Accordingly, two analysis sheets (appendix A) were designed; one to separate outer and

inner structures and the other to divide each transaction into exchange, move, head act,
pre head act, post head act, supportive facework upper-strategy, and non-supportive
facework upper-strategy.
3- Results and Discussion:
This section presents an analysis of facework in naturally occurring interactions where
three different transactions are investigated.
3.1. Eliciting Transaction:
Extracts of an eliciting transaction are taken from a single classroom interaction, and
cover three types of teaching exchanges, in addition to boundary exchanges: T-direct, Telicit for the purpose of getting information (referred to as elicit-supply (Tsui 97)) and Lelicit for the purpose of clarifying a point (referred to as elicit-clarify (Tsui 105)) .
3.1.1. T-Direct Exchange:
turn
no.
1

speaker

Outer

Inner

T (Distributing exam

these are your mistakes

papers after being

marked):
2

please look at the board and try to find the

mistake in each sentence and correct it.

all these are mistakes!

Yes there are many

Shaimaa

Only outer structure is used to organize the ongoing activity. While T is distributing the
exam papers after being marked, she opens the boundary exchange with a focusing move
(turn 1) that alerts Ls and directs attention to their mistakes. The move is non-supportive
face threatening, negatively marked non-politic. The opening move in the T-direct

14

includes three head acts of direct requests (turn 2), using the unmarked variant of the
requestive mood derivable strategy. The move is non-supportive face threatening.
However, Ts requests tend to give Ls the chance to regain face since she asks them to
find and correct their mistakes by themselves, besides being slightly mitigated by the
politeness/requestive marker please.
L responds to the requests by a statement (turn 3), marked as a question by intonation,
(Quirk et al 52 ), eliciting clarification or confirmation (Tsui 105), and seeking face
regaining. However, Ts follow up confirms the statement to continue the face
threatening process.
In this exchange, supportive facework is limited. Ls positive and negative faces are
threatened, yet collectively not individually: T does not attribute any mistake to any
specific L. She tends to save Ls faces by hiding names, discussing the mistakes as
common ones, and providing Ls the chance to correct the mistakes by themselves. In this
exchange T threatens Ls collective faces while saving their individual ones, which is
considered unmarked politic.
3.1.2. T- Elicit-Supply Exchange:
turn
no.
1

speaker Outer

Inner

They did not forgot, did they?

Ok the first sentence

Yes Khalid

did they?
Whats wrong? Whats wrong with
it? Yes
I think it is the verb.
yes the helping verb here carries the
tense: did not. So I dont have to
say again the past. Ok thats why it is
5
but when I use a helping verb, the
helping verb will carry the tense.
thats why

OK next one

points to the inner structure.

15

forget not forgot. I forgot

I didnt forget

The second exchange in the transaction starts and ends with boundary-framing moves
(turns 1 and 6) OK and OK next one, by which T enhances her face as a T who has
regulative/legitimate power.
Noticeably the Outer6 column is mainly used with brief sortie into the inner Dependent
(Willis 10). T initiates the teaching exchange by eliciting Ls answers using the mood
derivable strategy of requesting, specifically the marked elliptical imperative: first
sentence Khaled, which is unmarked politic.
Ls response does not provide the right answer (turn 2 inner), so Ts follow up tends to
save his face by ignoring his incorrect reply, and repeating her request in the form of an
identification question: whats wrong with it? (turn 3). In his answering move (turn 4),
he provides the right answer preceded by a hedge I think it is the verb. Ts follow up
move indicates acceptance and confirms Ls response to enhance his face and hers as
well. She further provides an explanation for the rule to enhance her positive face as
having expert power. The facework in this exchange is supportive, unmarked politic.
3.1.3 T- Elicit Exchange (Free) L- Re-Initiation Exchange ( L-elicit-supply
Bound) :
turn
no.
1

speaker Outer
T

Ok next one

no 3 Yes Mostafa

Inner

I met the man whom saw him yesterday.

I met the man who/whom I saw
yesterday

yes yes

This is the verb without the subject

do you remember: any English
sentence must have a subject and a
verb.

whom or who I saw yesterday

It denotes the occasional teacher correction or the supplying of an appropriate word or

phrase to help the discourse advance (Willis 10).

16

The first exchange elicit-supply reveals the same pattern shown in the previous exchange
with the exception of the closing framing move:
Ts boundary framing move Ts Opening move Ls Answering move Ts
Follow up move
The exchange reveals unmarked politic behavior with no noticeable supportive facework.
The unclosed exchange is developed into an L- elicit-clarify exchange as follows:
turn speaker Outer
no.
1
T
yes Riham

Inner

L1

him
...
7
{I am not convinced that I should delete
himin Arabic I say}

L1

L2

No the rule in English is different from that

of Arabic you are translating from
Arabic. It is not idea of meaning it is just
idea of grammar. the difference is in the
grammar of English. There are articles in
English that are not found in Arabic. How
can you translate it? it is not there


{I will put them into ease. In Arabic I may
say: I met the man who I saw, I dont have
to say the man who I saw him}
really OK thanks

L2

OK thanks next one.

{I met the man who I saw

him}

in Arabic it is the other way round. In

Arabic , the pronoun is added to the verb.
This is in Arabic ...
who I saw I saw what

In this exchange bound to T-elicit, T starts with the boundary framing move (turn 1). The
teaching exchange is re-initiated by the move of L1 who comments on the previous
correction, eliciting clarification: I am not convinced that I should delete him. By her
7

Translation of Arabic utterances is included between braces { }.

17

move, L1 defies Ts expert power and threatens her face. However, L1 immediately
provides a supportive facework strategy by giving a reason or a grounder for her
comment. In her answering move (turn 3), T replies, expressing disapproval by
explaining the rule in Arabic, in an attempt to save and regain her face. L1 reopens the
exchange by another move (turn 4) in which she elicits further clarification. In response,
T continues stating rules of grammar in English and Arabic to enhance her face. In turn
6, L2 interrupts and provides a response that enhances L2s face and seemingly saves Ts
face. However, L2 unintentionally threatens Ts face, since the move indicates Ts lack
of knowledge.
Ts follow up move (turn 7) includes the acts of evaluate, showing surprise, to lose her
own face, and thanking to show gratitude to L2 and enhance his positive face. To
further enhance his face as a knowledge provider, L2 repeats his response (turn 8).
Finally, T closes the exchange with a boundary framing move that includes frame,
thanking and focus acts OK thanks next one to regain her face as a T.
3.2. Directing Transactions:
To reveal some of the strategies used by T to get L make a presentation, two directing
transactions are taken from two different interactions. In the following exchanges, T
chooses or nominates one of the Ls to make the presentation. Noticeably, both directing
exchanges reveal completely different facework strategies.
3.2.1. T-Direct Exchange:
turn speaker Outer
no.
We will have our first presentation with a a a
1
T
2

whats your name?

Soad

Soad come here Soad

you havent decided

you will make a presentation No you

presentation
X X ( make it an exception)

No I dont have excuses no I dont have

excuses

OK . Marwa ...

18

Inner

This transaction is made of a boundary and two T-direct exchanges. In turn (1), T starts
with a boundary framing move that acts as a metastatement: we will have our
presentation with expressing his confident belief that the future event presentationwill take place. By using this strategy, T guarantees the future compliance of L, which
implies Ts superiority over L. However, it is internally mitigated by the use of we and
our to indicate that T and L are included in the activity as cooperators. This limited
supportive facework is unmarked politic.
The first T-direct exchange is opened immediately asking L about her name, (turn 1) to
reduce distance, seek affinity, and give her face. L replies (turn 2), and Ts follow up
move nominates L to make the presentation.
T opens the second T-direct exchange by making a direct request to L using the mood
derivable strategy (turn 3), reducing again distance by nominating her, an unmarked
politic behavior. L refuses to comply by making a claim (turn 4), to threaten Ts and Ls
faces. Noticeably, turn 4 marks the start of a series of reciprocal face threatening acts.
Ts follow up move is silence, ignoring Ls rejecting response and repeats the request
using the direct locution derivable strategy (turn 5), threatening Ls face employing no
supportive facework strategies. L is expected to comply, so as to close the exchange and
save her face. But as shown in turn 6, Ls response is non-compliance, ignoring Ts
request and making a plea to lose her face as a L, a negatively marked non-politic
behavior. Ts follow up move is explicit refusal (turn 7) to damage Ls face.
Ignoring L, T ends the exchange by a boundary framing move and nominates another L
to make the presentation (turn 8).
As indicated in the analysis, starting from turn 4, T and L exchanged face-threatening
acts. While the acts of T are regarded as unmarked politic given his powers as a T, those
of L are negatively marked and non-politic.
In this exchange, it is noted that a negative atmosphere prevailed and disharmony
between T and L escalated for several reasons:
1- The line T took in the interaction showed only one face: the face of a T with
regulative and threat powers. His unmarked behavior did not help in preventing
communication breakdown. Ts main concern was to save his own positive face.

19

2- T did not maintain poise8 (Goffman), which is one main type of facework, while
trying to regulate expressive order.
3- Ls face was hurt baldly because she did not save her face as an L who is expected to
comply to Ts requests and fulfill her learning and relational needs.
3.2.2. T-Direct Exchange:
Turn
no.

speaker Outer

Inner

Our program today we will have two or three presenters.

We are going to have presentations Yes Go ahead

Ls

X X X9

but somebody must be prepared for it. May be Tarek , may be Khaled.

Ls

XXX

Ls

Ls

yeah In this course Id like you to speak , speak and speak . So whos ready to
stand here and speak ha ha. Id like
to be
democratic.

{I
dont want to corner any one of you}
XXX

10

who would like to be a volunteer. No volunteers, no democracy

11

Ls

XXX

OK what do you think we are going to do

presentations

{yesterday we said that today there will be
presentations} Lets talk about .. anything. Yeah
XXX

12 T
yeah {look the most important thing is to come
here and speak}
13
L1
{ I may try I may speak}
14

Good Ghada first We are all here one family. Dont be afraid. Dont be shy.
All people make mistakes even your teacher makes mistakes

15

Ok Ghada. she will perform a presentation Ok you can start now

Poise is the capacity to suppress and conceal any tendency to become shamefaced

during encounters with others (Goffman 216). Poise is an important type of facework
because through poise one controls his embarrassment and hence the embarrassment that
he and others might have. According to Bousfield, poise, along with other traits, is
considered by students a valuable personal quality of a teacher (qtd. in Chesebro and
Wanzer 102)
9

X indicates that Ls are mumbling and no clear response is heard.

20

The transaction includes two main exchanges: Boundary and T-direct. In the Boundary
focusing metastatement, T enhances his positive face by showing regulative/legitimate
power, which is unmarked, politic. Although showing that he is the one in control by
setting the class agenda, T tends to use the pluralization form of you and I: we, our.
In the T-Direct Exchange, T makes six Opening and Reopening moves before he gets a
verbal reply from L. In his moves, the head act, which is making a request, is preceded
or followed by other acts that are meant as mitigating devices or boosters. In turns 2, 4,
and 6, T uses direct requestive strategies: locution derivable We are going to have
presentations, somebody must be prepared for it; and mood derivable Go ahead ,Lets
talk about .. any thing. To mitigate the force of the direct acts, which are face damaging,
he attempts to save Ls negative face by employing several supportive facework
strategies: (turns 2 & 4) impersonalizing the request by using we, somebody followed by
hedging post act May be Tarek , may be Khaled; (turn 6) minimizing the imposition
anything, preceded by getting Ls involved what do you think we are going to do, stating
grounders yesterday we said that today there will be PRESENTATIONS. In turns 8 and
10, T uses conventionally indirect requests by questioning Ls willingness to participate:
whos ready to stand here and speak; who would like to be a volunteer, by which he
tends to save Ls face by giving options, impersonalizing, and understating. These acts,
however, are followed by the non-supportive face damaging acts of warning Id like to be
democratic {I dont want to corner any one of you}; and threat No volunteers no
democracy, regarded as unmarked politic. In turn 12, following the non-supportive
facework, T uses non-conventionally indirect request/advice the most important thing is
to come here and speak, to attend to Ls interests and show care. These supportive
facework strategies are noticed and, thus, considered positively marked politic.
The opening and reopening moves by T are received with Ls silence or some mumbling,
indicating their refusal or unwillingness to comply, and damaging their face as Ls. Their
silence in 3rd and 5th turns are unmarked politic since Ls are expected to be embarrassed
and afraid of losing their face. In turns 7, 9, and 11, Ls silence moves are considered
negatively marked non-politic, since it damages Ts face. Finally in turn 13, one of the
Ls makes a verbal answering move to comply hesitantly and save her own face, which is

21

unmarked politic. Ts follow-up move is the act of praise which he boosts with advice:
dont be afraid. dont be shy; and self-criticism: all people make mistakes even your
teacher makes mistakes. By the act of advice, T attends to Ls interests and shows care,
which is positively marked politic. In the self-criticism act, T tends to lose his own face
for the sake of Ls, which may be regarded as negatively marked non-politic over-polite.
T closes the transaction with Boundary framing/focusing move to enhance his positive
face, which is unmarked politic.
In this transaction, it is noticeable that T has preserved his poise and continued doing
facework despite Ls negative responses. He enhanced his face as a T who has regulative
power that enables him to open, regulate and end exchanges. T has exercised all sorts of
power he has: knowledge, reward, regulative, and threat.
The facework strategies he chose and poise helped him regulate expressive order,
encourage class cooperation, and gradually produce positive responses, which resulted in
creating immediacy and affinity in the classroom.
3.3. Informing Transaction:
Turn
no.

speaker Outer

Inner

next

sound /s/ as in
/ds/ which
means

L1

we have the

{ we have here
students who have recently joined faculty of medicine, we will listen how she
pronounces it}
/ dz/ { / dz/ is more chic}

again it is / ds/
not / dz/

L1

/ dz/
{you think / dz/ is more chic, you Marwa the ruthless}
/ ds/{ weak}

{come on lets check our dictionaries}

Heba use your dictionary

L2

10

11

L2

12

{ at home}

{ what is it doing at home?}

{Ill see if there is a dictionary in this desk}
Ill check
{ no need Dr. no need Dr.}
{ how would you know if I am right
or wrong?}

22

13

L2

{ there is trust}

14

L3

Mr { next time Mr. put a wrong

word to force them to check it}

15

Ok

16

how is it pronounced Mr. Gamal /s/ or /z/?

17

L4

18

19

Ls

20

L3

21

, / ds/ verb and

noun
/s/

but in Egypt here how do we pronounce it?

/ dz/
cans dosa
{do YOU know Mr. in German dosa means cans}
Ok no. 5

This transaction is made of Boundary and Teaching exchanges, free and bound. The
Teaching exchange includes a free T-inform exchange, in addition to a T-repeat, three Telicit, a T-direct, a T-offer, an L-direct, and an L-inform that are bound to the T-inform.
T starts and ends the transaction with boundary framing moves (turns 1 and 21) to
enhance his face by showing regulative/legitimate power, unmarked politic.
In the T-inform exchanges, Ts opening moves are unmarked politic as he enhances his
face as having expert power. Following the first T-inform (turn 2 inner) comes the first
T-elicit exchange. The opening move (turn 2 outer) includes two acts: the head act elicitsupply, preceded by the act of state, nominating an L and justifying his nomination: we
have here students who have recently joined faculty of medicine, we will listen how she
pronounces it, to give and save Ls face. In her answering move (turn 3), L1 performs
the act of evade by criticizing: / dz/ is more chic, which would have been nonsupportive facework if she had not used banter and joking, yet it is negatively marked
behavior. In the follow up move (turn 4 outer), T tends to save his face by banter and
joking: you think / dz/ is more chic, you Marwa the ruthless, seeking immediacy, a
positively marked politic behavior. In the T-repeat (turns 4 inner, and 5), T repeats the
same piece of information to regain his face, while the marked follow-up move of L1
(turn 5) evaluates Ts information: / ds/ weak, which would have been considered nonsupportive facework, unless she had not saved Ts and Ls face by using banter and
joking again.
Such a move urges T to open a T-direct by making requests and nomination (turns 6 and
7) to re-gain his face, which is unmarked politic. L2 answers by an evade act (turn 8)
23

which threatens Ls face, a negatively marked non-politic behavior. Ts follow up is a

blame act by which he threatens Ls face, yet an unmarked politic behavior.
Following the blame act, T opens a T-offer exchange (turns 10, 11, 12, and 13), which is
face supportive, giving L2 the chance to regain face, a positively marked politic behavior.
Although Ls answering move is made of a reject act: no need Dr. no need Dr, yet it
tends to save Ts negative face by using deference (turn 11), a positively marked politic
behavior. In his follow-up move, T questions his credibility: how would you know if I am
right or wrong, to lose his face, which is a negatively marked non-politic behavior. Ls
follow up move (turn 13) is a compliment act: there is trust, to save Ts face, a positively
marked politic behavior. The T-offer exchange is closed by an L-direct (turn 14) in
which L3 gives a piece of advice to T: next time Mr. put a wrong word to force them to
check it. By this act, L3 threatens his face, a negatively marked behavior, slightly
mitigated by giving deference term of address.
Following the L-direct, T initiates two T-elicit exchanges (turns 16, 17, 18, and 19)
which are made of two moves only, T-Opening and L-Answering. In these two
exchanges, T enhances his face, which is unmarked politic and saves Ls face by
deference and referring to the mistake as a common one, a positively marked politic
behavior. In their answering moves, Ls tend to enhance their face as Ls, an unmarked
politic behavior.
The teaching exchange ends with an L-inform one-move exchange (turn 20), in which
she provides a new piece of information: do YOU know Mr. in German dosa means cans,
which threatens Ts face as the knowledge provider in class, yet slightly mitigated with
the use of deference term of address.
In this transaction, age-based variation is detected: young Ls, males and females, while
showing their relational needs, by employing banter and joke, they show respect and give
deference to T, which symbolizes their subordination to T. Old Ls, on the other hand,
have the face of some one in a higher status, who is keen on showing self-respect, saving
his own positive and negative face and refusing to accept or make jokes.
4- Conclusion:
This study is an attempt to analyze and reveal some of the supportive and non-supportive
facework strategies employed by both Ts and Ls in Egyptian EFL classroom interactions.

24

The interaction is hierarchically segmented into transactions, exchanges, moves, and acts,
following Sinclair and Coulthard. The faces of T and L are analyzed into constituents,
and the facework is classified into supportive and non-supportive upper-strategies, under
which come strategies and sub-strategies. Having analyzed naturally occurring classroom
transactions, the following findings are reached:
I- Ts tend to use the following supportive facework upper-strategies when
interacting with Ls:
1- Saving Ls positive face detected only in T-elicit exchanges in which T adopted the
following strategies:
A- Showing reward power by:
thanking L for providing correct knowledge ;
accepting and confirming Ls responses in the follow-up move;
B- Attending to Ls relational needs and attaining their relational goal by:
nominating L by name;
discussing mistakes as common ones;
providing Ls the chance to correct their own mistakes by themselves;
overlooking incorrect answers and repeating the question;
using banter and joking.
These strategies are considered unmarked politic since they are conventionally used by
Ts.
2- Saving Ls negative face in T-direct exchanges, whenever s/he uses the direct
requestive strategies, by employing the following strategies:
A- Not showing coercive power by:

giving options;
using understaters;
using hedges;
minimizing the imposition.

These strategies may be considered positively marked politic.

B- Showing integrative power by:

including L and T in the same activity by the use of pluralization;

stating grounders.

These strategies may be considered unmarked politic.

3- Enhancing Ls face in T-direct exchanges by employing the following strategies:
A- Showing reward power by:
25

 giving advice;
making offers.
These strategies may be considered positively marked politic
4- Saving her/his own face in T-inform and T-direct exchanges, when s/he is about to fall
out of line or to lose face, by using any of the following strategies:
A- Showing integrative power by:

using banter and joking.

This strategy may be considered positively marked politic

B- Showing expert power by:

repeating the same piece of information.

This strategy may be considered unmarked politic.

C- Showing legitimate power by:

repeating request.

This strategy may be considered unmarked politic.

5- Enhancing her/his own face by the following strategies:
A- Showing regulative power by:
starting and ending transactions by boundary framing moves (used in all
exchanges);
opening a teaching exchange ;
nominating Ls in T-elicit and T-direct.
These strategies may be considered unmarked politic.

B- Showing expert power in T-elicit and T-inform exchanges by:

imparting information;
accepting Ls responses in the follow up move;
explaining rules;
evaluating Ls answers.
These strategies are considered unmarked politic.
6- Losing her/his negative face:
A- Showing integrative power by :

making an offer.

This strategy is regarded as positively marked politic.

II-Ls are likely to use the following supportive facework upper-strategies when
interacting with Ts:

26

1- Saving Ts face when refusing to comply with a request in T-direct, T-elicit and Toffer by the following strategies and sub-strategies:
A- Addressing Ts legitimate power by:

giving deference.

This strategy is considered unmarked politic.

B- Addressing Ts integrative power by:

using banter and joking;

paying compliments.

These strategies may be considered positively marked

2- Saving their own face in T-direct, and T-elicit by the following strategies and substrategies:
A- Fulfilling relational needs by:

impersonalizing mistakes;
using banter and joking when refusing to comply;
using hedges.

These strategies may be considered positively marked politic.

B- Showing verbal responsiveness by:

Responding positively to T.

This strategy is considered unmarked politic.

3-

Enhancing their own face in T-elicit and L-elicit by the following strategies and sub-

strategies:
A- Showing verbal responsiveness by:

imparting new information;

responding positively to T.

These strategies may be considered unmarked politic

B- Seeking to fulfill educational and learning needs:

Eliciting new information from T.

This strategy may be considered positively marked politic.

III- Ts may threaten Ls face by adopting the following non-supportive facework
strategies:
A- Showing legitimate power in all exchanges by:
27

Nominating Ls;

Eliciting Ls responses;

Denying an Ls request.

These strategies are considered unmarked politic.

B- Showing coercive power in T-direct exchanges by:

Blaming Ls for a wrongdoing;

Warning Ls of consequences;

Threatening Ls with a punishment.

These strategies may be considered negatively marked but politic.

IV- Ts may lose their positive face when they follow the non-supportive strategy of:
A- Belittling their expert power by means of :

self-criticism;

admitting mistakes;

questioning their own credibility;

showing lack of knowledge.

These strategies may be considered negatively marked non-politic.

V-Ls may threaten Ts face by the following non-supportive strategies and substrategies :
A- Defying Ts expert power in L-elicit, Telicit and T-direct exchanges:

showing disagreement and non-conviction;

imparting new information, unknown by T;

giving advice to T.

These strategies may be considered negatively marked non-politic.

B- Defying Ts legitimate power in T-direct:

resisting his commands.

This strategy is considered negatively marked non-politic

VI-Ls tend to lose their own face by the following non-supportive strategy and substrategy:
A- Showing lack of verbal responsiveness in T-elicit and T-direct:

Resisting Ts commands and requests.

This strategy is considered negatively marked non-politic.

28

These findings provide answers to the questions of the study. Furthermore, the upper
strategies revealed in the exchanges under study are found consistent with the categories
suggested by Flowerdew. However, evaluating facework strategy as unmarked politic, or
positively marked politic or negatively marked politic has been problematic. The
researcher has evaluated facework strategies as unmarked or marked only on the basis of
her personal experience as a T, which is considered a limitation of the study. That is why
the findings of the study need to be evaluated by both Ts and Ls to determine by
themselves what they consider unmarked or marked, politic or non-politic, appropriate or
inappropriate.

29