (1-2), 13-37.
Nakayama, T. and Ichihashi-Nakayama, K (1997), "Japanese kedcr. discourse
genre and grammaticalization," in H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds), Japanese/
Korean Linguistics, 6. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 607-619.
Norrick, N. R. (1993), Conversational Joking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Nwoye, O. G. (1992), "Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the
notion of face," Journal of Pragmatics, 18, (4), 309-328.
Ochs, E. (1979), "Transcriptions as theory," in E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin
(eds), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 43-72.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
207
O'Driscoll, J. (1996), "About face: a defence and elaboration of universal

dualism," Journal of Pragmatics, 25 (1), 1-32.
Ohori, T. (1995), "Remarks on suspended clauses: a contribution to Japanese
phraseology," in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds), Essays on
Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 201-218.
Okamoto, S. (1998), "The use and non-use of honorifics in sales talk in Kyoto
and Osaka: are they rude or friendly?," in N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki,
S. Sohn and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 7. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications, pp. 141-157.
Okamoto, S. (1999), "Situated politeness: manipulating honorific and nonhonorific expressions in Japanese conversations," Pragmatics, 9 (1), 51-74.
Olshtain, E. (1983), "Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the
case of apology," in S. M. Gass and L. Selinker (eds), Language Transfer in
Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 232-249.
Olshtain, E. (1989), "Apologies across languages," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House
and G. Rasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 37-70.
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1983), "Apology: a speech act set", in N. Wolfson
and E. Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA:
Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987), "Complaints: a study of speech act
behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew," in J.
Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective:
Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 195-208.
Osvaldsson, K. (2004), "On laughter and disagreement in multiparty assessment talk," Text, 24 (4), 517-545.
Owen, M. (1983), Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in
Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pan, Y. (1995), "Power behind linguistic behavior: analysis of politeness
phenomena in Chinese official settings," Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 14 (4), 462-481.
Pike, K. L. (1967), Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of
Human Behavior (repr. of 1954 edn). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pomerantz, A. (1984), "Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some
features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes," inj. M. Atkinson andj.
Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Pomerantz, A. (1986), "Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing
claims," Human Studies, 9 (2-3), 219-229.
Potter, J. (1996), Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction.
London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2003), "Discourse analysis," in M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds),
Handbook of Data Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 607-624.
Potter, J. (2004), "Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring
208
talk," in D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and
Practice. London: Sage, pp. 200-221.

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

Raskin, V. (1985), Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Boston: Reidel.
Sacks, H. (1987), "On the preference for agreement and contiguity in
sequences in conversation," in G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds), Talk and
Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 56-69.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974), "A simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation," Language, 50, (4), 696735.
Saft, S. L. (2000), "Arguing in the institution: context, culture, and
conversation analysis in a set of Japanese university faculty meetings."
PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Salsbury, T. and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001), "'I know your mean, but I don't
think so': disagreements in L2 English," in B. F. Lawrence (ed.),
Pragmatics and Language Learning, 10. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language, pp. 131-151.
Scarcella, R. (1979), "On speaking politely in a second language," in C. A.
Yorio, K. Perkins and J. Schachter (eds), On TESOL '79. Washington, DC:
TESOL, pp. 275-287.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987), "Between macro and micro: contexts and other
connections," in J. Alexander, R. M. B. Giesen and N. Smelser (eds), The
Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 207234.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977), "The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation," Language, 53,
(2), 361-382.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1986), "Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's
interactions," in B. B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds), Language
Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
165-181.
Schiffrin, D. (1984), "Jewish argument as sociability," Language in Society, 13
(3), 311-335.
Schiffrin, D. (1985), "Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in
talk," in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 3, Discourse and
Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 35-46.

Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1990), "The management of a co-operative self during
argument: the role of opinions and stories," in A. D. Grimshaw (ed.),
Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
209
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1981), Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic

Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1983), "Face in interethnic communication," inj.
C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication.
London: Longman, pp. 156-188.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1995), Intercultural Communication: A Discourse
Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1971), "What is a speech act?," inj. R. Searle (ed.), The Philosophy
of Language. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 39-53.
Searle, J. R. (1975), "Indirect speech acts," in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds),
Syntax and Semantics, 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59-82.
Searle, J. R. (1976), "A classification of illocutionary acts," Language in Society,
5 (1), 1-23.
Shibatani, M. (1990), The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sifianou, M. (1992), "The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: modern
Greek versus English," Journal of Pragmatics, 17 (2), 155-173.
Sifianou, M. (1993), "Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition,"
Multilingua, 12 (1), 69-79.
Sifianou, M. (1995), "Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite?: silence
and FTAs," International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 95-110.
Simon, B. (2004), Identity in Modern Society: A Social Psychological Perspective.
Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005), "(Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport:
unpackaging their bases and interrelationships," Journal of Politeness
Research, 1 (1), 95-119.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Tanaka, A. (1971), "Bunmatsu, kumatsu no hyoogen no gohoo" [Sentencefinal and phrase-final expressions and words], Nihongo Nihonbunka, 6, 3771.
Tanaka, H. (2000), "The particle neas a turn-management device in Japanese
conversation," Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (8), 1135-1176.
Tanaka, H. (2005), "Grammar and the 'timing' of social action: word order
and preference organization in Japanese," Language in Society, 34 (3),
389-430.
Tannen, D. (1984), Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. (1986), That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Styk Makes or
Breaks Your Relations with Others. New York: Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
New York: Morrow.
Tannen, D. (1994), Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
210
Taylor, T. J. and Cameron, D. (1987), Analysing Conversation: Rules and Units in

the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Terkourafi, M. (2001), Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-based Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terkourafi, M. (2005), "Beyond the micro-level in politeness research,"
Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (2), 237-262.
Tholander, M. (2002), "Cross-gender teasing as a socializing practice,"
Discourse Processes, 34 (3), 311-338.
Tracy, K. (1990), "The many faces of facework," in H. Giles and W. P.
Robinson (eds), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester:
Wiley, pp. 209-226.
Trosborg, A. (1987), "Apology strategies in natives/non-natives," Journal of
Pragmatics, 11 (2), 147-167.
Trosborg, A. (1995), Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsuchihashi, M. (1983), "The speech act continuum: an investigation of
Japanese sentence final particles," Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (4), 361-387.
Ueno, T. (1971), "A study of Japanese modality: a performative analysis of
sentence particles." PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Usami, M. (2001), Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
van Dam, J. (2002), "Ritual, face and play in a first English lesson:
bootstrapping a classroom culture," in C. Kramsch (ed.), Language
Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. London:
Continuum, pp. 237-266.
Van De Walle, L. (1993), Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit: A Pilot Study in
Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Waring, H. Z. (2001), "Balancing the competing interests in seminar
discussion: peer referencing and asserting vulnerability," Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 12 (1), 29-50.
Waring, H. Z. (2002), "Expressing noncomprehension in seminar discussion,"
Waring, H. Z. (2005), "Peer tutoring in a graduate writing centre: identity,
expertise, and advice resisting," Applied Linguistics, 26 (2), 141-168.
Waring, H. Z. (2007), "Complex advice acceptance as a resource for managing
asymmetries," Text and Talk, 27 (1), 107-137.
Watts, R. J. (2003), Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (1992), Politeness in Language: Studies in its
History, Theory, and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Weizman, E. (1989), "Requestive hints," in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G.
Rasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex, pp. 71-95.
Weizman, E. (1993), "Interlanguage requestive hints," in G. Kasper and S.
Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 123-137.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
211
Wenger, E. (1998), Community of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Whalen, M. R. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1990), "Describing trouble: practical
epistemology in citizen calls to the police," Language in Society, 19 (4),
465-492.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985), "Different cultures, different languages, different
speech acts: Polish vs English," Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (2-3), 145-178.
Wolfson, N. (1981), "Invitations, compliments and the competence of the
native speaker,", International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8 (4), 7-22.
Wolfson, N. (1983), "Rules of speaking," inj. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt
(eds), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 61-87.
Wolfson, N. (1988), "The bulge: a theory of speech behavior and social
distance," in J. Fine (ed.), Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current
Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 21-38.
Wolfson, N. (1989), Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.
Wood, L. A. and Kroger, R. O. (1991), "Politeness and forms of address,"
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10 (3), 145-168.
Wooffitt, R. (1992), Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organisation of Factual
Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wooffitt, R. (2005), Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative
and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Wooffitt, R. and Clark, C. (1998), "Mobilising discourse and asocial identities
in knowledge talk," in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe (eds), Identities in
Talk. London: Sage, pp. 107-121.
Yamada, H. (1992), American and Japanese Business Discourse: A Comparison of
Interactional Styles. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Yedes, J. (1996), "Playful teasing: kiddin' on the square," Discourse and Society,
7 (3), 417-438.
Zimin, S. (1981), "Sex and politeness: factors in first- and second-language
use," International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 35-58.
Appendices
Appendix A
Transcription Conventions
[
the point where overlap begins
]
the point where overlap ends
=
latched utterance
(0)
intervals within and between utterances
(.)
a short untimed pause within an utterance
corlon
an extension of the vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater
lengthening)
.
a stopping fall in tone
,
a continuing intonation
?
a rising intonation
a halting or an abrupt cutoff of sound
underline an emphatic stress
CAPS
spoken louder
:
lengthened vowel sound (extra colons indicate greater
lengthening)
0
spoken softly
hhh
aspirations
?hhh
inhalations
(( ))
comments on quality of speech and context
> <
spoken quickly
(segment) uncertain transcription
( )
transcription impossible
(Adapted from Atkinson and Heritage 1984)
214
Appendix B
Japanese Transliteration Conventions
Cop
various forms of copula
FP
Int
Lk
Neg
Nom
O
Q
Qt
S
T
Tag
final particle
interjection
linking nominal
negative morpheme
nominalizer
object marker
question marker
quotation marker
subject marker
topic marker
tag-like expression
Index
action orientation 150

adjacency pair 35, 74
agreement 73-4, 76
alignment 51, 76-7, 95-6, 103, 159
amae4Q
analysis
discourse-level 32-5
qualitative 29, 71
quantitative 29, 43-4, 71
sentence level 32-4
Antaki, C. 49-50, 117
appropriateness 12-13, 53-4, 142-3,
179-81
Arundale, R. 4, 44, 60
assessment
first/second position 51. 76, 79-80
Atkinson, J. M. 34, 70, 74
Bakhtin, M. 120, 179, 187
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 47
Bilmes,J. 65
Blum-Kulka, S. 28-9, 31, 33, 45
Boggs, S. T. 34
Bourdieu, P. 4-5, 42, 50, 63, 120, 179,
187
Boxer, D. 97-9, 102-3, 123-5, 167, 178,
194n
Brown, P. 1, 3-5, 16-55, 61, 69, 73-4,
76, 98, 123, 149-50, 175, 177, 187-9,
191n, 194n
Brown, R. 27-8, 39
Cameron, D. 37, 74, 194-5n
Christie, C. 187
Clancy, P. M. 21, 192n
community of practice 3, 5, 12-13, 434, 50, 53-5, 57, 63, 113-14, 142, 188
conflict talk 34-5, 73-5
context 29-30, 62-6, 75, 98-9, 183-5,
187-8
"bucket theory" 63-4
contextualization cues 39
ethnographic 58, 65-6
social variables 29-30, 62, 71, 99
conversation analysis 29-30, 32-41, 5866, 75, 192n
conversational contract (CC) 13-14
conversational transgression 99-100.

105, 178-9
Cook, H. M. 27, 29, 44, 79, 82, 85, 94,
96, 102, 119, 177, 185, 192-3n
cooperative principle (CP) 14-16
Cortes-Conde, F. 97-9, 102-3, 178
culture 15, 20-3, 25-34, 38-40, 62-6.
74, 188
African-American 34
American 21, 31, 39-40
Chinese 18, 21-2, 26
Igbo 21, 26
Greek 21-2, 43, 74
Israeli 31
Japanese 21-2, 24-5, 27, 31, 40, 43-4
Jewish 34. 74
Western 21-2, 27
data 23, 27, 65-71, 183
collection 69-70
transcription 70-1
disagreement
collaborative 66, 73-96, 176-7
dissenter (first & second) 77, 80-1.
84, 86, 95-6, 176-7, 186
discourse analysis 32-41, 58-62, 191n
discourse markers 41, 185
discourse organization 35-8, 105, 1278
as facework 171-3
discursive politeness studies 4-6, 41-6,
63
discursive psychology 2, 38, 41, 49-50,
59, 191n
Drew, P. 34,52, 59, 64, 74,98-100,1025,108,110,114,123-4,126-7,130-1,
134, 141-2, 150, 178, 181, 194n
Durkheim, E. 18-20, 46-7, 189
Eckert, P. 12, 34, 43
Eder, D. 34, 97-8
Edwards, D. 2, 49-50, 58, 64, 126-7,
129-31, 134, 136, 138, 150, 165, 194n
Eelen, G. 1, 4-5, 13, 30-1, 37, 42, 44-5,
50, 60, 62, 99,120,142,175,179,183,
187
Egbert, M. 51, 59
216
emic/etic 31
event description 126-7, 149-151, 173
extreme case formulation 136
face
Brown & Levinson 16-26, 47-9, 1879
Goffman 16, 19-20, 38, 46-50, 52,
189
identity 48-52
institutional 68, 108, 113, 118-20,
128-9, 188
notion 16, 18-25, 46-7, 52-5
origin 1&-20
and politeness 52-5
positive/negative 16, 1&-20, 47, 1889
reconceptualization 7, 50-1, 53-5,
187-8
self-image 1, 4, 7, 16, 19, 47, 50-1
universal 18-23, 48, 188
wants 16, 22-3, 40, 47-8
face threatening act (FTA) 16-7, 27,
32-5
weightmess 17, 27, 48-9
facework 4, 6-7, 47-8, 51-5, 57-66,
183-90
conscious/unconscious 23, 26
discursive approach 6-7, 48, 51-5,
58-62
frame 38-9, 43, 102-3, 117-20
Fraser, B. 4, 11-14, 16, 19, 28, 31
Gender 12, 29, 43, 50, 125, 194n
Oilman, A. 27-8, 39
Goffinan, E. 16,18-20, 38, 46-9, 52, 55,
189
Goodwin, C. 34, 64, 71, 74-5
Goodwin, M. H. 34, 71, 74-5
Grice, H. P. 14-17
Gu, Y. 22, 26
habitus 42, 120
Haugh, M. 31
Held, G. 33
Heritage, J. 13-14, 29-30, 37, 51-2, 59,
63-4, 70, 74, 76, 79-80, 105, 176
Hill, B. 12, 22, 25-7
Holmes, J. 4-5,12, 29, 33, 43-4, 63,978
Holtgraves, T. 48-9
honorifics 24, 27, 43-4
Hu, H. C. 22
humor 97-122, 177-9
joking 97-100, 103
Ide, S. 12, 20-2, 25, 27, 31, 48

identity 37-8, 4&-52, 98-100
Ikuta, S. 85, 154, 193n
imposition 16-17, 27-9, 47-9
indirect complaint 124^7, 194n
institutional discourse 30, 64-5, 105,
127-8, 192n
interactional sociolinguistics 38-41
Japanese schools 67-9, 195n
faculty meetings 2, 67-9, 77, 123-4,
127-8
Jary, M. 53
Jefferson, G. 109, 123-7, 132, 134, 136
joking see humor
Kakava, C. 33, 73-4
Kangasharju, H. 76-7, 82-4, 91, 95
Kasper, G. 16, 25, 27, 29, 33, 44, 46
Lakoff, R. 4-5, 14-16, 25, 31, 34
Lave,J. 12
Leech, G. 4-5, 15-16, 25, 27, 31
Lerner, G. H. 37, 74
Levinson, S 1, S-5, 16-55, 61, 69, 73-4,
76, 98, 123, 149-50, 175, 177, 187-9,
191n, 194n
Locher, M. A. 4-5, 43-4, 47, 52-3, 7S-6,
181
Makino, S. 85, 193n
Mao, L. R. 21, 26, 48
masu form see register
Matsumoto, Y. 20-2, 48
Maynard, D. W. 64-6
Maynard, S. K. 27, 29, 82, 85, 102, 171,
185, 192-3n, 195n
Meier, A. J. 12
membership categorization 49-52, 99
Mills, S. K. 1, 4-5, 12, 43-5, 50, 61-3,
65, 114, 185, 191n
Moerman, M. 65
moral work 52, 126, 142
Nolen, W. 13
norms 12-13, 25-6, 37, 60, 114, 150,
188
Nwoye, O. 21-1, 26
O'Driscoll, J. 19, 22-3, 26-7, 47
objectification 126-7
Ochs, E. 70
Okamoto, S. 4,12, 24,27, 29,44, 82,85,
102, 193n
Pan,Y. 20-1, 26
INDEX
Parsonian world-view 42, 62

particle
contrastive 90, 142, 165, 181, 185-6,
194-5n
final 28, 79, 83, 85, 94-5, 166, 185-6,
192n
kedoW, 141-2, 157-9, 181, 185-6,
194-5n
n*79, 95^-6, 117, 119, 166, 169, 171,
177, 185-6, 192-3n
plain form see register
politeness
"conversational-contract" view 13-14
"conversational-maxim" view 14-16
discernment 12, 25-7, 96, 120-1,
177, 179, 185-7
evaluation 1-2, 6-7, 31-2, 45-6, 534, 176, 184
and face 52-55
"face-saving" view 16-17
first-order see poUtenessl
intentional/unintentional 26
Japanese see culture
politenessl 12, 22, 30-2, 42, 45-6,

52-3, 63, 183-4
politeness2 22, 3O-2, 42, 183-4
politic behavior 42-3, 52-3
positive/negative 24, 191n
second-order see politeness2
social index see discernment
"social-norm" view 12-13

strategic 25-7
superstrategies 17
volitional see strategic
Pomerantz, A. 35, 74,126,136,165,170
Potter, J. 2, 50, 58, 61, 64,130,138,140,
150, 157, 160, 191n
power 27-9, 3Sk41, 48-9
multidimensional model 39-40
unidimensional model 39
preference 35-8, 74
rapport 125-6
Raymond, G. 13-14, 29, 37, 51-2, 59,
74, 76, 79-80, 176
register
masuform 82, 96, 102, 120-1, 177-9,
186-7, 193n
plain form 82-3, 85, 95-6, 102, 120,
177-9, 186-7, 193n
217
relational work 52-3

relevance theory 43
ritual 20, 189
cults positive/negative 19-20, 189
Sacks, H. 35-6
Schegloff, E. 36, 64, 74, 84
Schifrrin, D. 34, 41, 73-4
Scollon, R. 4, 24-5, 39, 191n
Scollon, S. 4, 24-5, 39, 191n
service encounter 125
Sifianou, M. 21-2
social distance 15, 24, 27-8
speech act 16, 23, 27-9, 32-4, 191n
theory 32-4
Spencer-Oatey, H. 49
Sperber, D. 5, 43
subjectivity 41, 49-51, 126-7
Tannen, D. 24-5, 39-41, 73-4, 123-5,
134, 194n
teasing 6, 60, 64, 66, 97-122, 177-9,
184-5
biting tease 98-9, 178
bonding tease 64, 97-9, 103, 178
nipping tease 98-9, 178
pro-faced reaction 99, 114, 185
troubles talk 123-147, 150, 179-81,
194n
formulation 126-7
solidarity-building 125-6
Usami, M. 5, 43
Van De Walle, L. 27
vulnerability 132, 139
wakimae 25-6
Waring, H. 80, 95, 132, 138, 157, 170

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

1discourse and Politeness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1discourse and Politeness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse and Politeness

Also available from Continuum

Discourse and Politeness:

80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704

Naomi Geyer 2008

Politeness, Face, and Identity

Teasing and Humor

Talking about Troubles

List of Figures and tables

Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4)

First parts and their preferred and dispreferred

I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the teachers in

This page intentionally left blank

1.1 Politeness and Facework

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

presented largely intuitive assignments of linguistic behavior to categories

politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987), as a discursive reality, negotiated

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

1.2 Traditional and Discursive Politeness Studies

a quantitative (Terkourafi 2001, 2005, Usami 2001) perspective. Some of

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

The next section discusses in more detail how my project is positioned

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

1.4 Structure of the Study

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Chapter 2: Politeness, Face, and Identity

The core question of this study is this: how do interlocutors construct,

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

clarifying their characteristics, I will also point out current developments

Viewed through the lens of social norm, linguistic politeness is a standard

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

engaged in a particular task and have "a shared repertoire of negotiable

Fraser and Nolen conceptualize politeness in terms of the rights and

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

management of rights and responsibilities related to knowledge and

The conversational-maxim view is related to Grice's (1975) cooperative

maxim of quantity (to make one's contribution as informative as

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

posits, occurs on a continuum of social distance: clarity is associated with

tact maxim (minimize cost to hearer, maximize benefit to hearer)

Leech (1983) suggests that a number of scales are involved in determining

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

inherently impolite, requires mitigation. On the other hand, convivial

Among the approaches to politeness, Brown and Levinson's (1987) has

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

Figure 2.1 Super-strategies of politeness (1-4) (Adapted from Brown and

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

and psychological explanation for the phenomenon of politeness. The

Brown and Levinson (1987) introduced the notion of face as a universal

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

These cults are a system of ritual practices, performed to maintain a

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

interpretation in group-oriented cultures. For instance, the Japanese

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

group-oriented societies the boundaries of personal territory are less well

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

In a similar vein, O'Driscoll (1996) contrasts "foreground-conscious"

Since politeness in language has been chiefly discussed in conjunction

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS

Figure 2.3 Illustration of Brown and Levinson's (1987) negative and

POLITENESS, FACE, AND IDENTITY

DISCOURSE AND POLITENESS