1

Facework in Egyptian EFL Classroom Interactions Hala Tawfik S. Maklad

1- Introduction:

Producing a clear and useful description of language classroom discourse has been the

concern of many scholars such as Sinclair, Coulthard, Willis, Tsui, and McCarthy. In

their Discourse Analysis model (to be referred to as DA model), Sinclair and Coulthard

demonstrate that the language in the classroom follows a very rigid pattern “where

teachers and pupils spoke according to very fixed perceptions of their roles and where the

talk could be seen to conform to highly structured sequences” (McCarthy 12). Although

their model is considered a relatively simple and powerful one, for being connected with

the study of speech acts and at the same time attempts “to capture the larger structures,

the ‘wholes’” (McCarthy 12), it does not address the issue of how a teacher (to be

referred to as T) and a learner (to be referred to as L) use language to create and maintain

the roles they fill, confirm or consolidate relationships, express solidarity and lubricate

social wheels. Therefore, this paper claims that such an issue could be tackled by

revealing the facework, whether supportive or non-supportive, practiced by Ts and Ls.

In a classroom interaction, Ts and Ls are engaged in transactions in which they exchange

moves and acts that may enhance or threaten face. In this paper, it is argued that the

Informing, Directing, and Eliciting transactions, as defined by Sinclair and Coulthard,

include exchanges that may present a complex type of face threatening activity that

requires supportive facework to preserve T-L mutual respect and affinity.

Hence, the main concern of the study is to reveal supportive, as well as non-supportive,

facework strategies1 in EFL (English as a foreign language) classrooms, attended by

Arabic speaking Ts and Ls, whose faces have certain attributes that are socially and

institutionally drawn and recognized. Revealing such strategies may help in enhancing

Ts’ ability to understand and strategically employ different types of verbal politic

behavior related to instructional settings, a matter that increases their influence and

1 The term ‘Strategy’ is used to refer to the rituals or “routines or conventionally

constructed plans” used unconsciously by the speaker by means of linguistic devices

(Brown and Levinson 85).

2

positively affect student’s learning outcomes and T-L relationship (Richmond, Lane, and

McCroskey 168). Part of this verbal and non-verbal politic behavior forms the line that

one takes to present one’s own face.

1.2 Basic Concepts:

1.2.1 The Notion of Face:

In the literature, the term ‘face’ is defined by Goffman as the desired self-image that an

individual seeks to present and maintain in an interaction with others in accordance with

approved social attributes (213). Such an image is represented by the “line” an individual

takes during a particular interaction by performing “a pattern of verbal and non-verbal

acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the

participants, especially himself”. So an individual’s face is seen as an image “pieced

together from the expressive implications of the full flow of events in an undertaking”

(Watts, Politeness 123). In simple terms, one’s face in a certain interaction is

characterized by (a) being other participants’ ‘construal’ of an individual’s self, and (b)

being different from one interaction to the other, depending on the lines that have been

chosen and adopted by interactants. Accordingly, it is expected that Ts and Ls would

take a line that shows institutionally and socially approved attributes, and their faces will

be constituted by others’ perception and will differ from one interaction to the other.

A T’s face is pieced together from her/his verbal and non-verbal acts. To be perceived by

L as having a powerful, influential face, a T is conventionally expected to take a line that

shows one or more of the following attributes:

1- Regulative / Legitimate power (Roach, Richmond, and Mottet 119): This type of

power is not rooted in the relationship but in the title or position the T holds. In a

classroom, students perceive the T as having the authority, because of her/his position, to

require students to attend class, participate in class activities, and take exams. S/he also

has the power to regulate the flow of events. When the T enters an interaction, s/he takes

on the responsibility of standing over the flow of events, to ensure a particular expressive

order2 (Goffman 215) so that any act performed will be consistent with her/his face.

2 An order that regulates the flow of events (Goffman 215)

3

2- Expert power (Roach, Richmond, and Mottet 119): For Ls to yield expert power to

their T, they must perceive her/him as being an expert in her/his field. To show expert

power, T should possess and provide knowledge.

3- Coercive Power (Roach, Richmond, and Mottet 119): It is the ability to punish.

4- Reward Power (Roach, Richmond, and Mottet 119): It is the ability to reward or

withhold punishment.

5- Integrative power (Manke): It is power of creating positive relationships.

On the other hand, a L may take a line that shows any of these socially and institutionally

accepted traits:

1. Having Reward Power: Ls can reward a T with positive evaluations, which will enable

her/him to remain employed (Roach, Richmond, and Mottet 128).

2. Having Verbal Responsiveness: It includes, among others, low communication

apprehension; high self-perceived communication competence; and low public

speaking anxiety (McCroskey and Richmond 58-9).

3. Having Educational and Learning Needs: These needs are fulfilled by acquiring new

information and ideas that will be personally and professionally significant (Mottet,

Frymier, and Beebe 266). Ls in non-credit courses are considered learning-oriented

students rather than grade-oriented students.

4. Having a Relational Need: It is “the need to feel confirmed as a student and often as a

person” (Mottet, Frymier, and Beebe 266).

1.2. 2 Facework, Politic Behavior, and Politeness:

According to Goffman, one will take necessary actions “to make whatever he is doing

consistent with face” (216). These actions are the facework strategies that aim at

counteracting or neutralizing “incidents which threaten face” whether one’s own face or

the face of others. As put by Watts, facework “involves the reciprocal social attribution

of face to the participants in social interaction in accordance with the line or lines the

participants can be assumed to be taking in the interaction” ( Politeness 131). These lines

constitute part of the politic behavior related to a social activity type.

Facework can be supportive or non-supportive. Watts states that when one of the

interactants who is about to fall out of line, or has already fallen out of line, “takes

measures to indicate to the other participants that the overall attribution of face is still

4

valid”, supportive facework is monitored (Politeness 132-3). Usually signaled by highly

conventionalized forms of linguistic structures, it is called supportive because it

contributes to the entire ‘facework’ of the interaction. The aim of supportive facework is

to avoid conflict and aggression and, if possible, create comity among participants.

Non-supportive facework may exist in several forms of socio-communicative verbal

interaction, where “the statuses of the participants are institutionally organized in a

rigidly hierarchical manner or participants are interacting in a very close-knit social

network” as between family members or close friends (Watts, Politeness133). Examples

of hierarchical form of interaction include military service and instructional settings –

where asymmetrical power relationship exists. These social interaction types have

interaction orders with lines that “sanction or neutralize face-threatening or face-

damaging acts” (Watts, Politeness 131-2). Hence, these non-supportive facework acts are

not considered impolite but politic.

While Watts maintains that supportive or non-supportive facework does not

automatically entail politeness or impoliteness (Politeness 133), Brown and Levinson

equate facework with politeness. Defining face as the “public self image that every

member wants to claim for himself” consisting of positive and negative face wants, they

regard face as the key motivating force underlying politeness. While positive face refers

to “the positive consistent self image …including the desire that this self-image be

appreciated and approved”, negative face refers to “the basic claim to non-distraction –

i.e. freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Brown and Levinson 62; Watts,

Politeness 104). They maintain that certain acts are inherently face threatening and that

speakers must select appropriate linguistic strategies in order to mitigate this face threat

and be polite. They regard politeness as a complex system for softening face-threatening

acts. They use the term facework to describe only appropriate and polite behavior with a

focus on face-threat mitigation, excluding politic behavior (Locher and Watts).

This paper maintains that in instructional settings supportive or non-supportive facework

strategies do not merely indicate politeness or impoliteness, but they tend to cover the

entire range of verbal behavior that encompasses the following behaviors (Locher and

Watts 10; Watts, Politeness):

(a) the negatively marked impolite non-politic;

5

(b) the unmarked non-polite politic;

(c) the positively marked polite, politic; and

(d) the negatively marked over-polite, non-politic

In this respect, distinction should be made between:

a) Unmarked behavior: It is the behavior that has become a ritualized, institutionalized

form of social behavior, and goes largely unnoticed (Watts, Politeness 117; Locher and

Watts 11). It functions “as a way of guiding and organizing the flow of message,

establishing and/or maintaining personal relationships between the individuals of a social

group in a state of equilibrium (Watts, Politic Verbal Behavior 50; Watts, Politeness

123). It is considered unmarked if it is appropriate according to “the frame or habitus of

participants within which one attaches face to each participant, in accordance with the

lines taken in the interaction” (Locher and Watts 17; emphasis added). Most forms of

politic behavior contain highly routinized sequences whose purposes are to regulate the

lines taken in the interaction order and to ensure overall face maintenance (Watts,

Politeness 132). Hence, politic behavior “accounts for the knowledge of which linguistic

structures are expectable in a specific type of interaction in a specific social field” (Watts,

Politeness 161). While admitting that there are no objective criteria for determining

politic behavior, Watts maintains that “(W)e recognize politic behavior when engaging in

social strategies because it conforms to the objectified structures of the social field of the

interaction and the forms of habitus we have developed to cope with the exigencies of

social strategies” (Politeness 166).

b) Marked behavior: It can be noticed as it is “set against individual normative

expectations of appropriate or politic behavior” (Locher and Watts 10). They have two

forms:

i) Positively marked behavior: It is “perceived as polite/politic/appropriate” (Locher and

Watts 12), leading to the enhancement of one’s self image or “ego” (Watts, Politic Verbal

Behavior 51).

ii) Negatively marked behavior: It appears to “go against the canons of acceptable

appropriate behavior operative for the ongoing social interaction” to fall out of line by not

taking the line expected by others in an interaction (Watts, Politeness 18). Falling out of

line constitutes a break of the politic behavior, which is interpretable by the interactants

6

as offence and as damage to the face of one or more of the interactants including the

interactants who have fallen out of line. In this case it is perceived as “impolite/non-

politic/ inappropriate …, or as over-polite/non-politic/inappropriate” (Locher & Watts

11), leading to communicative breakdowns (Watts, Politic Verbal Behavior 51).

1.3. Questions of the Study:

Given the asymmetrical power relationship between Ts and Ls, and assuming that both

Ts and Ls would use supportive and non-supportive facework upper-strategies and

strategies, the study attempts to find answers to the following questions:

1. What are the supportive facework upper-strategies used by Ts?

1.1. What are the strategies employed to save Ls’ positive and negative faces?

1.2. What are the strategies employed to enhance Ls’ face?

1.3. What are the strategies used to save their own face?

1.4. What are the strategies used to enhance their own face?

2. What are the supportive facework upper-strategies used by Ls?

2.1. What are the strategies employed to save T’s positive and negative faces?

2.2. What are the strategies employed to enhance T’s face?

2.3. What are the strategies used to save their own face?

2.4. What are the strategies used to enhance their own face?

3. What are the non-supportive facework upper-strategies used by Ts?

3.1. What are the strategies employed to threaten L’s positive and negative faces?

4. Do Ls employ non-supportive facework upper-strategies in classroom?

4.1. If found, what are the upper-strategies and strategies employed to threaten Ts’

positive and negative faces?

2. Method:

2.1. Data Collection:

Following the ethnographic approach, four interactions were tape-recorded from the

evening classes of non-credit English language courses, Public Service Programs, Sadat

7

Academy for Management Sciences, and Cairo University. Ls are adults, both males and

females; age ranges from 19 to 45. Some are graduates and others undergraduates. Ts

are non-native speakers of English, males and females, at early 30s and 40s, and with

considerable experience in teaching general English and conversation.

2.2. Procedures and Data Analysis:

The recorded interactions were transcribed and three different types of transactions were

chosen: Eliciting, Directing and Informing.

For the purpose of the study, two procedures are followed to analyze data:

First Procedure: Separating Outer and Inner structures (Willis):

In classes of English as a foreign or a second language, language is used both as the

medium of instruction and as the subject matter of lesson. Accordingly, the interaction

turns are classified into Outer and Inner. According to Willis, the Outer structure

provides the framework of the lesson, the language used to socialize, organize, explain,

and check, and generally, to enable the pedagogic activities to take place, while the Inner

structure consists of the target forms of the language that T has selected as learning goals

for the lesson (2). As Willis assumes, the Outer language in classes of English as a

foreign or a second language will be the L’s mother tongue, while the Inner language will

be in the target language, which is English (2).

Second Procedure:

1- Dividing each interaction hierarchically into transactions, exchanges, moves and

speech acts following the DA model, known also as Birmingham or exchange

structure model and developed by Sinclair and Coulthard. Analyzing structure of

classroom interaction, Sinclair and Coulthard found that each lesson includes the

following transactions: Informing, Directing and Eliciting. Each transaction is made

of more than one exchange. In each transaction, there are two types of exchanges:

Boundary and Teaching, as shown in figure (1).

8

Figure (1)

Each Boundary Exchange, mainly composed of framing and focusing moves, marks

the start and end of an exchange. The framing move is realized by the act of frame

marker, while the focusing move by the acts of meta-statement or conclusion (figure

2).

Figure (2)

Boundary exchange

Framing move Focusing move

Act: Frame marker

Meta-statement conclusion

Transaction: Informing, Eliciting, Directing

Boundary Exchange Teaching exchange

9

Teaching Exchange falls under four groups, divided according to function, namely

(a) informing including T-inform and L-inform; (b) directing including T-direct; (c)

eliciting including T-elicit and L-elicit; and (d) checking including T-check, as

shown in figure (3).

Figure (3)

The structure of each exchange consists of two or three moves: Opening/Initiation,

Answering/Response, and Follow-up (known as IRF), as shown in figures 4, 5, and 6.

Figure (4)

Figure (5)

Eliciting: T-elicit; L-elicit

T or L Initiation move

By T or L

T or L Response move

T Follow-up move

Informing: T-inform; L-inform

T or L Initiating move

By T or L

T Follow up

teaching exchange

Informing: T-inform; L-inform

Eliciting: T-elicit; L-elicit

Directing T-direct

Checking T-check

10

Figure (6)

Each move, whether initiation, or response, or follow-up, consists of a head act, which

may be preceded by a pre-head act and/or followed by a post head act.

2- Classifying facework into supportive and non-supportive upper-strategies, which are

further branched into strategies and sub-strategies (Flowerdew 13-17); and evaluating

each strategy as either (a) positively marked politic; (b) negatively marked politic or non-

politic; or (c) unmarked politic (Locher and Watts). Consequently, facework is

categorized in the following manner as indicated in table (1):

I- Supportive Facework:

a- Enhancing one’s own face / Unmarked Politic/Non-Polite:

Concerned with controlling the image one gives to others (Flowerdew 13), Ts and Ls are

expected to find out the values and attributes that impress others and show each other that

they possess them. Such acts are evaluated as unmarked politic behavior since they go

with the line s/he takes for her/himself.

b- Saving one’s own face / Unmarked Politic/Non-Polite:

One attempts to save her/his face if s/he falls out of the expected line, to avoid shame and

guilt (Flowerdew 16). For Goffman, reasons for saving one’s own face are, among

others, “his emotional attachment to the image of self or the power his assumed status

allows him to exert over the other participants” (Goffman 216). Such face saving

strategies performed by Ts or Ls are considered unmarked politic.

c- Enhancing other’s positive face / Positively Marked Politic:

To give and enhance face is “to arrange for another to take a better line than he might

otherwise have been able to take” (Goffman 215). To enhance other’s face, one may

Directing T-direct

T Initiation move

L Response move

T Follow-up move

11

apply Brown and Levinson’s positive strategies - complimenting, offering, and joking -

that are social accelerators, meant to draw participants closer to each other (Flowerdew

14-15) and increase immediacy. In this regard, a T may use a number of affinity seeking

strategies3 that “have been positively associated with learning, motivation, credibility, or

positive classroom climate” (Frymier and Wanzer 206). When a T or L reciprocally give

or enhance positive face, by using humor, or praise, such supportive facework is

considered positively marked politic, since it contributes to the notion of verbal

immediacy which gets T and L closer to each other (Richmond, Lane, and McCroskey

170).

d- Saving other’s negative face / Positively Marked Politic:

Saving other’s negative face requires the employment of supportive facework strategies

that include negative strategies to mitigate the acts that threaten face (Brown and

Levinson). One tends to save others’ faces because of their superiority (Flowerdew 17),

or if they have a moral right to this protection, or to avoid their hostility if they lose their

face (Goffman 216). When a T tends to save an L’s negative face, despite her/his

powers, it may be considered positively marked/politic/polite, falling under the affinity

seeking behavior. On the other hand, Ls’ tendency to save their T’s negative face is

considered unmarked politic. e- Losing one’s own negative face / Positively Marked Politic:

If a T or L loses negative face, as in the case of offering, it is regarded as positively

marked, polite, and politic.

II- Non-Supportive Facework:

Non-supportive facework strategies are expected in instructional settings, where

asymmetrical power relationship exists. They may include:

a- Threatening other’s face / T-L Unmarked politic or L-T Negatively marked

non-politic:

3 Among the affinity seeking strategies that fall under this category are ‘assume equality,

facilitate enjoyment, conversational rule keeping, elicit other’s disclosures, altruism, and

others’ (Frymier and Wanzer 206-7).

12

According to Brown and Levinson, acts that threaten positive face include criticism and

disapproval, and those that threaten negative face include requests, orders, and threats

(65-67). In absolute terms, they may be considered non-supportive facework and

impolite. Given the fact that classrooms have interaction orders with lines that “sanction

or neutralize face-threatening or face-damaging acts” (Watts, Politeness 131-2), these

non-supportive facework acts are not considered impolite but politic. However, if Ls

perform acts4 such as declining T’s request, or blaming the T, or ignoring her/him, such

acts may fall under the negatively marked non-politic/inappropriate behavior.

b- Losing one’s own positive face / negatively marked, non-politic:

A T or L may lose her/his positive face when s/he does not follow the line expected by

others, as in the case of self-criticism that is considered negatively marked, over-polite,

non-politic behavior. As for Ls, loss of positive face may occur by resistance techniques.

4 Such acts are regarded as “Student Resistance Techniques” (Kearney, Plax, and

McPherson 242-3)