Facework & Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse

Abstract

This paper places recent work on politeness and facework into a broader framework concerned with the analysis of multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Problems with Brown & Levinson's (1978) theory as applied to ongoing discourse are addressed. A schema is developed that can be used to interpret major strategic options available for the conducting of facework. A methodology for employing this interpretative approach is described and illustrated with case studies of courtroom discourse. Preliminary analyses provide support for the approach: it is applicable to ongoing discourse and has a coherent internal logic. Directions for future research are indicated.

Libelling Oscar Wilde: The case of Regina vs. John Sholto Douglas

“…However, as they do not breach the rules of the courtroom or involve an overt "intent to harm" (Goffman 1967: 14), I argue that they do not constitute impoliteness. I further argue that Carson's FTAs should not be considered "incidental" in nature, given they were more planned and more anticipated than Goffman's (1967: 14) definition seems to allow, and thus suggest that Carson's FTAs be recognized as sitting somewhere between Goffman's intentional or incidental levels Ϫ thanks, in part, to their manipulation of multiple goals (Penman 1990 …”

What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole?

“…While some authors use the terms self-presentation and impression management interchangeably (Leary-Kowalski 1990;Leary 1993;, others make a distinction between them, emphasizing that impression management involves the goal-directed control of the outer image of not only the actor but that of other persons, associations, entities, and ideologies as well; hence, impression management is a broader and more encompassing notion than self-presentation (Schlenker 1980;Schneider 1981). A third technical term also frequently employed for the description of approximately the same social phenomena is facework, which represents all kinds of behaviour consistent to either the speaker's or the hearer's face (Goffman 1955;Brown-Levinson 1978;1987;Penman 1990;Tracy 1990;Nwaye 1992;Mao 1994;Wood-Kroger 1994;Muntigl-Turnbull 1998).…”

“…To prevent these embarrassing situations, every community develops a set of face-saving acts, which, as mentioned earlier, is interpreted by Brown and Levinson (1978;1987) as the repertoire of (linguistic) politeness. An important difference is that Goffman concentrates on the performance of the actor, whereas politeness theory focuses primarily on the face wants of the hearer (Penman 1990;Tracy 1990;Wood-Kroger 1994). In addition, Brown and Levinson (1978, 66-9;1987, 61-4) give some individualistic content to the Goffmanian dramaturgical self, which does not meet the values of every culture (Nwaye 1992;Mao 1994).…”

“…In addition, Brown and Levinson (1978, 66-9;1987, 61-4) give some individualistic content to the Goffmanian dramaturgical self, which does not meet the values of every culture (Nwaye 1992;Mao 1994). In contrast with this, current research into self-presentation (1) regards facework not only as a defensive action directed towards the face needs of the hearer (Arkin 1981;Tedeschi-Norman 1985;Penman 1990); (2) stresses the interplay of private self-processes and interpersonal determinants in impression management (Schlenker 1985;Baumeister 1986;Leary-Kowalski 1990;Leary 1993); and (3), besides the institutionalized roles traced back to the closeness of the social structure and the rituality of interaction, allows for constructing individual faces or self-identification, which involves all the processes, means, or results of showing oneself to be a particular type of person, thereby specifying one's identity (Schlenker 1986, 23).…”

Improving Oral Fluency of EFL Students with Different Proficiency Levels through Explicit Instruction of Face Threatening Strategies

“…16 body language. It seems that politeness theory originally assumed that positive and negative face threats naturally occur during social interactions simultaneously (see Penman, 1990; Wilson, Kim, & Meischke, 1991). As a case in point, a face threatening act such as criticism can threaten positive face by signaling disapproval; however, it may also threaten negative face by signifying that the act being criticized should be changed, and by so doing, it restricts the freedom of the receiver.…”