Managing Interpersonal Relationships

Theoretical Framework

6.1.1. The Theory of Politeness Developed by P. Brown & S. Levinson

One of the most elaborate theoretical frameworks that approach the problematics of linguistic politeness is represented by the model developed by P. Brown & S. Levinson (1987). This theory is based on the concept of face , formerly introduced by Goffman in his study from 1967. The face , as defined by Goffman, corresponds to a social image valorization developed by the interlocutors and which they want to impose during the interaction, depending on the behavioural line adopted. Brown & Levinson (1987) introduce, besides the notion of face borrowed from Goffman, the notion of territory (which corresponds to the concept of “territories of the self” described by Goffman in Relations in public (1971), a concept that comprises eight types of spaces of the self: personal space, the stall, use space, the turn, the sheath, possessional territory, information preserve and conversation preserve ); Therefore, according to Brown & Levinson (1987), every individual possesses two faces: a positive face, which corresponds to the concept of face defined by Goffman (“ the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants ”) and a negative face, which corresponds to the definition given by Goffman to the concept of “territories of the self” (“ the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition ”) (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61).

As a consequence, there are two accepted meanings of politeness: a positive politeness, which regards the positive face of the interlocutor, and a negative one that implies self-effacement on the part of the locutor and which is mainly directed toward the negative face of the interlocutor.

The territory (negative face) must be understood as personal space, but not only in a material sense, as corporal or temporal space, but also as a cognitive or affective dimension. During the interaction, the individuals express the desire to preserve their faces ( face-want ) and must act by means of a sustained effort to prevent the damaging of either face ( face-work ), including their own faces. Speech acts (as well as non-verbal ones) performed by the interactants can represent threats to their positive and/or negative faces. Brown & Levinson (1987) propose the term Face Threatening Acts in order to designate the acts by means of which these face potential threats are performed, any speech act constituting a threat to at least one of the two faces present. Face threats are weakened by means of various politeness strategies, politeness being “a means of reconciling the mutual desire to preserve one’s faces with the fact that most speech acts are potentially threatening to either of the faces” (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996, p. 53). Brown & Levinson (1957) identify three sociological factors that are essential in choosing a certain politeness strategy: the social distance (D) between interactants, their power relations ( relative power, P) and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 15). Depending on these social variables, the locutor opts for a strategy to elaborate his/her communicative contribution (Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, 1972).

Although the theory they propose claims to be a universal one (Brown & Levinson analyse the functioning of totally different languages: English, Tamil, Tzeltal, Japanese, Malgash), there are situations that are culturally different and so the explanatory efficiency of this theory reveals its limits (197). One of the criticisms brought to the model proposed by the two researchers results especially from the fact that the expression of politeness depends on specific cultural contexts. However, we can state that “ despite these criticisms, politeness theory provides an excellent theoretical basis for continuing work on how individuals achieve sociability in face-to-face interaction ” (Jarowski & Coupland, 1999, p. 297). Cultural differences do not mar the universal nature of politeness principles, what differs in the case of each culture being the manner in which these “ universals in language use ” are applied: “ This framework puts into perspective the ways in which societies are not the same interactionally, and the innumerable possibilities for cross-cultural misunderstanding that arise ” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 258).

Face Threatening Acts and Face Enhancing Acts in The Lesson by Eugène Ionesco

In The Lesson , the speech acts performed by the characters translate the alteration of interpersonal relationships. At the beginning of the play, the Professor, a presupposed possessor of knowledge, finds himself in a position of inferiority, because when the Pupil arrives, he performs a series of threats to his own positive face: “Professor: Good morning, young lady. You... I expect that you... that you are the new pupil?

Pupil [turns quickly with a lively and self-assured manner; she gets up, goes toward the Professor, and gives him her hand]: Yes, Professor. Good morning, Professor. As you see, I’m on time. I didn’t want to be late.

Professor: That’s fine, miss. Thank you, you didn’t really need to hurry. I am very sorry to have kept you waiting... I was just finishing up... well... I’m sorry... You will excuse me, won’t you?...” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 47).

We should notice that the Professor’s act of apologizing is not preceded by any insult such an act would normally presuppose. The Pupil’s reaction to the Professor’s excuses takes place indirectly, through denegation: “ Pupil: Oh, certainly, Professor. It doesn’t matter at all, Professor ” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 47).

The Professor continues in the first part of the lesson to excuse himeslf, most often for imaginary insults: “Pupil : Oh! I don’t know them [the chief cities] all yet, Professor, it’s not quite that easy, I have trouble learning them.

Professor: Oh! It will come… you mustn’t give up… young lady… I beg your pardon… have patience… little by little… You will see, it will come in time… What a nice day it is today… or rather, not so nice… Oh! But then yes it is nice. In short, it’s not too bad a day, that’s the main thing… ahem… ahem… it’s not raining and it’s not snowing either.

Pupil: That would be most unusual, for it’s summer now.

Professor: Excuse me, miss, I was just going to say so… but as you will learn, one must be ready for anything” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 48).

The preparatory condition of the apologizing act (the existence of an insult addressed to the Pupil, for which the Professor is responsible) is rarely realized. Such a fact takes place in the situation presented below when, after the exit of the Maid that interrupted the lesson, the Professor states: “ Professor: Miss, I hope you will pardon this absurd interruption... Excuse this woman... She is always afraid that I’ll tire myself. She fusses over my health ” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 51). The conditions for the speech act to be successful are now met, and the Pupil responds explicitly by accepting the repair and granting forgiveness: “ Pupil: Oh, that’s quite all right, Professor. It shows that she’s very devoted. She loves you very much. Good servants are rare ” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 51).

When the Pupil does not manage to give answers to the Professor’s questions, he blames himself, thus assuming the responsibility. The act of apologizing is performed implicitly, with the Professor admitting his mistake, which is represented by the transgression of the modality principle: “ Professor: I haven’t made myself very well understood. No doubt, it is my fault. I’ve not been sufficiently clear ” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 54).

The transformation of the relations between the Professor and the Pupil is announced in the stage directions: “The Professor enters. He is a little old man with a little white beard. [...] Excessively polite, very timid, his voice deadened by his timidity, very proper, very much the teacher. He rubs his hands together constantly; occasionally a lewd gleam comes into his eyes and is quickly repressed. During the course of the play his timidity will disappear progressively, imperceptibily; and the lewd gleam in his eyes will become a steady devouring flame in the end. From a manner that is inoffensive at the start, the Professor becomes more and more sure of himself, more and more nervous, aggressive, dominating, until he is able to do as he pleases with the Pupil, who has become, in his hands, a pitiful creature. Of course, the voice of the Professor must change too, from thin and reedy, to stronger and stronger, until at the end it is extremely powerful, ringing, sonorous, while the Pupil’s voice changes from the very clear and ringing tones that she has at the beginning of the play until it is almost inaudible” (E. Ionesco, 1958: 46-47), as well as in the Maid’s predictions and threats: “Maid: [...] Excuse me, Professor, but take care, I urge you to remain calm. [...] Professor, especially not philology, philology leads to calamity... [...] All right, Professor, all right. But you can’t say that I didn’t warn you! Philology leads to calamity! ” (Ionesco, 1958, pp. 50-60).

The Professor’s timidity gradually makes room for violence and aggression, which are materialized by means of a series of threatening acts for the positive and negative faces of the Pupil. Verbal aggressions occur, such as: threats (“ Every tongue – you must know this, miss, and remember it until the hour of your death …”), orders (“ Quiet ! What do you mean by that?[…] Keep quiet. Remain seated, don’t interrupt me… […] Don’t interrupt! Don’t make me lose my temper! I can’t answer for what I’ll do. […] Silence! Or I’ll bash in your skull! ”) are quickly followed by non-verbal territorial aggressions in the murder scene. After committing the murder, it is the Maid who assumes a position of superiority. She asks the Professor uncomfortable questions (“ Then, you’re satisfied with your pupil, she’s profited by your lesson? ”), or formulates reproaches (“ And today makes it the fortieth time!... And every day it’s the same thing! Every day! You should be ashamed, at your age… and you are going to make yourself sick! You won’t have any pupils left. That will serve you right ”) and she even slaps him (Ionesco, 1958, pp.

60-76).

Trapped in a space that offers no possibility of escape (the apartment in the middle of which the Professor’s study is found), the three characters go through reverse metamorphoses. This space of confinement is like a labyrinth for the characters, the only possibility of escaping being death. From a polite, well-bred, dynamic young woman, the Pupil becomes an amnesic and transforms into a passive object, staring into the void space, suffering from a terrible tooth ache. Contrariwise, the Professor loses his shyness and becomes authoritative, aggressive, and indifferent to the physical suffering of his pupil. Unconsciousness and repressed sexuality become intermingled in the Professor’s case; the thirst for power and his sexual desire constitute the two drives that he subsides or recedes whenever he stabs a pupil. Ionesco explains, in Antidotes , the meaning of the play: “If we are to find a meaning associated with The Lesson , then this can only be the almightiness of desire. The powerful irrationality of desire: instinct defeats culture. The Lesson is the story of a rape; it is in vain that the Professor continues to teach the pupil arithmetic and philology – philology which leads to crime!-, other things take place there, more violent ones” (Ionesco, 1977, p. 221).

The Maid, an insignificant figure at the beginning (her role was that of taking the Pupil to the Professor’s study), starts to exert a considerable influence on the Professor. After committing the murder, she resumes her function from the start of the play: the door bell rings, a new pupil enters, the same replies from the beginning of the play are exchanged. The repetition suppresses any liberation possibility: once the Pupil is assassinated, the Maid reveals the Professor’s madness: it is the fortieth lesson of the day, it is the fortieth murder. The objects present on the scene at the beginning of the play (backpacks, notebooks) materialize the previous murders. The stage directions at the end of the play (“ The stage remains empty for several moments. We hear the doorbell ring at the left. [...] She [The Maid] appears as she was at the beginning of the play, and goes towards the door. The doorbell rings again .”) insist on the cyclical structure of the play and underline the Professor’s failure, who is incapable to overcome his condition, that of a serial killer.

In this play, the laws of discourse and of social behaviour clearly express the changes in power relations between characters. The transformations they go through leave an imprint in their discourses, especially at the level of the speech acts performed.