Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For B&L, conflict and cooperation are fundamental: For Watts, B&L are focused on a model person who
does things to guarantee:
"From a gross ethological perspective, • "The universal need of individual human
perhaps we can generalize somewhat: the beings to be valued, respected, appreciated in
problem for any social group is to control its social groups, i.e. that the self-image that an
internal aggression while retaining the individual has constructed of her/himself
potential for aggression both in internal should be accepted and supported by others,
social control and, especially, in external and
competitive relations with other groups" • "The universal right of individual human
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 1). beings to relative freedom of thought and
○ See also Maynard-Smith on Origins of action, i.e. to perceived 'territory', in both the
Social Behavior, B&L say. literal and metaphorical senses of the term"
(Watts 2003: 101).
The hearer • The first is positive face, the second is
Watts (2003) argues that B&L offer a production negative face.
model of politeness that leaves the hearer pretty
much out in the cold (only the hearer's face needs Watts takes pains to say that B&L get face from
are considered, says Watts 2003: 51). Goffman but don’t use it as he intended. For Watts,
the key to Goffman's notion of face is that it is "not
Hearers in B&L aren't absent, of course (how could something that the individual somehow builds for
they be?) her/himself, which then needs to be supported and
respected in the course of interaction, but is rather
"The uses of each [politeness strategy] are 'public property', something which is only realised
tied to social determinants, specifically the in social interaction and is dependent on others"
relationship between speaker and addressee (Watts 2003: 107).
and the potential offensiveness of the • It is a mutual construct (see also de Kadt
message content" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 1998: 176). "An interactant will not merely
2). need to avoid certain behaviours, but will be
expected to produce certain other behaviours"
In their 1987 introduction, B&L say that they would (1998: 177, cited by Watts 2003: 107).
probably drop some of the speech act stuff (though
they still think it's handy as a shorthand). Part of Accepting Goffman's notion of face means "we are
the reason has to do with the hearer: constrained to accepting that we are attributed face
socially in accordance with the line or lines we have
"Speech act theory forces a sentence-based, adopted for the purposes of the communicative
speaker-oriented mode of analysis, requiring interaction. This leads to two logical conclusions,
attribution of speech act categories where our firstly that we can be assigned different faces on
own thesis requires that utterances are often different occasions of verbal interaction, and
equivocal in force" (Brown and Levinson 1987: secondly that all social interaction is predicated on
10). individuals' face needs, i.e. that we can never get
○ See Rosaldo (1982) for a critique of away from negotiating facework" (Watts 2003: 259).
speech act theory based on the Ilongot
of the Philippines--do they interpret Significance of the work
each other in terms of expectations of "We believe that patterns of message construction,
group membership/role or 'ways of putting things', or simply language
structures/situational constraints and usage, are part of the very stuff that social
Giddens apparently suggests (1973: 15), that If you assume contra B&L that patterns of
interactional systematics are a retreat from central message construction have purely rule-based
issues of sociology. B&L argue that it's a crucial way origins, then you have "alternations" and "co-
"in which abstract sociological concepts can be occurrence rules" (Ervin-Tripp 1972) or rules for
Watts argues that speakers and addressees work Habitus: A state of being; a demeanor, manner or
together to create some form of common bearing; the style of dress or toilet (in Latin). "The set
understanding among themselves, even if that of dispositions to act in certain ways, which generates
means they understand they can't or won't ever cognitive and bodily practices in the individual"
agree. (Watts 2003: 149). There are two aspects in Bourdieu's
idea: (i) the habitus shapes how individuals
"An utterance made by a speaker and directed internalize social structures to use them in ongoing
at an addressee is a social act, and an interactions, (ii) in instances of ongoing interaction,
addressee deriving a set of inferences from the habitus generates practices and actions--so it's
that utterance to enable her/him to respond responsible for both the reproduction and the change
in some way is carrying out another kind of of social structures.
social act. But both acts are essential to socio-
communicative verbal interaction, and both M- m- m- money changes everything
acts are embedded in the ongoing emergent At the heart of Watts' work on politeness1 are notions
development of an interpersonal relationship. of metaphorical goods/payment. But he is cautious
The goal of a theory of linguistic politeness to point out that these metaphors shouldn't imply
which takes (im)politeness1 as its starting harmony and equilibrium as some have taken them to
point should not be to explain why speakers be (Sifianou, for example).
say what they say and to predict the possible • See also Werkhofer (1992) and O'Driscoll (1996)
effects of utterances on addressees. It should for explicit comparisons between the social
aim to explain how all the interactants power of politeness and the social power of
engaged in an ongoing verbal interaction money (discussed in Watts 2003: 111).
negotiate the development of emergent • One way of seeing it is to see politeness as a
networks and evaluate their own position and factor mediating between individual and the
the positions of others within those networks. group (like money).
(Im)politeness then becomes part of the • "As a private good, the key to understanding the
discursive social practice through which we nature of money is to consider the ways in
create, reproduce and change our social