-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
1/20
Pragmatics:l.l-70.International ragmatics ssociation
A MULTILEVEL APPROACHIN THE STUDYOF TALK.IN.INTERACTIONI
Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni
IntroductionThe beginning of researchon the functioning of
conversationsand other forms oftalk- in- interact ion an be dated
back to the late 60's, a period where this subjectbecamea more or
less autonomous field of research.This researchhas now
reachedmaturity (provided that one accepts his anthropomorphic
metaphor...). Although I donot intend to give a 'state of the art'
survey, I would like to consider here some of therecentdevelopments
n interactional inguistics.A preiiminary question is: given a
definition of this field as covering any studyapproaching whatever
form of talk-in-interaction on whatever perspective,
whatconventional erm should be used for labelling this field?
French literature commonlyuses'analysedes nteractionsverbales'2(in
English: 'verbal interactionsanalysis', thatis 'ViA'). It is
doubtless,anyhow, that in our perspective conversationanalysis' is
too
restrictive, or two reasons:- considering he object of
investigation, conversations'are only one of the numerousdifferent
ypesof verbal interactions(even though one can admit it to be
prototypical)3;- considering he methodological aspects, CA' refers
to a particular approachwhich iswell defined from both a historical
and methodological point of view; but interactionanalyses re also
basedon other descriptive raditiois than ethnomethodology- let
usquote, among others: symbol ic interact ionism (Goffman), the
ethnography ofcommunication(Hymes), interactional sociolinguistics
(Gumperz), discourse analysisas represented y Labov &
Fanshel,or Sinclair & Coulthard ('school of Birmingham'),and
more recent ly by the 'school of Geneva' ( the so cal led
'hierarchical model 'elaborated y E. Roulet).Verbal
interactionsanalysis,when consideredextensively,has been
characterizedfrom the very beginning by an extreme variety of the
recommended approaches.Thisvariety was later both reduced (since CA
soon became the 'hard core' of this field in
t This is a revised version of my paper presentedat the 5th
International PragmaticsConferenceorganized y IPrA (Mexico City,
July 4th-9th 1996).Somecriticismswere voicedat this lecture.
havetaken hese bservationsnto account or this second ersion. am
very thankful to E. Schegloff or hisremarkswhich mademe awareof the
misunderstandings hich some brmulations n my original papercould
ead o.Someof thesemisunderstandings ere the result of imprecise
ranslation.This presentversionof mywork has beenentirely
correctedby GiuseppeManno, whose kind and thorough collaboration
amsincerely hankful for.2 By verbal nteraction refer to any form of
communicativeexchangewhich is producedmainly bylinguisticmeans.3
Initially, specialists f CA used conversation'in an inclusiveway
for designating ny type of
verbalinteractionSchegloff1968:1075-6,Goodwin l98l: l, etc.).They
pref'er ow asa generic erm 'talk-in-interaction', hich n effect s
preferablen all respects.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
2/20
C atheine Kerbrat -Orecchioni
s t rengthen ing nd re f in ing i ts analy t ical oo ls ) , and
inc reased part icular iy s inceinteract ionism,having crossed he
borders of the USA where it was born. becameprogressively mplanted
in other countr ies,where it was exposed o local int luences.Thus,
whereas n the USA the analysisof verbal nteract ions as
developedmainly inthe f ield of sociology, in France, t was
adoptedprincipai lv by l inguists,where, as aresult , here s a
strong ink betweenconversat ion nalysisand discourse nalysis.In the
present ar t ic le, I wou ld l i ke to emphas ize he fo l low ing
two aspecrsoccurr ingwithin the saidvarietyon the interact ionist
cene:l. the variety concerning he interact ional enres hat
aresubmit ted o invest igat ion2. the varietyconcerning he explored
evelsof analysis,and I shal l be deal ing more specif ical lywith:-
the mechanismof three-party onversat ions oncerning1.- and the
quest ionof face-work and pol i teness oncerning2.1. Interactional
genres1.1. The concernsof CA are aboveal l 'general ' .The aim in
the f i rst place s to ident i fyfrom among a large variety of
natural data the mechanismsunderlying the functioningof any form of
talk- in- interact ion.As far as the turn-taking system s
concerned, oiexample, Sacks & al. consider that the main
question
s:;IiT#':il:Hil::o;?"",'"x".To,iTffi:":*:il.":il:JJ:?"ii:#part
icular i t iesf contentr context ."1978:10)This objective is
without doubt eminently ustif ied. However, one can also be
interestedin some particular type of interaction or other and try
to make out the specificity of itsfunctioning with respect o
contextualfeatures. n this sense,we note that
interactionistsinitially privileged some communicative genres,such
as interactions n classrooms, nmedical se t t ings or in cour t
room set t ings. Subsequent ly however , there wasconsiderable
diversification of the subjectssubmitted to analysis, and today,
one canhardly f ind any type of speechevent which has not been
given attent ionby ipecial ists- both informal interactions and the
most institutionahzed ones4.Let us mention atrandom: the big famrly
of interactions in media or service encounters (shops of anykind,
banks, post off ices, t icket off ices at the subway station,
etc.); interact ions nworking situations(at the office, in
companies, n factories, n garages)5,nteractions nair-traff ic
control , in job interviews, in parl iamentary debates, in academic
ord ip lomat ic set t ings: at open-ai r markets , at auct ion
sales,a t the for tunetel ler 's . . . ,alongside certain
communicat ion forms related to new technologies l ike
person-machine dialogue or computer-mediated-communicat ion, about
which abundantliterature s developing at the moment.
+ See or exampleVincent 1995, or the analysis f a ' forgotten'
type of communicat ive i tuat ion, ndyet a frequentone: he most
ordinaryoral activity which accompanieshe most rivial
domesticactivities- Vincentshows hat t represents sort of chal
lengeo the conversat ionaluleswhich are general lyassumed,uchas
hepr inciple Icondi t ional elevanceal thoughheyarenotsol i
loques,omemovesareactual lynot made n order o sol l ic i t any
react ion iom the otherpart ic ipants ho are present n thecommun
ica t i veoace) .5 The analyst 's askhere s to seehow discourse
hich s exchangecin di f ferent i tuat ions f th is kindfaci l i
tateshe circulat ion f knowledge nd know-how, he coordinat ion f
everyone's ct iv i ty,and hesolut ionof the problems hat one
comesacross ur ing he execut ion f the task cf. in France,
heresearch f the eam Langageet t ravai l ' ,whichbr ings o ight
hecomplexi ty f the unct ioning f thosecommunicat ive i tuat ions
hich arecharacter izedy an entanglementf thesemiot ic ract
icesmixturesometimes f wri t ten and spoken anguage, nd alsomixture
n this act ionlanguage' f gestures ndwords).
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
3/20
The srudyof talk-in-interaction 3
The var iat ional ac tors which are l ikely to cont r ibute to
the foundat ionof atvpo logyof the in terac t iona lgenresare
numerousand var ious (Kerbrat -Orecchioni1990: l l -133) . We shal
l be dea l ingherewi th one of these actors , har s to say ,
henumber of par t ic ipants . n fact , a l though Sacks had env
isaged he poss ib i l i ty o fs tudy ingmui t i -par ty conversat
ion s er se (1992- I , 533: "a t tent ion has to be pa idd i rec t
l y , ndependent ly ,o mul t i -par ty conversat ions") .h is
project has not vet beencarr iedout. as far as I know. In part
icular, he caseof three-partyconversat ions fromnow on tr iLogue)
asunjust ly beenneglected p to now, comparedwith the caseof tdte-i
- tteconversat ionsandeven n comparisonwith mult i -partyconversat
ions)6.In fact. one could provide many pieces of evidence for the
general tendency,rvhich s more of ten unconscious, o ident i fy
communicat ion (as in the Jakobsonianperspect lve) i th interact
ionbetween wo persons. et us consider or instance he
factthatdespite tsetvmolog) '7, 'dialogue' isof ten understood s
wo-party nteract ion: hereis no doubt that this is owing to the
confusionbetween he paronymic pref ixes 'dia- 'and'di- ' , but also
to this tendency o unduly assimi late nteract ion o dual interact
ion,considered s the prototypeof any kind of interact ion and yet t
r iadic organizat ionsdo not play an insigni f icantrole in our
societ ies let us think, for example, about thefamily tr io and
many other typesof ordinarysituations; bout eievis iondebateswith
amoderator, nteract ions with an interpreter or with any other type
of mediator. . . ) .Admit tedly , the bas is of the communicat ive
exper ience of a speaker (or of' in tersubject iv i ty ' ,as
Benvenis te erms t ) is the d iscoveryof ' the other ' , and at th
islevel t doesnot real ly matter f this 'other' is singularor
plural . But as soon as one isinterested n "the technical organizat
ion of talk in interact ion", i t is c lear that thisorganizat
ionis sensit ive o the number of part ic ipants" Scheglof f
1995:3i) and that'trilogues'function in many respectsdifferently
from 'dilogues'8.Start ing rom this point, we began n 1993 o
investigate r i logues9.Our aim wasto determine he propert ieswhich
govern the way a tr i logue proceeds n comparisonwith a di logue,
rv i th the help of the dif ferent instrumentsavai lablewithin the
'VIA'.Thesespecif ic i t ieshave been studied at al l levels in
these types of conversat ionalorganizat ion. he fol lowing general
izat ionswere made throuf i the observat ionof alarge angeof
data.1.2.Specificities of trilogues1.2.1.Thedifferent hearer's
rolesLet us recal l rv i th Goffman (1981) that the t r i logue
forces us to dist inguish between'hearer 'and 'addres5sd'- not ions
which are often confused with one another inpragmat ic i
terature,whose impl ic i t communicat ionmodel is essent ial
lydyadicl0. Infact , as soon as three rat i f ied part ic ipantsare
co-present f rom now on: P1, P2, P3),thereare by def ini t ion at
any moment T during the course of conversat ion wo non-speakers l l
,who do not necesssar i ly ave,as hearers f the samemessage,he
samestatus: neof them can be 'addressed'and the other
non-addressed'- which senerates
b Not orgett inghe nterest f K. L. Pike n tr iadic ont igurat
ionst heendof the 1960's Pike& Lowe1969 , i ke1975) .7 In
Greek, la- actuallymeans through' (.cf tliatyse, iaspora,
iachronv),not 'two'.8 ln order o avoidambigui ty,we shal lbe
speaking f 'd i logues' , t r i logues' , quadr i logues'and
orher'poly logucs' ,rnd elve to 'd ialogue'i ts or ig inal ener
icmeaning.v 'Wc'hcrc tncanshe'GRIC' ,or Groupede Rechercl lesur es
nteract ions omnumicat ivesCNRS-Universi t6 yon 2). This researched
to a col lect ivepubl icat ion Kerbrat-Orecchioni Plant
incds,1995), ut hatdoesnotmeanof course hatwe considerhis nvest
igat ionsbeing ompleted.l0 C i .C la rk& Car l son 982 : 32 .n
. l .I I Ot .ou.r . , thecase f s imultancousalk s excepted.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
4/20
C at heine Kerbrat -Orecchioni
nine theoret ical lypossible inter locut ivesi tuat ions n the t
r i logue,as opposed o the twoin the di logue:P t - > P 2 ,P -
> P 3 ,P l - > P 2+P 3,P2 -> P 1,P2 -> P3,P2 -> P
+P3,P3 -> P 1, P3 -> P2, P3 -> P +P2.However, i t is
important to add that not only does the conf igurat ion of
thesepattern
Jluctuate n the courseof the sameutterance asGoodwin wel l
demonstratedl2), ut i t isalsosomettmes uzzy. n other words, t is
not alwayspossible o determinewhether hedif ferent hearers tay n a
hierarchical elat ionship r not , and n which way, since:- among
the al locut ioncues,someareclearand discrete, ut they are not
systemat ical lypresent ( l ike terms of addressl3),whereasothers (
l ike gaze direct ion in face-to-faceinteraction) are, on the
contrary, constantbut sometimesdifficult to interpret;- thesecuesdo
not necessari ly onverge.Let us imagine, for instance, he
'real 'scene (it happens oquadri logueand not a t r i logue)
that the fol lowing extract n Proust 'sGuermantes s supposed o
evokel4:
- "Ta grand-mire pourrait peut-Atre l ler s'asseoir, i le
docteur e lui permet,dans une alldecaLmedes Champs-Elysies,pris de
ce massif de Lauriersdevant Laquelle u ouais autrefois", medit nn
mDreconsultantainsi indirectenten t u Bou lbon et de laquel le a
voix prenait d causedecela quelquechosede timide et de ddfirent
qu'elle n'cturaitpas eu si el le s'dtait adressde moiseul.Le
docteurse tourna versma grand-mire et (...)- "Perhaps our
grandmother ould go and sit down, f the doctor allows, n a quiet
pathwayonthe Champs-Elys6es,ear hat group of laurel bushes hatyou
once used o play in front of ' , saidmy mother o me whi lst consul
t ing u Boulbon ndirect ly; nd her voicebecame athershy
anddeferentbecause f this, which it would not havedone f shehad
addressed nly me . The doctorturned owardsmy motherand(...)
We see how the hierarchy of cues allows us to organrze a
correlative hierarchy of thehearers:1. Marcel (cues: "your
grandmother", and obviously the gaze, which is not ment ionedby the
narrator)2. The doctor du Boulbon (cue: the tone of the voice,
which is analyzed by the narrator)3. The grandmother (cue: the
content of the sentence, which 'concerns' her directly).But are
things really so clear? We realize that in fact, it is the doctor
who takesover the utterance, without producing any effect of
intrusion at all. It seems, therefore,that there is in the mother
's ut terance a clash between the hearer to whom it isapparently
addressed (in accordance with the principal cues of allocution,
verbal an dnon-verbal) , and the hearer whom it is pr incipal ly
meant for - i . e. , th is kind ofenunciative mechanism (well
attested in literature as well as in ordinary life) which Ipersonal
ly term 'communicat ive trope' ( in French trope communicat ionne[)
|s.
l 2 S " " to r i ns tance he ana lys i s e proposes1981
:160-166) f t he u t te ranceI gaveup smok ingcigarettes ne week
ago today,actual ly",del ivered o threesuccessiveecipients, nd
conelat ively' redesigned'thowever he main aim of Goodwi n s to
account or the progressiveonstruct ion f turndepending n the
recipient 's ecept iv i ty ndon whathe supposeso be his state f
knowledge, hereasour perspect ives rather nterpretat ive).13 Ter*r
of address n Frenchare used ather arely (s igni f icant lymore
rarely han n Engl ish, orexample).l 4 Fo l io 1988 : 93 .l5 Cf.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni1990:92-8). n general , t is the appl icat ion f
the pr incipleof relevancewhich al lowsus to ident i fy
he'communicat iverope' .The product ion/ interpretat ionf the rope
s alsousually nfluencedby considerations f face- work
Kerbrat-Orecchioni 992'.212-3).
be in th is case anovel Le C6td de
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
5/20
The studv of talk-in-interaction 5
In a l l events , ns tead of opposing, as Gof fman does,
'addressed'and 'non-addressed. ' ,t is preferable o speak ,more
caut ious ly ,o f 'pr inc ipal 'vs 'secondary 'addresseei6et us add
two more ooinrs:- I f P2 and P3 are the two non-ipeakers,al l
degreescan be found concerning theirhrerarchy s addresseesf the ut
terance f Pl, the two extremecasesbeine repref tnted.on theone
hand,by their equal i tyof status i t is the col lect iveaddress)
nO- n the otherhand,by the tota l exc lus ionof P2 (or P3) f rom
the in ter locutive i rcui t (h is /her 'ex-communicat ion ' ) .-
As for the ut terance's alue as a speechact: the sameutterancemay
not only changeits valueduring he conversat ion ccording o the f
luctuat ions f i ts addresseean init f t lin format ion be ing for
example reconver ted nto a demand for conf i rmat ion; c f .Goodwin
l98l), but it may also simultaneouslyconvey different pragmatic
valuesfori ts diJJ 'erentearers.This idea has alreadybeen
expressedby Sacks (Lecturesvol.I :530-4and vo l . I I :99- l0 l ) :
an u t te rance i rectedat B may wel l "do someth ing" o
C,andsomethingdif ferent f rom what i t does o B (for instance, f A
f l irts with B, "thenshemay be teasingC"). The same dea has also
beendevelopedby Clark and Carlson(1982)17 , i t h i n a perspec t i
ve lose o the ' s t andard ' speechac t s heory ,bu t a l socr i t
icaiof this theory, which 'forgets' that when a statementhas
several ddressees,"speakers erform illocutionary actsnot only
toward addressees. ut also toward certainotherhearers" p. 333): for
these lateral ' hearers, uch acts always have at least thevalueof
an informative act, and often some additional values.Thus, in the
last examplefrom Proust, he mother'sutterancesimultaneouslyhas he
following pragmatic values :l. ConcerningMarcel, it is a
suggestion,and an indirect request.2. Concerningdu Boulbon, it is a
request or permission.3. Concerning he grandmother, t is a piece of
informat ion, perhapscoupled with arequestor agreement.As Clark and
Carlson show, the existenceof parallel circuits dramatically
complicatesthe descriptionof speechacts, n particular of indirect
speechacts:
"Withordinaryinear ndirectness,t terancesanbecome erycompl
icated;utwith ateralindirectness,he ossibi l i t ieslmostefy
maginat ion"p.364)I .2.2.Tu n- aking organizat onLet us recall the
main specificit iesof trilogues n this respect by referring first
to theworks of CA and to the framework they developed, which is
conceived for anunspecif iednumber of part ic ipants but also al
lows us to account for var iat iondepending n the number of the
parties (concerningthe particular caseof three parties,see he
seminalartrcleof Sacks,Schegloff and Jefferson 1978 23).- As for
the alternating pattern, the famous ababab formula only works for
dilogues,whereasor t r i logues he al ternat iondoes not respectany
kind of f ixed rules: wE aredeal ing with_an inf ini te number of
possibi l i t ies, the ahcabcabc model being veryexceptionalSacks
1992-II: 523.4,Speier 1912 400, Schegloff 1995:
32).Likewise,whereas or di logues he inequal i tyof part ic ipants
remsonly (as ar asthis organizat ional evel is concerned) from the
length of turns, in tr i logues thisrnequality onsistsalso in the
number of tums which are producedby eachpariicipant.- In regard to
the selection of the next speaker: as soon as there are more than
twopart ic ipants,here are two possibi l i t ies,cal led in the SSJ
model 'other-select ion'vs'sel f -select ion' respect ively.Now, in
the f i rst case,P1 may selectP2, whereas t is P3who takes over the
f loor (these attempts to cause interference n the inter locut
iverelat ion reconstant , or instance,when a uveni le magistrate
uest ionsa chargedchi ldin the presence f his or her mother, cf. de
Fornel 1986: I11-8). We are then deal ingwith a kind of violat ion
of the turn system which is unknown in di logue. I cal l thisl 6 S
im i la r l y , oodw in peaks f ' f oca laddress '( i 981 : 163) .r
/ R c f l n e di nC l a r k 1 9 9 6 ) .
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
6/20
C atheine Ke bra -Orecchioni
p h e n o m e n o nn t rus ion t s . and i t mus t b e a d d e d
o the o the r t ypes o f ' f a i l u res ' ,rntent ionalor not ,
which are alreadv amil iar to di logues,but which are more likely
tooccur in t r i logues, hat is to say , in ter rupt ionand over
lap le (as for lapse - i . e .abnormal ly pro longed gap between
two turns - th is case is more del icate: i tsoccur rence eems o be
both reduced.s ince he number o f the potent ia lspeakers sh igher
,and inc reased, inceeveryonemay re ly , somet imesmistakenly , n
the other oresume) .In conclusion tr i logLtes are potent ial ly
more conf l ict ing organi l ,at ions thandiLogues since here are
numerousmore opportuni t ies o struggle or the f loor), and t t
tthe snme ime Less ort tpel l ing 'oreachpart ic ipanl as he obl
igat ion o co-operate. eingsomehow sharedout within the group, s
weaker or each speaker aken ndiv idual ly -cf. Goffman ( 197 :
540):"Numbcrshcmselvcseducehe ommunicat ionbl igat ionf any' ne
ecipient".
Gof fman echo ing here Jean-Jacques ousseauwho ment ioned the ob
l iga t ions ofdi logues n the fol lowing terms (Confessions, rd
book)."Dans Ie t) te t i tte il v a un ctutre i r tconvir iet t t ,
c'est lq nlcessitl cle par ler toujours; quand ottvous par le i lJ
'aut relpondre, et si I 'on ne di t mot i lJaut relever la
conversat ion. Cette insupportablecontrainte m'ef i t seuLedigoft
td de la societ : c'est asse: qu' iL fai lLe absoLument que je pctr
le pourrTuee dise une sottise infai lLiblentent" ." ln t te - ) - t
teconversat ions here is an ano ther d i sadvan tage ,which is the
necess i ty o constant lyspeak: when someone ta lks to you, you
have to answer , and i f the o ther one does not say a word ,vou
have to su s ta in conversat ion. Only th is unbearable sonst ra in
t would have f i l led me wi thd isgust for soc iety : I on ly have
to be under the obl igat ion to speak and I inev i ta b ly say s i
l l yth ings" .
L2.3. The str t tcturingof dialogueN.B. For us, this structurin
g s a specif icorganizat ionalevel comparedwith turn. I t isthe
level where semant ic and pragmat iccoherence s establ ished,which
is general lydescribed n terms of hierarchical ranks' of pragmat
icunits2o. he infer ior unit is thespeechact (more or less
evisedand corrected n a conversat ional erspect ive), nd
thesuperior unit is conversat ion as a whole. In this perspect ive,
the key-unit is the'exchange' (smal lestdialogal unit ) , which is
const i tutedby ' intervent ions'or 'moves'(an intervent ion being
a contr ibut ion of a given speaker o a given exchange).Asintervent
iondoes not coincide with turn (which can consist of several
ntervent ions),s imi lar ly the exchange s not a sequence f turns:
t is a groLlpof units whose def ini t ionis pragmat ic and whose
relat ionship s both one of sequent ial i tyand complementar i
ty,rvhereas he relat ionshipbetween urns s purely and simply a
reiat ionshipof order.After this prel iminary remark, what are at
this level the main featuresof t r i loguescomparedwith di logues'
l
l8 Fo, more nfbrmat ion bout hisphenomenon,eeKerbrat-Orecchioni
990:180-2.l9 Ft, , s imultaneousalk and the di f terentpatterns f
over lap someof which involve at least hreepart ic
ipants),eeScheglof f 1995:35-.10). would ust ike to stresshata l
ine of re searchhatwe havejust begunon certain ypesof poly
loguesradio ebates bout inemawith an average f s ix part ic
ipants)contradictsScheglof fs statement ccording o whom "i t is
empir ical ly he case hat more than onespeaker s almostalways wo
speakers t a t ime" (p.40): in our data,over laps f threeor even
ourvoicesarenot rare i t is , horvever,ikely hat hisvanat ion s due
o thedi f ference f cul tural ontext .In anycase, hisquest ion egs
urther nvest i -uat ion.20 S." for this organizat ion
erbrat-Orecchioni1990:chap.4), and Roulet& al . (1985),who
presenttwo concept ionswhich are sl ight ly di f ferent.The
Genevamodel is character ized y i ts power inaccoun t ing or r
subord in r t i ve e la t ionsh ip h ich is es tab l i shed ven a t
a d is tance e tween heconst i tuentsf d ialogue.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
7/20
The sndy of talk-in-interaction
l' The most salient fact is that in trilogues thefunction of
borh initiative and reactivemove s o.ftenaccomplisheil b1'nvo
constituenritr. Thi, giu.s rise, for example, to thefol
lowingpatterns:. .11. ,ques t iono 11 - p2 s ques t ion o p3 /p3,s
answer, , , r e lse :"P l 's ques t iono p2 and p3' /p2 's answer
pJ ' ; onr* . r " .In the astcase. he two react ions an be
ndependent:( l) (,4vientde t6lephoner uneantiequi n,est as che:
elle)A c'est nvraisenrbLabLees enssont pas he:. uxB ah ouais
'dinnncheC benc'estL ' tenrps.. .f t i i t te l lement eau.. . 'est
' ra iEad.onrtertv ie ,al lers proftt ner
(A has ust cal leda fr iendwho s norat home)A it is incredible
hatpeopleare not at homeB oh wel l on a sundayC wel l i t 's
theweather. . .t 's suchbeaut i fu lwearher. . .esyou feel l ike
going br astrol lor dependent (according to different
modalities)22:
Q\vouLez...ien boire...vouspartez out d'suite Id Tbennonfartt
qu'on passeIchez...moi recupirer IjC
BC
Iouais Ion va ddmenager
[we're gonna move ou twanna.. . r ink something.. .reyou eaving
t onceTwel l no we mustgo [to. . .my house nd eth IIyeah
This gives rise to the theoretical and descriptive problem of
deciding whether in thesecaseswe are dealing with two different
contribitions within the saile -ou., or withtwo different moves
ll?ying rhe same,s.tructurar air within rh; ";;;;g", u"a
whichmayhaveextremelydifferent relationsnros.This problem will not
be discussedhire in detail; suffice it to say yer again rhat,
assoonas hereare three participants, hings become.onsid"rabty morJ
Jo*pii"ut.o.? Tltt
questionof completeness r incompleteness f exchanges,a delicate
matter evenin dilogues for conversationalgrammar rs often
fuiry'-i"a the correlative expectations
/r Thisphenomenon asoftenbeenmentioned for instance, y
Jeanneret1991, 1996) y the nameofco -nonc ia t ion ' ;o r by
conversa t ion na lys ts y the nu* " o f ' 1o in tp roduc t ion ,o
r . co l l abora t i veutterance'thereare in part iculara
certainnumberof studieson 'co-tel lership 'in the storytel l ingact
iv i ty)However ' n al l thesestudies t does not appear lear ly
which is the statusof the oint lyconstructednits:utterances,urnsor
moves? in Lernei'199 , for instance,he authorusesalternativelys e n
t e n c e ' , ' u t t e r a n c e 'a n d ' t u r n ' . . . )Simi
lar ly t is not c lear,ei ther,how 'part ies 'are def ined n
Scheglof f 's 1995:40) statemenr: . rurn-taking rganizeshe
distributionof talk amongparties,but not among he personswho
compose party,,- whichal lowshim to reduce he number-ofpart ic
ipants, nd- ih lreby e-estabt ish rder nto . . th ispotentially
haoticcircumstance" epresented y multi-partyconversatlons. s fbr
us, we consrder ha tturns re assumed y speakers persons f f lesh
and 6lood),even f thesespeak.r , -uy sometrmesassoclatehemselvesn
adopting omeor otherconversationalole or task but this pertains o
anotherIevel f funct ioning.'/ See n our collectivewo.rkLe,trilogue
the study of rraverso, from whom theseexamplesare
taken,andwhoproposes detailed ypologyof thedifferentorganizations f
theexchangesn trilogues.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
8/20
C at herine Ke brat -Orecchioni
are rather vague)23, urns out to be st i l l more complex in t r
i logues,part icular lywhenthe ini t ial move is bi-addressed. n
this case, t can theoret ical lybe supposed hat themove requires
two react ions and that the organizat ional norm of the exchange
isactual ly a t r iplet (rather than an adjacencypair) . But in
fact where there is only onereac t ion , he absence f the secondone
s not a lways 'not icea ble ' , nd i t may even bequite normal. I t
al l dependson a numberof factorssuchas:- the nature of the ini t
iat ive move: as tor offer, for instance, his
absenceproducesaneffect of somethingmissing we shal l say that he
exchange s ' t runcated' :( 3 )
A votts oule:boirequtt i^B tnoi 'prendrai un portoC (ne
rdportdpas)A whatdo you wannadrinkTB I ' l l havesomeportwineC
(does ot answer)
The same remark appl ies to 'personal ' quest ions. On the
contrary, af ter a quest ionfo r i n fo rmat ion ( "What ' s the t
ime?" ) one answer i s su f f i c ien t fo r mee t ing t heexpec ta
t ions c rea ted by the ques t ion , the s i l ence o f C be ing in
te rp re ted a s theconf i rmat ion of the f i rst answer - in th
is regard Traverso speaks of a ' law ofeconomy' , but she adds that
the two cases are not always clear-cut, as is shown by
thisexcerpt:(4 )A il fait froid dehorsTB benmoi gafai t un monrcnt
ue 'ai paschaudC (ne rdpondpas)A i t 's coldoutsideTB well I
haven'tbeenwarm for ouite a whileC (doesnot answer)
- We see that the effect of truncation or not also depends on
the enunciative att i tude ofthe first answerer: if he or she
speaks in hisArer own name, a second answer is expected;but the
exchange appears to be complete i f P2 presents himself /hersel f
as aspokesperson of the concerned duo (and if P3 accepts to be
represented in this way byP2): (5) A vousAtus ientdt nuacancesT
B oh bennous usaison est oujours nvaconcesnestdesgrands
acanciersA won't oube aking ourvacationsoon?'fB
wellyouknowwearealways nvacationse're ull-time acationers
The questionof completenessor incompleteness f the triadic
exchange efers hereforeto the idea of spokesperson, del icate not
ion to deal with since this funct ion is notalways denotedby a 'we'
as n the precedingexample24. his not ion tsel f refers o thef ina l
leve l o f the mechanics of conversat ions hat I sha l l be cons
ider ins: theinterpersonal elationship.1.2.1. Construction of'the
interpersonal relationshipAny verbal nteract ionmay be viewed as a
succession f eventswhose set const i tutes'text ' , joint ly
produced,and governedby some rules of internalcohesion.But i t is
also
23 S." Kerbrat-Orecchioni99O:255-263.24S"" Traverso 1995:38-40),
ndMarcoccia 's r t ic le n thesame olume
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
9/20
The studyof talk-in-interaction 9
theplacewherea part icular elat ionshipbetween nteractors s set
up - of distanceorfamil iarity, f dominanceor equal i ty,of compl
ic i ty or conf l ict . ..V iewed rom th is ang le , and w i th
regard o d i logues . r i loguespresenta cer ta innumberof specif
ic eatures. shal l only considerone of them here: he possibi l i ty
forthe membersof the t r iad to make up coal i t ions and at the
same time to modify therelat ions f dominance.In his own perspect
ive s a socialpsychologist ,Caplow (1968) demonstrated ow acoal i t
ionof two elementsagainsta third one may "transform strength nto
weaknessand weakness nto strength". From a l inguist ic point of v
iew, one can attempt todescribe, or example, how these coal i t
ions form and break up (for in ordinaryconversat ions,oal i t ions
are usual ly moving and the reversalsof al l iances are
verycommon),one can also describe how they take shape and what the
main markers of acoalit ion n the studied rilogue are -
personalpronounsvveandyou, demonstrations fagreement, perationsof
prompting the partner (by which the allied speakerassistshisor
herpartnerwhen he or she gets exically stuck), or else
argumentativeassistance theally sLrppliesis partner with
co-orientedstatements), tc. One may be interested oo incases n
which the const i tut ion of a coal i t ion is subjected o a negot
iat ionbetweenparticipants: l may offer his or her services o P2
who declines hem (which seriouslythreatens l 's face). There may
also be a misunderstandlng etween the involvedpafties;example a
discussion between three students, wo girls (G1 G2) and a boy(B),
about he topic of what are called 'grandes6coles' n France)25:(6) H
ilsenbaventendant uatre-cinqnsmais'veuxdire lsont oute
nevieaprispour e a couler ouceFl ilfautvoirsi tLt is ' instant
rdsentusi tu veux ivre trente nshein... arce ue
cesquatre ruftes-ldlsverrontamais iences ceseunesH [nonmais
st-ceque 'asF2 [ ilfaut quandmAmeunecertaine olonti pourfairedes-
lfaut j'saispas lfaut- ilfaut sesacrifi.erIoui[pour sesdtudeset ga
va plus 1a... a personneperd sa personnalitdIi l faut se
sacrifierbietts|rga va pLus dThey havea rough ime for four or f ive
yearsbut I mean h ey'regonnahave t easylater he restof their
ifesyou have o know if you wanna ive for the presentmomentor if you
wanna ive attheageof 30 right... cosduring hose our years
hey'regonnaseenothing hese[these oung people[no but do you
[have[you sure have to have a cert ain will [to make some-you have
totyessacrifice yourself for thesestudiesand that's not right...
you loseyour[you have o sacrif ice ourselfof coursepersonalityand
hat's not right
The debate akesplace between B (who defends the idea that the
sacrifice requiredfor preparing he compet i t ive entranceexaminat
ion or the 'grandesdcoles' is worthmaking, ince t allows afterwards
o "have it easy" throughout one's ife), and Gl (whodefendshe
opposing dea of carpe diem: there s nothing which justif ies the
sacrifice ofone's eautifulyouth). G2, who had remained silent until
this point, finally enters ntothe discussion nd gives her opinion -
but in which way? B interprets i rst (and sodoes he analyst) you
have to sacrifice yourself ' as an echo of his own
discourse,and25Dutu ollected y Zamouri (whosecontribution o the
volumeon triiogues ocuses n this notion ofcoalition).
HF2HF I
\ J I
BG2BG2BG2F I
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
10/20
10 C at he ne Kerb at -Ore cchion i
he immediately outbids (too early l) by overlapping("you have to
sacri f iceyourself olcor t rse") , u t G2 cont inues : and that
'snot r ight " . Wi th astonishment e d iscover hati n f ac t G2
has us t cons t i t u t ed n arsumenta t i ve oa l i t i on v i t h
G l , a n d G l t akesimmediateadvantage f i t by agreeing
hroughechoing: and that 's not r ight" .Af ter hav ing noted the
high int r icacy of the di f ferent evels o f conversat ions,s ince
the in terpre ta t ionmade by speakersof what is go ing on a t the
level of theconst i tut ionof coal i t ions may determine heir
taking the f loor, we shal l proposesomeconclusiveelements
oncerning he generalmechanics f t r i logues:
l. For the analyst , t r i logues have an organizat ionwhich is
more di f f icul t to describethan di logues. This ref lects the
fact that for the part ic ipants hemselves, oping withtr i logues
is more del icate han with di logues,purely and simply because n t
r i logues,the recept ionparty is essent ial lyheterogeneous.Inpart
icular, he variouspart ic ipantsd o no t g e n e r a l l y s h a r
e the same ' conversa t i ona lh i s t o ry ' : i f w e ca l l ( f
o l l ow ingGolopent ia 1988) CH' the orderedsetof conversat ions
hich has akenplacebetweentwo or severalspeakers,t appears hat t r i
loguesare set within four CH's: CH (P1-P2),CH (P1-P3),CH (P2-P3)and
CH (P1-P2-P3). n t r i logues, he main work a speakerhasto do is
coping as best he can with that heterogeneity, omet imesat the cost
of somecontort ions- for example, o apply Gricean maxims, since
doing so dependsent irelyon what the speakersupposeshis two
addressees now, and they do not necessari lyboth have the same
stateof knowledge(a classicalexample:Pl tel l ing P2 a story or
ajoke in the presenceof P3 who already knows it). Tr i logues
require thus a superiorknow-how to the one that tte-A-tete
ituations equire for the same ask. But at the sametime, trilogues
provide them wrth additional available resources: or instance,when
themain addresseds not paying attent ion, he speakermay make use of
some techniqueavai lable in di logues too (l ike self - interrupt
ion),but he may also look for a morereceptive addressee n reshaping
the utterance o make it more appropriate for him orher, fol lowing
a mechanismwhich has been brought to l ight by Goodwin (1981:
chap.5 )2. The number of participants n a conversationstrongly
affectsthe way it functions:- in di logues, both part ies are
supposed o remain act ively involved in the exchangethroughout its
process;- four-party conversat ions(and a fort ior i conversat
ionswhich include even morepar t ic ipants) are character ized y
the poss ib i l i ty o f a 'schism' , tha t i s to say theconst i
tut ionof two separate onversat ional roups;- the trilogue rs an
intermediary structure which is characterized by the fact that thet
r iad may be d iv ided in to an ac t ive duo + a' th i rd par ty '
, who stays out o f theconversat ionand may piay di f ferent ro
les: a co mplete ly pass ive wi tness, or anarbi t rator,or more
perversely, he part of the 'tert ius gaudens' to use Caplow's
term),who derivesbenef i t f rom confl icts which are l ikely to ar
isewithin the tr iad; or else adestabi l iz ingpart , l ike in
Jean-PaulSartre'splay Huis C/os which depicts an infernaltriad
r.vhere ach party in turn plays the executioner o the other two.As
a matter of fact, i t seems hat this spl i t t ing mechanism s
extremely frequentand that t r i loguesmost ly resemblea succession
f turning di logues - but which takeplace right under the watchful
eyes of a third party; and that makes all the difference.in
otheiwords, ' real ' t r i logues are except ional, f by i t one
meansan organizat ion nwhich each part ic ipant speaks n turn also
taking his or her two inter locutors intoconsiderat ion,i . e . : P
1 -> P 2 + P 3then P2-> Pl +P3then P3-> Pl + P2, etc .Such
an arrangement s rare n naturalconversat ions nd never asts ong:
very quickly,rhe triangle comes apart,either becauseof the
expulsion of a third party temporarily put
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
11/20
Thesrudy f tatk-in-interaction 11
on the sic iel ines, r becauseof the merging of two part ic
ipants n a single discursivero le .The main fearureof t r i logues
is the i r ins tabi l i ty , thei r f lex ib i l i ty and thei
runpredictabi l i ty.hey are thereforemore diff icult to describe
han di logueswhich are"much blandei" according o Sacks,but they
could also be "much more interest ing"( 1 9 9 2 - l : 5 3 3 ; z o
.3. These ew considerat ionshave al lowed us to also see that
conversat ionsmay becons idered t di f ferents leve ls o f funct
ioning, which are both autonomous andconnected.2. Politeness n
interactionThe works carr ied out within the framework of CA mainly
deals with the levels ofconversat ionwhich may be cal led organizat
ional21 turn-system, epair activit ies,sequent ial rganizat
ion.etc.) . Some reiearchers,however. were more interested nexplor
ing he"relat ional Ieve\, that is, the way the interpersonal elat
ion (distance,po'*'.r, eTc.) s constructedand negotiated during the
course of interaction. Abundantiit.rutrr. about his question can be
found28,and thesestudieswere enriched n the late70's with a new
range of studies, hat is to say, all researchon
politenessphenomena,which hasbeensaid"tobe "one of the most
important and productive areasof researchin pragmat ics nd sociol
inguist ics". Preis ler& Haberland 1984: 227). Thus, in
thet..*J'parr of my art ic lel I should l ike to deal with-pol i
teness ^- af ter.havingmentionad he recent arousal of interest in
stil l another dimension of interaction: theemot ional onst i tuent
(see for instance the numerous studies on inter ject ions
andexclamat ions,Wierzbicka's work on the conceptual izationof emot
ions in di f ferentlanguages nd cultures,Tannen's or Blum-Kulka's
on the not ion of involvement ' ,Auchl in's on 'conversat
ionalhappiness' ,etc.: emot ions are obviously
fashionablenowadays).But let's return to the question of
politeness.As is well-known, it is impossible totalk about i t
without ref l rr ing to Brown and Levinson's theory2e.This
th_eorysextremely amous,abundantlyapplied, and correlatively,
sometimescriticized. I wouldIike o say he following on this
topic.2.1.To begin with, I think B-L's theory is relevant in its pr
inciple: pol i teness sactuallyan"d undamentally a matter of
faces,of face-want and of face-work - face-work consist ing f u s"t
of strategieswhich help to reconci le ace-wantwith the factthat
most of t [e acts that we are induced to perform during interact
ion are
'face-tlueatening'. hat doesnot necessarilymean that everything
in interaction amounts o aquestion "f ace (many other 'wantsr are
involved), but that as soon as one wondersabout he degreeof
poiitenessor impolitenessof any statement,one comes across heideaof
faceor somethingsimilar.So, for me, this p5int of v iew on pol i
teness s consistentwith the intui t ion thatonehasof the
phenomenon,with the oidinary-useof the word 'pol i teness' ,and
alsowith all the various reflections which can be found in
pre-scientific literature on thetopic handbookson good manners n
particular). It has proved, at any rate' to be more
26ln fa . t here,Sackscompares i logueswith al l k inds of mult
i -partyconversat ions, ndnot only
trilogues.27Oi else, uoringSacks' erms 1984:413-4), evelswhich
pertain o "technologyof conversation".28Cf.L., interactions
erbales, ol. 2: First Part. For a recentcontributionon the study of
the powerdimensionn interact ion,eeDiamond1996.29Oth.,
pragmaticiansavecontributed o the constitution f this areaof
research,ike R. Lakoff or G.Leech.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
12/20
12 Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni
sat is iy ing han the a l te rnat iven iode ls hat have been
recent lyput forward - I shal lment ion wo o f them:- Fraserand
Nolen 's model (1981) .accord ing o which pol r teness or respondso
therespect or the 'conversat ionalcontract ' wi thin the termsof
which speakers perate n ag iven communicat ions i tuat ion: f they
ab ideby that cont lact , hey are pol i te, f theytransgress ne or
more of the contractuai erms. hey become mpol i te; but no
utterancecan be .said o be inherent lypol i te or impol i
te.Horvever, I think that thanks are intr insicaLlymore pol i te
than orders. and thatapologiesare intr insical ly more pol i te
than insults. Admit tedly, in order to become areal i ty , th is
potent ia l va lue needssome appropr ia te ontex tua icondi t ions:
he mos texquis i te thanks may spo i l the i r ef fect i f they are
out of p lace, and, conversely ,ashoutedorder rnay lose i ts impol
i te value (without becoming pol i te in the processl) ncer ta in c
i rcumstanceswhere i t is not out o f p lace ( l i ke mi l i tary t
ra in ing) . Thepol i teness-ef fector impol i teness-ef fect)s
highly context-dependent,ut that rs not areason or assimi lat
ingpol i teness o adjustment o the context :Fraser 'sdef ini t ion
s toogeneral .- On the other hand, Arndt and Janney'sdef ini t ion
(1985) is far too restr ict ive,s ince tass im i l a t espo l i t
eness to emot iona l commun ica t i on ,and t o demons t ra t i
onso f'support iven-ess ' .But a l l e rnot iona l demons t ra
tions re not pol i te, and a l l po l i t ebehav ior does not impiy
a par t i cu lar emot iona l involvement : consequen t iy
,bothphenomena an in no way be considered sbeing he same.2.2. So,
for the t ime be ing, B -L 's theory has no o ther ser iouscompet i
torson the'pol i tenessmarket ' . However, to become sti l l more
ef fect ive and, in part icular, o beirble to achieve its universal
ambitions, it seems o me that the model must undergo acertain
nttmber of revisions.3o
The main impediment to the correct working of B-L's model rs the
extrernefuzziness tlnt surrounds the negative/positivenotions.In
fact, thesepredicatesapply totwo dif ferent objects: face' and 'pol
i teness' .1. As fer as ace is concerned:- 'negat ive face ' cor
respondsmore or less to Gof fman 's and e tho logy specia l is ts
'no t ionof ' ter r i tory ' :- 'posi t ive face' roughly
corresponds o the ordinary anguage face' that can be lost orsaved:
t is pr ide, senseof honor,narcissism nd so on.So, why then rename
terr i tory ' and ' face' as 'negat iveface' and 'posi t ive
face'respect ively.expressions hat could imply that there might be
a relat ion of opposit ionbetween those two entities, when they
are, in fact, two complementary constituentsofany social
subject?The answer s: in order to correlate hem (unduly I th ink)
with twoforms of pol i teness, osi t ive pol i teness nd negat
ivepol i teness.2. As far aspoliteness s concerned:- Negat ive pol
i teness s f irst or iented towards the sat isfact ion of the negat
ive faceneedi but Brown and Levinson add that this form of pol i
teness s mainly ivoidance-based' , and that is where r,vediscover
the mot ivat ion for their terminological choice:when it concerns
err i tory, face-wantexclusivelyamounts o a preservat ion
esire,andcorre lat ively , ace-work exc ius ive iy amounts o avo
idanceor redress ive c t ion (c f .1981 129: "Negat ive po l i
teness s redress ingact ion addressed o the addressee 'snegat ive
ace").Therefore, there is a kind of terminological take-over by
force whereby the notionof terr i tory (negat ive face) is assimi
lated o negat ivepol i teness, n the sensecertainanthropologists r
sociologists ike Durkheim understand t . that is to say the
carryingout of avo idance i tua ls .But th is ass imi lat ions
excess ive ince, f ter r i toryactual ly san object of preservat
iondesire, t can also lend i tsel f to an expansiondesire(that
thel0 Th" fo l lorv ing r i t ic isms nd proposi t ions re n
partcoherent i th thosemadeby otherscholars,ikeCra ie& a l .
1986 r Penman 990 .
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
13/20
Thesrudv f talk-in-interaction 13
gi f t . for in s tance, s out to sat is fy ,by making t pos i t
i ve r i tua l to the addressee 'sile.qutiv'eace).- The sameargl
lmentcan be appl ied to the posit ive face. rvhich is the sceneof
both apresen 'a t ion nd grat i f icat ion des i re , whereasBrown
and Lev in .sonput the st resspar t i cu lar lyn r t s propensr tv
o be enhanced. ss imi lat ing os i t ive ace and pos i t i vepol i
tenesshis ime - rvhereas think we can have:'negat ivepol i
tenessorvards he addressee's egat ive ace(e.g.sof leningof an
order),'posi t ivepol i tenessowardshts/hernegat ive ace e.g.a
gift),'negat ivepo l i teness orvardshis /her pos i t ive face
(e.g. sof tening of a cr i t ic ism ordrsagreement),'pos i t ive po
l i teness owards his /her pos i t i ve face (e.g. compi iment ,
express ionofagreement,tc. ) .Let us ment ion hat Brown and
Levinsonhave made anothershift r.vhich onsistsin assirni lat ing
osi t ive pol i teness o distance educt ion, hat is to say, to an
ethos ofwarmthand sol idar i ty ,and negat ivepo l i teness o a dis
tancekeep ing and a stand-ot f ishnessthos.So that in the end,negat
ivepol i teness nd posit ivepol i tenessmay bedishedup in every
shape, and that is what character izes he Brown-Lev insoninheri
tance:rom the same theoret icalmodel, di f ferent authorshappen to
say total lydi f ferent hingsabout he same act (asMeier 1995has
shown with regard o apology,andmanyotherexamplesof confusionsand
contradict ions ould be taken nto account;for example, or some
researchers,n keeping with Brown and Levinson, deference s amatter
f negat ive ol i teness,when othersconsider hat , s ince t
enablesus to enhanceotherpeople's aces by using 'honori f ic '
formulas, deference s, on the contrary, amatter f posi t ivepol i
teness. , . ) . he original model is obviously n part responsible
orsucnnconslstencyn lts appl lcat lons.
To concludewith thesecrit icisms, shal l say that Brown and
Levinson's way oflookingat politeness s far too restrictive. In
their diagram of the five 'super-strategies'avarlableo perform
FTAs, only the 2nd and the 3rd casesare considered o pertain topol
i teness, hat is to say on ly cases of 'on-record, wi th redress
ive ac t ion 'accomplishments.owever I think that some caseshave
wrongly been excluded:- avoidancef a possibleFTA- off-record
erforming (let us rememberhow vague he boundary between on- and
off-record s, s ince for those researchers t coincides with the one
that div ides theconventional nd non-conventional ndirect
formulations of speechacts)- and he cases n which
politenesspractice s basedon the performance of acts whicharenot
FTAs: for tunately enough, pol i teness cannot conf ine i tsel f to
keep ingeveryone'sggressivenessithin reasonableimitsThat s the
heartof the matter: he view that B-L's model gives of pol i
tenessandof themechanics f interact ions n general . s very negat
ive,pessimist ic nd even as thas een aid 'paranoid's ince
nteractors represented s being ndiv idualsunder hepermanenthreaiof
al l k inds of FTAs, ancisp^endingheir t imJmount ing guard
overtheir err i tor ies nd their faces. In this resDect. t is
reveal ins that . in their intent torecyclehe not ion of speechact
into the perspect iveof a l ing"uistic ol i teness heory,Brorvn and
Levinson have only considered acts which potent ial ly threaten
theaddressee'saces,and omitted the acts hat are used o enhance hese
aces, ike wishes,thanks r compl iments compl iments which are only
viewed by them as a threat ortheaddressee'segat ive ace nsofaras
they expressdesire or the praisedobject.. . Butwithout enying hat
this act may somet imeshave that t inge, a compl iment const
itutesfirstandforeftnst flattering behavior towards the other
person, hat is, an anti-threat.For this reason think that it is
essential o introducean addit ional erm into thetheoretical odel to
refer to theseacts which are in a way the positive
counterpartsofFTAs.At f i rs t , I had referred to these acts as
'ant i -FTAs ' , but tha t des ignat ioninconvenient ly aintainsa
certain dissymmetry n the system,sti l l giv ing FTAs the
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
14/20
14 Catheine Kerbrat-Orecchioni
pr iv i lege o be the unmarkede ementsof the opposi t ion. o. I
har . ,eina l l y named hemFEAs 1i .e.Face Enhancing Acts) .2.3. I
t is now t ime to br ief ly presentmy own propos i t ions f rer , '
is ions f B-L 'smodel: they essent ial lyconsist n
accuratelydissociat ing negat ive/posi t iveface andnegativ e
positiv e po ite ness .
2.3. . Negutive v.s o.sitivef-uce.s- Negat ive face is then al l
the ' terr i tor iesof the sel f ' (Goffman) - bodi ly,
sparialortempora l err i tor ies , ny k ind o f ' reserves ' ,mater
ia l r co_gni t ive. . .- Posrt ive ace s al l the enhancing mages
hat speakersry to make up of themselvesninteract ion.The acts that
part ic ipantsare induced to perform in the course of conversat
ionmay have negat ive FTAs) or posit ive(FEAs) effectson the
faces.The .same ct may ofcoursecome under severalcategories t the
same ime; rf lve take or example he act ofthe declaratiort oJ'
ove3t' for the 'dec larer ' , i t i s a doub le FTA: for h is
/hernegat ive ace, s ince the speakerrevealssomething hat unt i l
then he had kept secret,and in doing so, is compel led o acertain
number of obl igat ions; and for his/her posit ive face, since the
confessionofhaving ' tal len in love' sets he declaror n a ' lower
posit ion' .and makeshim/her run thedreadfully mortifying risk of a
refusal from the loved one;. for the 'declaree' ,i t is a FTA for
his/hernegat ive ace(an ' incursive' andact), but also a FEA for
his/her posi t ive ace (since, n general , t is fair ly
' imposi t ive 'flattering tohear hat someone ovesyou).As anyone
can see, he number of speechact categories hat cansuch basis s
considerable. et us add that : be made up on- the dif ferent const
i tuentsof a given act may receive a variable 'weight ing' ( in
thecase of a compl iment for ins tance, t seems obv ious to me that
the const i tuent'addressee 'spos i t i ve ace FEA' is genera l l y
eav ier han he const i tuent 'addressee'snegat ive ace FTA');- the
composit ion of a given act may be modulated n the context .which
may changethe proport ion of the ingredientsof the act , and even
somet imes everse ts prevai l ingva lue.But as a linguist, what is
essential or me on this matter is that theformulation ofa speeclt
act totally depends on its FTNFEA status (which depends tself on
both thecontext and the intr insic featuresof the act), a
statuswhich explains for instance hevery genera l d ispos i t ion
of FTAs to be sof tened and minimtzed - example of
crit icism the very general disposit ronof FEAs to be
hardenedand maximized- examoleof thanks:"Thanks a lot/ tliank you
very much/ (ever) so much/ a million/ I can't thank youenough" ' r
lbut the ungrammatical i tyof *"a few thanks" is unexplainedwithout
any reference othe pol i teness ystem;(as for of fers, the very
fact that they may be both hardenedand softened' .Come on,lravea l
i t t le morel" can easi lybe explainedby their basical lvhybrid
nature,since heyassociate TA and FEA equal ly).2.3.2. {egt t t
ivevsposit ivepol i tenessFr-rr thermore,he FTA/FEA dist inct
ionenablesus to shed i_eht n negat ivevs posit ivepol i teness ot
ions. vhich aresomewhatconfused n B-L theory:
l l C f . t h " c o n f e r e n c ew c o r g a n i z e d o n t h
i s1 9 9 7 , G e n o v a : E r g a ) .32 On thc ro le c , f n . rax
inr izat ion n verba l( 19 8 9 ) .
sub.;cctn Urbino l taty) n Juty 1996 acts orthcoming npo l l t
cness .nd n par t i cu la rn the useo f rhanks , eeHe ld
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
15/20
The sn$t of talk-in-interacfion 15
-Negat ivepol i tenesss abstent ionist r compensotory n nature:
t consists n avoidingFTA occurrence,r in sot iening ts formulat
ionby any means.- Pos i t ive o l i teness as . on the cont rary ,
a,product ioni .s t harac ter : t cons is ts nperforming nv f lat
ter ingact for one or the other faceof the addressee.I rvould ike
to add that ,unl ike Brown and Levinson. consider hat, n the
globalsystem. osi t ivepol i tenessegit i rnately olds as mportanta
posi t ionas that of negat ivepol i tenessbeingpol i te in interact
ionmerns producingFEAs asmuch as softening heexpress ionf FTAs -_
and even more so: in fact . negat ivepo l i tenesss basical ly
arestr ictedmpol i teness, lore or lessneutrai ized y some
redressive ct ion;but posi t ivepol i tenesss 'genuinepol i teness'
praise seven nore pol i te than softened r i t ic ism;
theexpressionf agreements elen rnore pohte han a mit
igateddisagreement, tc. ) .I t is f inal iy wor th not ing that th
is redef in i t ion of negat ive/pos i t ive ou ld alsoapp iy o
impol i teness , ' negat ivempol i teness 'cons is t ingn not
produc ingan expec tedFE A lg ree t i ngs , po log ies , hanks . .
. ) , and ' pos i t i ve impo l i t eness 'cons i s t i ng
nproducingan unsoftened FTA that could even be strengthenedby some
kind of'hardener '.
2.4.Starting rom thesedistinctions, t is possible to lay down a
system of politenessrzles somewhatdi f ferent f rom B-L's system,
which I think enables us to accountcoherent lyand ef f ic ient ly
for the funct ioning of pol i teness in di f ferent types
ofcommunicat ive xchanges . cannot present th is system in detai l
(c f . Kerbrat -Orecchioni 992:183-320). shal l s imply say n this
regard hat :- theserules ntegrate oth Brown and Levinson'sproposit
ionsand Leech's (these wosystems,which are somet imes presented as
r ivals, are in my opinion perfect lycompatibie);- the whole
systeni s basedon the dis t inc t ion s establ ishedprev ious ly
betweennegativelpositiveolitenessand negative/positive ace, but
also on anotherpreliminarydistinction: he distinction betwee othe
-oriented and self-oriented principles.As a matterof fact, pol i
tenesss f i rst a set of instruction sabout he behavior
hatthespeakermust comply with towards his or her addressee saving
and f lat ter ing hisfaces). ut these other-or iented'pr inciples,
hat const i tutepol i teness tr ict ly speaking,conelat iveiy mply
other pr inciples that concern the behavior that the
speakermustadopt owards himself ; thus, 'sel f -or iented' pr
inciples (among which there is, forins tance,eech' 'Modesty Maxim'
) .However, here s, at the same time, a str ik ing dissymmetry
between hese wosets f rulessince:- other-or ientedrinciples are al
l favorable to the other person,who must be ei thertreatedact ful
ly negat ive oi i teness) r be enhanced posit ivepol i teness);-
among heprinciplesbelonging o the second ype (self -directed
rinciples),somearefavorable o the sel f , but uniquely in the
defensive form; and some are evenunfavorab le :f one is a l lowed
during interact ion o protect one's faces, t is notrecommendedo
enhance them in an ostens ive way; fur thermore, i t may
berecommendedn certain circumstances o deprecate them (to damage
one's owntenitory, r to bel i t t leoneselfby any self -cr i t ic
ism).
Pol i te conununicat ion consists above al l in put t ing
forward other people'sinterestseJ'orene' .e vt 'n.I shall l
lustrate his generalpr inciplewith two examples:l .The' tve ' of
sol idar i4 ' , hat assoc iates commonpred ica teo ' I ' and'you' :
i ts use spol i teprovided hat the predicate n quest ionhas somehow
an enhancing eature; orexample:"people f our height" s pol i te
only i f the addressee as he sameor an infer ior
heightthanspeaker's eight,"people f our age" s pol i te only if the
addressees as old as,or older than he speaker.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
16/20
I f these onc l i t ions re not fu l f i l led. he sentences.v i
l l rodLrce.n the conrrary ,boor ishness f fect (at ieast , n our
socretywhich ascnbes pos i t i veva lue o youth ndta l lne s .).
Tlrc contpuratiye trtechurtic'stf httnk.s urcl tpoLoqie.s.These are
two e, rc .hangeshar have many ' -ana log iesCoulmas l9g1) , be
ing-eenera i l y . composedf th ree const i tuents : he f l rs t
one" is a pre l im inary act (g i f t o iof fe.nse) hat t rrggers
he actual r i tual exchange, tself madc oi 'a pol i te ict ( thaiks
orapologies)anclof i ts acceptance,vhich f ten akes heshapeof
minimizing/denialof theg i f t o r o f f e n s e i n F r e n c h '
d c - i e n ' . ' c e n ' c s t i e n ' .c f . i n E n g l i s h '
n o t ; t a l l ' , , d o n ' tment ion t ' ) . But the di f
terences etween hese wo exchangesi reas nteres t ing s he i rs imi
lar i t res. or hevexcel lcnt lv um up theessence f l ingi is t ic
po l i te ess:
Thanks-centeredxchan e
1 6 Cathe ine Kerbrat Orecch oni
Const i tuents: gi f tPart ic ipants. PtRelat ivestatus o the
(other-) face vstem: FEAApology-centered xchange
thanks 'de Lien'P2 PlFEAConst i tuents: of fense apology ,de
rien'Part ic ipants: Pl pl p2Relat ivestat l rs o the (other-) face
ysrem: FTA FEA. . . .The organizat ionof these wo exchangesogical
ly ensues rom the natureof theini t ial event that setsoff the r i
tual Drocess:- As far as the central const i tueniof the exchange s
concerned in both casesa FEAsince t proceeds iom a pol i teness
oncern):' Thanks fol low a FEA,. they must then be utteredby the
second nteractor p2), whos.eek.sn this way to offset the gift by
that kind of iymbolic paymenr repreienied bythanks.. The apology,on
the contrarv, ol lows a FTA, i t must then bethe original-of f
'ense imelf /hersel f (Pl) . who tr ies in this wayleast , his of
fenseby an act of ' repair ine'behavior.- As far as the third const
i tuent f the exchanges concerned:' In the first case. he gi f t is
a posit ively-consideredct (underthe society concerned); herefore,
ts rninimizat ion al ls underru le ' app l i ca t ion) ;
utteredby the author ofto neutral ize, n part at
the standardsn ef fect ini ts author P1: modes ty' In the
secondcase, he of fense s a negat ive ly -cons ideredct , and i ts
minimizat ionfa l ls under ts v ic t im (P2) .. As ah,vays, o l i
teness onsis ts n min imiz ing one's own mer i ts anc l he other '
ssnortcomlngs.
To conclude qn this quest ion of pol i teness, would say that a
poi i teness heoryl i ke the one that Brorvn and Lev inson
recommend,a l though i ts^for- rndat ionsrecompleteiyexternal o l
inguist ics faceand_temitoryot ionsareimportedones),may
beextrernelyuseful to l inguist ic descript ion. n fact, t
enablesus to give an accountof acons iderab lemass of facts , which
unt i l now hac lbeen descr ibed n a d isorgan izedmanne (asa part
of c lassical hetor icor contemporary ragmat ics), ut which
slddenlyappear.asa s)s/erzrf we look on them in the perspeci iveof
face-r.vork.We have ust-seen terv examples, .and
o.manyotherscoulclbement ioned indirectspeecho.rt tobegin with:.
'*hy don' t people alrvaysspeakdirect ly (it r .vould e so much
simpler foreveryone) ' lThe answer s: to save he other 's face and
to protectone's own. When wewant to give an order. .why do we
general lypreferovercompl icated xpressions atherthan the simpl ic
i ty and clarity of readv-mademperat ives? h. ans*er is: because t
ismore pol i te. in other words: the cognit ive cosi thoseforntulat
ictt ts nvoLve or both
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
17/20
The studv of talk-in-interuction 77
parties s greatlv made upJ'rtrby the psltcltologicalprofit
the,-both cleriveJ'ronzr, giventhatpol i tenesss, according o
Roland Barthes:"un etat d' iqui l ibre tr is subt iL et tr isJ i r
t pour se prot iger .snns blesser ' t tute"( "e vcry subt le and
very f ine s tate of equi l ibr ium al low ing one t ( l protec t
onesel f rv i thout hur t i ngthe other") .
Obviously.he way that balance s achieveddif fers from one
communicat ionsiruat ionto another nd from one society to
another.However, my f inal remark shal l be that amodei ike the one
we have ust presented s general and subt le enough to aspire
tctuniversal i ty and al l the studies hat I have read on the
topic, even the most cr i t icalones, ike Matsumo to 's 1988) on
Japanese r Mao 's (1994) on Chinese,have notchangedmy opinion: they
validate the model rather than the contrary.Of course, err i tory
and face not ions are not conceptual ized dent ical ly n al
llanguagesndcultures.Nevertheless,hey are
'ethologicalpr imit ives' (as nternat ionalconflictsdemonstrate
very day).Of course, ace-work does not a lways occur everywhere in
the same way.Nevertheless,t is always covert ly at work in speech:
espect ing he rules of pol i tenessis to ensure hat the interaction
works well, and it is in all participants' interest for theinteract
iono proceedunder the best condit ions.On the contrary,no civ i l i
t ies meanscivi l war: not ic ing the minor f rustrat ionsand the
great angers tr iggered off by thesl ightest reachof the basic
rules of pol i teness "At least , he could have said
thanks","Shedidn't even apologtze") s enough to assess the
tremendous destructivepower ofsystemat izedmpol i teness"ment ioned
by Goffman, and to real ize how unbearableaworldrvithout manners'
would be.Consequently, especting he rules of politenessproceedsmore
from a rationality
principle it is more sensible o foster the feasibility of the
exchange han to spendone'st ime rushing owards i ts end) than from
basical ly al t ruist ic ethics: one proves to bealtruistic n
interaction mainly out of inteLligently thought-out personal
interest.Tr i logues,and pol i teness:we could f inal ly t ry to
art iculate hese wo quest ionswhichhavebeen treatedhere
separately,by showing how the presenceof a third partyP3 can affect
he value of politenessor impoliteness of an utteranceaddressed y P
I toP2- for instance,how this presencecan add weight to an FTA
(Brown and Levinsonl98l: l2); how a criticism which is addressed o
P2 (FTA) can indirectly enhanceP3(FEA),or, on the contrary, how a
compl iment concerningP2 (FEA) can bel i t t le P3(FfA)33.However,
my aim was essent ial ly to i l lustrate with these two examples
theextreme iversi ty of the approacheswhich are attested oday in
the study of talk- in-interact ion.his diversi ty, which goeshand n
hand with the diversi ty of the object ofinvest igat ion tsel f ,
is depiored by some researchers in the name of descript
ivecoherence); ome others. on the contrarv, are del ighted about it
( in the name ofdescript iveichness); nd yet even others ry to
constructa k ind of uni fy ing theory ofconversat io l ike Roulet
's 'modu lar ' theory , whose a im is to group together
inanintegratedystem he dif ferent dimensionswhich are const i tut
iveof dialogues34.
rr This ast ase s ment ioned y Sacks n a lecture ocusing n 'saf
'ecompl iments ' 1992-I I :278): " i fyou're ngagedn bui ld inga
compl iment o somepartypresent,n thepresencc f others,hena
problemyou aces how o bui lda compl iment o thatonewithout hereby
oingsomethingikc a denigrat ionotheothers.f, e g.,you say o one
personout of four of f -rvewho arepresent, You're the smartest
ersonI know', henyou're saying o the others hey're not as smart
.Therc are ways of designing safecompl iments 'h ich nvolve,e.g. .
f indinga character ist ichatno oneelseprescnt as,so that n
seeingwhat 's een one o them heydon' t f ind that hey'vebeenputdown
by thecompl imento another."34More recisely,part rom the modules
elongingo the ing uist ic omponent,here re he ol lowingm o d u l e
s :r e f e r e n t i a l ' , ' s o c i a l ' , ' i n t e r a c t i
o n a l ' a n d ' p s y c h ol o g i c a l ' m o d u l e sf o r t h
e ' s i t u a t i o n a l '
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
18/20
18 C at hein e Kerbrat -Orecchioni
Today, the analysis of ta lk- in- interact ion is the scene of
animated debates (forexample, about the existence and the nature of
conversattonal rules, or of pragmaticun ive rsa ls ) . I t nour i
shes ce r ta in fash ions (no t ions I i ke 'nego t ia t i on ' , o
r ' s t ra tegy ' ) , t tfo l lows certain others (not ions l ike
'prototype'3: , and of course, cogni t iv ist concerns):in short ,
in i ts matur i ty, the analysis of talk- in- interact ion shows a
f lour ishine vi ta l i tv.
ReferencesArndt, H. and R.W. Janney (1985) Politeness evisited:
Cross-modalsupportive strategies. RALXXIII-4: 281-300.Brown, P. and
S. Irvinson (1987) Politeness.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Caplow, T. (1968) Two agains t one: Coalitions in triads.
Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall.Clark, H.H. (1996) Using
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Clark, H.H. and
T.B. Carlson ( 1982) Hearers and speech acts.Language
58(2):332-373.Coulmas, F. (1981) Poison to your soul': Thanks and
apologiescontrastively iewed. In F. Coulmas(ed.), Conversational
routine.I-a Haye: Mouton, pp. 69-91.Craig, R.T., K. Trary and F.
Spisak (1986) The discourse of requests: Assessment of a
politenessapproach. Huntan Communication Research 2(): 437
468.Diamond, J. (1996) Starus andpower in verbal
nteraction.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing
Company.de Fornel, M. (1986) Cat6gorisation, identification et
r6f6renceen analysede conversation. Lexique5 : 161-195 .de Fornel,
M. (1989) Actes de langageet th6orie du prototype: L'exemple du
compliment. Cahiersde Praxdmatique 2: 37-49.de Fornel, M. (1990)
Smantique du prototype et analyse de conversation. Cahiers de
LingtistiqueFrangaise 11: 159-178.Fraser, B. and W. Nolen (1981)
The association of deference with linguistic forms.
InternationalJoumal of the Sociologt of Language 27:93-109.Glover,
K.D. (1995) A prototype view of co ntext and linguistic behavior:
Context prototypes andtalk. Journal of Pragmatics 23(2):
137-156.
component; nd he hierarchical ' ,re lat ional ' ,per iodical ' ,
topical", composi t ional 'and enunciat ive'modules or the textual
'comDonent.35 This not ion has ecent lybeenappl ied,within the f ie
ld we areconcerned i th, to the descrrpt ion fspeech cts deFornel
1989,1990) ndof communicar iveenresGlover1995).
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
19/20
The sndv of talk-in-interaction t9Coffman,E. (1974)Frante
analysis.New York: Harper and Row.Goffman,E. (1981)Fomts of tatk.
Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.Golopentia, , (19SS)
nteraction et histoire conversationnelle. n J. Cosnier et al.
(eds.),Echangessur a conversation. aris: CNRS, pp. 69-81.Goodwin,C.
(1981)Cony,ersational rganisation: nteractionbetween peakers nd
hearers.New York:AcademicPress.Held, G. (1939) On the role of
maximization in verbal politeness.Multilingua 8(213):
167-206.Jeanneret,h. (1991) Fabrication du texte conversationnel t
conversationpluri-locuteurs. Cahiersde Linpistique Frangaise 12:
83-102.Jeanneret, h. (1996) Relatives co-6nonc6es:Conversation et
syntaxe.Scolia 5: 343-360.Kerbrat-Orecchioni,C. (1990, 1992,1994)
Les interactionsverbales,vol. I-ll-III. Paris: A.
Colin.Kerbrat-orecchioni, . and c. Plantin (eds.) (1995) Le
rrilogue.Lyon: PUL.labov, W. and D. Fanshel (1977)
Therapeuticdiscourse.New York: Academic Press.lakoff, R. (1973) The
logic of politeness. Papers tont the ninth regional nteeting of the
ChicagoLinguisticSociety 183-228.[.eech,G. (1983)hinciples of
hagmatics. I-ondon: l-ongman.Lrner,G.H. (1991) On the syntax of
sentences-in-progress. anguage in Society 20(3): 441-458.Mao, Lu
Ming, R. (1994) Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and
renewed. Joumal ofhagmatics 1(5): a51-a86.Marcoccia, . (1995) rs
interviewsdu couple:R6flexionssur le rOlede porte-parole. n C.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni nd C. Plantin (eds.),1995:80-107.Matsumoto, .
(1938) Reexaminationof the universalityof face;Politeness n
Japanese. ournal ofhagnatics l2(4): 403 426.Meier,A.J. (1995)
Passages f politeness.lournal of hagmatics 24(3):381-392.Penman,R.
(1990) Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom
discourse. Joumal ofLanguage nd Social Psychologt9(12):
15-38.Pike,K.L. (1975)On kinesic triadic relations in turn-taking.
Semiotica 3(4):389-394.Pike,K.L. and . lnwe (1969)Pronominal
reference n Englishconversationand discourse A
grouptheoreticalreatment. Folia Linpistica 3: 68-106.Preisler, .
and H. Haberland (1994) Review of M. Sifianou, Politeness henontena
in England andGreece: cross-cultural erspective. ournal of
hagmatics 22(2):227'232.Roulet,E. (1995) L'analysedu dialogue dans
une apprache modulaire des structures du discours:I'exemple u
dialogue romanesque. In F. Hundsnurscher & E. Weigand (eds.),
Future perspectivesof dialogueanatysis. tibingen: Max Niemeyer, pp.
1-34.
-
8/12/2019 237-524-1-PB
20/20
20 Catheine Kerbrat-OrecchioniRoulet, E. et al. (1985)
L'articulationdudiscours enfrangais
contemporain.Berne/Francfort-sur-Main:Peter [:ng.Sacks,H. (1984) On
doing'being ordinary'. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage
(eds.),Stntctureof socialaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press,lParis:Editions de la Maison des Sciences deI 'Homme,
pp.412-429.Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on conversation,vol.I-lL
Oxford: Blackwell.Sacks, H., E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1978) A
simplest systematics or the organization of turn-taking in
conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies n the organizationon
conversational nteraction.New York: Academic Press,pp. 7-55.
[earlier version 1974,Language 50:696-735|Schegloff, E. (1968)
Sequencing in conversational openings. Anrcican Anthropologist
7O(4): lO75-1095.Schegloff, E. (1995) Parties and talking together:
Two ways n which numbers are significant for talk-in-interact ion.
In P.T. Haves & G. Psathas (eds.), Siruated order. Washington,
D.C.: InternationalInstitute for Eth nomethodology and
ConversationAnalysis& University Press f America,
pp.3l-42.Sinclair, A. and R.M. Coulthard (1975) Towardsan
analysisof discourse.The English usedby teachersand pupils. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Speier, M. (1972) Some conversational
problems for interactional analysis. n D. Sudnow (ed.),Sndies in
social interaction. New York: The Free Press,pp. 39'7427.Traverso,
V. (1995) Gestion des dchanges ans a conversationd trois
participants. n C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (eds.)
1995:29-53.Vincenr, D. (1995) Du dialogue au sol iloque: Des
interactions plus ou moins conversationnelles.Cahiers de
Linguistique Frangaise 16: 53-68.Zamouri, S. (1995) l: formation de
coalitions dans les conversations riadiques. In C.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (eds.) 1995: 54-79.
