John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

God bless you sir thank you god bless you: Panhandling, face-work, and language awareness John R. Jordan Monterey Institute of International Studies

Abstract This study investigates the face-work strategies panhandlers use making requests for money or goods to strangers on the street. Thirty-three panhandling encounters were naturalistically documented and analyzed for the presence of negative and politeness face-work using Goffmans (1967/2006) and Brown and Levinsons (1987/2006) frameworks of face-work and politeness. The study specifically looked at the presence of seven strategies: avoidance, hedging, indirect questions, thanking, forms of address, rapport building via greetings, and giving reasons. Analysis shows that avoidance was the most prevalent strategy used. Panhandlers avoided verbalizing requests, and both verbal and non-verbal requests (via signs and props) were mostly indirect. Still, all the other face-work strategies were also observed in the data. The data show panhandlers to be acutely aware of the threats to face inherent in their acts and demonstrate how panhandlers overcome these using both positive and negative politeness. Drawing on Alim (2007, 2010), the paper concludes with some pedagogical implications from both the data and the methods used in the study.

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

The official Website (2011) of the city of Monterey, California, describes Monterey as a waterfront community with [h]otels, inns, shops and restaurants where youll see harbor seals, sea otters and pelicans in natural habitats on the dazzling waterfront of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Although the website paints a nice picture for potential visitors, it fails to mention Montereys ever-present panhandlers. During a downtown stroll, a visitor cannot help but notice the constant sight of mostly middle-aged men standing and sitting with signs and cups, offering the occasional variation of the timeless Buddy, can you spare a dime? Living in Monterey is my first regular experience being around and interacting with American panhandlers. As I became accustomed to their presence, I began thinking about how panhandlers act. Here are people resigned to working the street, trying to catch the eye and earn the dollar of passersby. What do they say? Why do some ask and some not? This study systematically investigates, using traditional sociolinguistic methods, the speech and actions of the panhandlers I see in Monterey. After a discussion of the data, I relate how English language learners can use the sociolinguistic research methods used in this study to stimulate language awareness. Panhandling and Homelessness Lankenau (1999a) defined a panhandler as someone who publicly and regularly requests money or goods for personal use in a face-to-face manner from unfamiliar others without offering a readily identifiable or valued consumer product or service in exchange for items received (pp. 187-188). Stark (1992) commented that panhandling was seen as begging with a story of need, even if money given would not go to that need (p. 342). Stark added further that panhandlers often had other larger sources of income, and that the money acquired from panhandling was often spent on short-term items like alcohol, drugs, and food. She also found

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

that panhandling was not usually a daily experience. Being outside of traditional employment, charity, or government assistance, panhandling is what Snow and Anderson (1993) characterized as shadow work, or recognition and exploitation of whatever resources and unofficial markets happen to be available whenever a few dollars are needed (p. 146). Panhandling, therefore, is an activity that a small group within a marginalized community does in order to get short-term assistance, and an activity that requires directly soliciting out-group members. As shadow work, panhandling is also a rejection of socially acceptable means of acquiring goods. Although it is often assumed that panhandlers are homeless, a Department of Justice report reported that the number of homeless who panhandle was low and also that a small percentage of panhandlers were homeless (Scott, 2003). Lee and Farrell (2003) analyzed data from a 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients and reported that only 14.4 percent of the homeless claimed recent panhandling activities. Stark (1992) compared surveys and found that only 17 percent of the national homeless population reported handouts as their primary source of income. Still, the publics main direct contact with the homeless is via panhandlers, and when such an interaction occurs, with an often unsuspecting citizen, the individual approached may believe that all homeless people are panhandlers (p. 342). Although data linking homelessness and panhandling show a limited connection, panhandling represents the main source of contact between the homeless and society at large. Ethnographic Panhandler Research There has not been extensive scholarly research on panhandlers. In 1992, Stark went as far as to write that little is known about homeless panhandlers (p. 341). However, the majority of research follows an ethnographic approach. What follows is a summary of ethnographic work that dealt with communication patterns of panhandlers.

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

Lankenau (1999a, 1999b) did ethnographic work with Washington D.C. panhandlers for almost two years, from 1994 to 1996. In one study, Lankenau (1999a) looked at how panhandlers overcame the blas attitude of passersby by using different repertoires. Lankenau categorized panhandling as a dramaturgical act and identified five repertoires panhandlers employed to get the attention (and money) of people on the streets. His five repertoires were entertainer, greeter, service provider, storyteller, and aggressor. The entertainer uses music or humor to gain the attention of people. The service provider parks cars, gives directions, and offers other services in exchange for handouts. The greeter relies on politeness and building rapport with passersby through ritualized greetings. The storyteller uses narrative to gain the sympathy of the passersby. The aggressor scares, intimidates, or shames pedestrians into noticing the panhandler. Lankenau wrote that these repertoires were deliberately employed performances of the panhandlers to counteract the stigma of homelessness and panhandling, and to get past the nonperson treatment, afforded to panhandlers. This treatment Lankenau characterized as [a] person withholding glances or close scrutiny of another and effectively treating the other as though he or she did not exist (p. 186). Using a sociolinguistic framework, Hayati and Maniati (2010) investigated narrative acts in the speech of Iranian beggars working near mosques. They recorded the speech of five male beggars giving narratives to people between prayers and then analyzed how the beggars positioned themselves in the speech act. The authors found that the beggars all used similar narratives to position themselves as not being what they actually are and rejecting the normative assumptions which are socially attached to them (p. 56). By doing so, the beggars are drawing on the different associations of what it means to be a beggar in ways that suit the immediate business of the conversation (p. 56). In another study, Olauson (2009) studied the discourse of

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

panhandling speech acts of Nigerian beggars. He found that the panhandling speech acts involved shared emotions, short utterances, and rhetic acts that both reflected and rebuffed the local cultural views on the practice of panhandling. His study found that begging discourse can be seen in the same perspective as political discourse, advertising discourse and other rhetorical texts that are designed to win over those they solicit (pp. 14-15). Using different frameworks and analyses, these studies show that panhandlers work both to increase the chances of it having a favorable outcome and to distance themselves from the event. The Washington D.C. panhandlers used active dramaturgical roles to break through the non-person treatment passersby routinely afforded them; the Iranian beggars used narrative acts to captivate their audiences and distance themselves from their panhandling; the Nigerian beggars used their discourse to transform the unfavorable social context of their activities into a favorable one. All three studies show panhandlers to be active agents engaging in communicative strategies necessary for their chosen task, yet at the same time using these activities to distance themselves from the act. Another paradoxical aspect of panhandling is how panhandlers work to maintain face while doing the quite face-threatening act of requesting assistance from unwitting strangers. Let us look at politeness theory and face-work, and how previous work on panhandling fits into these theories. Politeness Theory and Panhandling Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) assumed that all competent members of society have face (p. 311). Goffman (1967/2006) defined face as a positive social value inherent in interaction. Face is kept by maintaining participants views and evaluations of a situation, what Goffman called lines, which are maintained by what participants do, who they are, and what the norms of their society are. Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) separate face into two aspects:

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

negative and positive face. Negative face is the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, [and] rights to non-distraction (p. 311). Negative face involves the right of members of society not to be bothered. They defined positive face as the positive consistent self-image or personality (p. 311). People work for an image that will be accepted and approved of by fellow members of society, and maintaining face is a want of every member of society. Using Brown and Levinsons (1987/2006) framework, panhandling threatens both the positive face of the panhandler and the negative face of the passerby. Panhandlers threaten their positive face by admitting a need. By asking for money, panhandlers present themselves as members of society who can no longer provide for themselves through traditional means, or choose not to. Their disheveled appearance, the stigma of substance abuse, and the general negative image of panhandlers in society can also threaten panhandlers positive face. The negative face of the addressee is also threatened in the act. By requesting assistance from a stranger, the panhandler interrupts the privacy of the addressee. This negative face threat is increased by the panhandlers status a stranger and perceived vagrant. If panhandlers are, as Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) assume, rational members of society, they must work to limit both the threats to negative and positive face through politeness and face-work. Goffman (1967/2006) offered many examples of face-workstrategies to limit threats to facethat could be employed by people in potential face-threatening acts. The first solution was avoidance. Panhandlers may simply avoid directly asking people for assistance. Lankenau (1999a) quoted a D.C. panhandler on using a silent method: Then I started to develop my own thingsomething told me not to say anything. In other words, I let my cup do the talking. People used to tell me a long time ago, if anyone

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

wants you to have anything theyll give it to you. You know, you dont have to ask. (p. 192) Signs are also another common way of avoiding verbal confrontation. For a panhandler, a sign removes the uncomfortable process of verbally soliciting money and minimizes negative exchanges (Lankenau, 1999a, p. 193). Goffman (1967/2006) also identified avoidance practices a speaker may employ once an encounter has been chanced: politeness (in the common sense), ambiguity, discretion, or humor. Previous ethnographic work supplies examples of these in practice by panhandlers. For instance, panhandlers are polite by showing signs of respect. Stark (1992) wrote, Finally, like sales personnel everywhere, many panhandlers conclude a business transaction with Have a nice day! even when their solicitation has been turned down (pp. 345-346). The panhandlers may be discreet or even deceiving, like the panhandlers Stark described who asked for money for gas or transportation, and then used it for purchasing alcohol or drugs. On the other hand, they may be realistic and even humorous about claims to avoid being put on the spot, as in another panhandler Stark mentioned who hung out at a liquor store asking for fifty cents to start a quart (p. 345). Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) developed a flow chart of politeness strategies to mitigate face-threatening acts (Figure 1). Panhandlers may choose not to ask someone for assistance and therefore avoid the face-threatening act. If they go ahead with the act, the panhandlers can go off-recordto not directly acknowledge the request. For example, Lankenau (1999a) describes mendicants who provide a servicefinding a parking spot, for examplewith the hope of getting a tip. The author quoted a panhandler as saying, Its free money out there. I dont ask for nothing. I just direct cars into parking spaces and people give me money (p. 198).

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

Otherwise, panhandlers can go on-recordacknowledge the inherent threats to facewith redressive action to limit face loss. Brown and Levinsons (1987/2006) editors listed strategies of politeness that could give the face-threatening act redress for the positive face of the speaker (positive politeness): joking, giving reasons, exaggerating, intensifying interest, and/or being optimistic; and forms of redress for the negative ace of the addressee (negative politeness): giving deference, hedging, being direct or conventionally indirect, and/or incurring debt.

on record do the FTA do the FTA? don't do the FTA off record

without redressive action, baldly with redressive action

positive politeness negative politeness

Figure 1. Possible Strategies for doing a FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987/2006)

Panhandlers can adapt some of the politeness strategies Goffman (1967/2006) and Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) provided. Hedging can be an attempt to downplay the request made. Panhandlers hedge by either asking for a limited offering (pennies, nickels, anything; got an extra smoke) or downplaying the need of the request (you got a cigarette by any chance?). Indirect questions are examples of what Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) describe as conventionalized indirectness (p. 317), or fully-established ways of making face-threatening requests. In panhandling, requests are often phrased in an indirect manner, as in the question, Do you have any change? meaning something like Can you please give me change (if you have it)? Honorifics or other forms of address can be a form of deference, and include conversational vocatives, such as sir, man, and brother. Thanking is a form of indebtedness to

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report

the addressee by the panhandler. Greetings help establish a relationship with passersby by extending any ceremonial treatment that might be their due (Goffman, 1967/2006, p. 303). As mentioned earlier, to panhandle is an act rife with threats to face. The act is often degrading and humiliating work (Lankenau, 1999b, p. 288) and there is an inherently asymmetrical relationship between the panhandler and panhandled (Lee & Farrell, 2003, p. 302). Strategies panhandlers use that can limit the loss of face can be seen in previous research, but this study attempts to add to previous ethnographic work by looking directly at strategies panhandlers use to overcome these inherent threats to face. Specifically, this paper looks at the strategies panhandlers in Monterey employ. Research Questions (1) What verbal and non-verbal face-work strategies do panhandlers employ that show their attention to the apparent face threats inherent in their solicitations? (2) More specifically, how and how often do panhandlers use the face-work strategies of avoidance, hedging, indirect questions, and thanking as negative politeness; and forms of address, rapport building via greetings, and giving reasons as positive politeness? Method Materials and Procedure I collected tokens of naturalistic observations of panhandling during October and November 2011. During breaks between classes, evenings, and weekends, I went out in Monterey to observe panhandling. For this study, a panhandling encounter is one of two things: (1) I was asked by a stranger for money or something else, and noted the language of the request; or (2) I, recorder in hand, approached a potential panhandler (identifiable because of

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 10

homeless-like vibe consisting of: a somewhat disheveled appearance, several layers of olderlooking clothing, and/or bags; sitting or standing in one place; and, most importantly, having panhandling props such as signs, cups, or plates to collect money) with the hope of being asked, and then I recorded the encounter, regardless of whether a verbal request was made. I never initiated communication with panhandlers, but I found that if I made eye contact with them, it seemed to increase the likelihood of speech. Data were collected in a process of convenience, or opportunistic, sampling (Bailey & Nunan, 2009). As noted before, I recorded all verbal panhandling requests that I encountered during these two months, but I only recorded non-verbal requests if I had a recording device and was looking. My bias in favor of spoken encounters led to data skewed in favor of verbal requests. I recorded, by audio or writing soon after, any request made, demographics, the presence and wording of signs and other props, and other notes that I felt could be important. All encounters were recorded in a table where I noted demographic information about the panhandler, time and date, location, the phrasing of a request if made, my response, any thanks expressed, and any other notes. In my table, I tallied uses of these politeness strategies: indirect questions, forms of address, hedging, thanks, and greetings. I also attempted to audio-record and obtain permission to use as many tokens as possible, although I was largely unsuccessful, netting only one usable recording. My method was to walk past a potential panhandler with a recording device running and wait to be asked for something. If I was able to get a recording of a request, I then attempted to get permission from the panhandler to use the recorded data. I transcribed the one permitted request. I found that the irregular nature of being panhandledeven while studying itmade capturing recorded data difficult. A technological glitch unfortunately erased one good token.

John Jordan Location

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 11

Data were taken in three locations, shown in Figure 2. The first was in downtown Monterey. Panhandlers frequent the 300 and 400 block of Alvarado Street, from just south of Walgreens to Taco Bell. Second, tokens were taken one block south of downtown, near Trader Joes supermarket, across from the Monterey Transit Plaza. Finally, I encountered panhandlers near Fishermans Wharf on the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail north of downtown.

Figure 2. Monterey Map with Number of Panhandling Encounters (Google Maps, 2011)

I chose these locations because they were easily accessible for me on foot and regularly visited by panhandlers. These locations also match a panhandling location profile that Stark (1992) described: commercial areas with high foot traffic. Outside of Walgreens drugstore in Monterey is a notorious hotspot for vagrants, a place matching a description of panhandling locales from Stark where alcohol can be purchased along with food, aspirin, and diapers (p. 344). This area is also close to cheap eating establishments, such as Roadhouse Pizza and La Troias Market. Monterey also provides panhandlers with plentiful access to tourists visiting

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 12

Monterey. Joe, a 27-year-old Phoenix panhandler quoted by Stark, explained why they are prime marks: Tourists are great. Theyre on vacation, feeling good about themselves. Theyre spending a lot of money anyway, so whats a little more thrown in (p. 345). The locations provided convenience for me and fit typical panhandling spots. Participants Over the two months, I collected 33 encounters. Twenty-five of the encounters were with single panhandlers; eight encounters were with two people together. Of the 41 people encountered in the 33 tokens, the majority35were male. Of the six females, only one was alone, and only one made a request to me. Most panhandlers were white. Three were African American; one was Latino. The ages of the participants were difficult to guess. A few could have been in their 20s or 30s, but I estimated most as being in their 40s, 50s, or 60s. All speech and writing encountered was in English. Results Somewhat surprisingly, the majority of the encounters were not spoken requests. Of the 33 panhandling encounters, only 12 were verbalized requests. Three encounters involved utterances that were not requests: Hi, Hello, and a request to observe a woman walking on the opposite crosswalk. The other 18 encounters were non-verbal. They consisted of panhandlers with signs or props such as cups of change, and three instances of no sign/prop or request.1 Verbal Requests In total, 12 of the 33 encounters were verbal requests (see Appendix A for transcripts of the verbal encounters). Most of the 12 verbal requests were made by a panhandler with no sign or prop. Figure 3 breaks down the types of verbal request. In each request, both the initial
1

The three non-verbal or no sign or prop encounters were noted as panhandling encounters because (1) the panhandler asked for money the next time I approached, (2) the panhandler was given money by the people behind me and said thanks, (3) the third had bags and was sitting on a bench that panhandlers frequent.

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 13

utterance and any following turns were analyzed for the presence of possible face-work strategies. I looked for instances of hedging, indirect questions, use of honorifics or other forms of address, thanking, and rapport building via greetings. Table 1 displays the various combinations of strategies in the requests. For example, in encounter No. 9, I was asked: Howre you doing tonight? Have any change? Nickel, dime, anything? This request has a greeting, hedge, and an indirect question; after being given a dollar, he also thanked me, saying, Thanks for the buck. The one audio-recorded request took place at 12:44 pm on November 25. I was approaching Walgreens from the south on the east side of Alvarado Street. The panhandleran African American male I judged to be in his 50s, and blindheard or sensed people approaching, and began singing the Christmas carol Joy to the World. A woman was a couple feet ahead of me walking in the same direction. Here is the exchange: P: [singing] (.) hello (.) spare change anyone today (.) spare change? Me: sure [I give the man a dollar bill] P: oh THANK you brother Me: no problem P: god bless you sir (.) thank you GOD bless you. [Transcribing conventions: : high intonation; (.): short pause; CAPS: louder speech; [?]: rising intonation; [.]: falling intonation] As positive politeness face-work, I counted the greeting (Hello) and use of honorific forms of address (brother and sir). As redressive action for the imposition of the negative face of the addressee, I noted three strategies: hedging (Anyone, Spare change?), thanking (Oh, thank

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 14

Request with prop 1 Request 8% with sign 3 25%

Request alone 8 67%

Figure 3. Verbal Panhandling Requests: The prop used was a plate on the ground near where the two panhandlers stood. I was asked for cigarettes.

Table 1. Positive and Negative Politeness Strategies Used : See Appendix A for the language of each encounter.

you, brother, God bless you, sir. Thank you. God bless you.), and indirect questioning (Spare change anyone today?). After the exchange, I asked for permission to use the recording and obtained it, and he then again thanked me twice, saying Thank you.

John Jordan Non-Verbal Panhandling Encounters

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 15

The majority of the encounters in my data were non-verbal. Even though my data collection method favored uttered requests by always noting them, 21 of the 33 encounters (63.6 percent) avoided a verbal request. Three of the 21 had verbal utterances that were not requests. The other 18 encounters are summarized in Figure 4.

Nothing 3 17% Props 2 11% Signs 13 72%

Figure 4. Non-Verbal Encounters: Nothing means that a panhandler had no sign/prop and did not speak. The two props indicated were a plate and a cup.

Signs were the most common strategy among the non-askers. Although the signs were largely used in lieu of verbal requests (three instances paired verbal requests with signs), politeness strategies can also be seen in the language of the 13 signs I recorded (see Appendix B for signs). Table 2 summarizes the different positive and negative politeness strategies seen in the signs. Six of the signs also gave specific reasons to give, and I added this strategy in place of honorifics or other forms of address as none of the signs featured this primarily oral feature. Discussion Although limited in scope, this study has clearly shown that panhandlers use strategies to limit threats to face. Avoidance was the most prevalent strategy. I recorded 13 encounters of panhandlers who avoided a verbal request by means of a written sign, yet none of the signs made

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 16

SIGNS
Did I Indirect Sign No. give? Hedging Question 1 no X X X 2 no X X 3 no X 4 no X 5 no 6 no X X X X 7 no X X 8 no X X 9 no X X 10 no 11 no X X X 12 no X X 13 no Total 9 13
Strategies for Neg. Face Strategies for Pos. Face

Thanks Greeting X X X 3 X 1

Gave Reasons

X X X X X X X 7

Strategies Used 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 1 2 33

Table 2. Positive and Negative Politeness Strategies Used: See Appendix B for the language of each sign.

direct requests either. Eight of the 12 verbal requests avoided direct requests. Avoidance, though, was not the only strategy used. As negative politeness, hedging, indirect questions, and thanking were all commonly used in the verbal requests. Five of the 12 requests used all three of these strategies, and 10 used at least one. The negative politeness strategies combined with positive politeness ones; greetings and vocatives were also common strategies. The recorded interaction had a greeting (hello) and two vocatives (brother, sir). While encountering passersby, panhandlers, with the negative associations of both panhandling and homelessness, must overcome being both a stigmatized other and simply being strangers. The use of greetings normalizes the interaction. More interesting was the high frequency of specific forms of address. I was called bro, brother, dude, and, most commonly, sir, plus, surprisingly, a group consisting of two female students and me was addressed as ladies. Ritualization may account for such high frequencies.

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 17

Although this study did not explicitly aim to study signs, among the non-verbal encounters, a common motif was signs with the phrase anything helps. Eight of the 13 signs (61.5 percent) contained the phrase. As a piece of face-work, the phrase is pure politeness: It redresses the negative face of the addressee by both hedging (anything) and being indirect (there is no stated direct request at all). It also adds to the positive face of the addressee, who will be helping the panhandler. One signAnything helps/Trying to get home/for the holidays/God blesspulled off six politeness strategies listed in Brown and Levinson (1987/2006) in only 11 words: giving reasons (going home), intensifying interest (holidays), being optimistic (helps), hedging (anything), being conventionally indirect (no stated request), and incurring debt (God bless as a thanks). The signs I saw also echoed Hayati and Maniatis (2010) narratives. They expressed a range of stories not found in the verbal requests (the traveller, the hungry person, the recovered alcoholic) that, in general, attempted to counter common perceptions of panhandlers. The high presence of face-work shown by this study shows panhandlers to be rational members of society highly engaged in maintaining face. Devoid of both social and economic power, panhandlers simply must pay heed to politeness. A more ethnographic study consisting of longer periods observing how panhandlers use and view face-work, combined with qualitative data from interviews with panhandlers on their experiences with face should confirm and enlighten the discussion this study has started. However, such fieldwork can not only be used to enlarge sociolinguistic understanding, but also as a way for learners to foster language awareness and look at language and its use outside the classroom. Pedagogical Implications In this section, I show how the methods used in this study can be used to help language learners expand their language awareness (Alim, 2007, 2010; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Working

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 18

with predominantly African-American students in a U.S. high school, Alim (2007) illustrated how sociolinguistic research can be a stimulating and effective means to socialize students into an awareness of sociolinguistic variation (p. 167). One of the most exciting aspects of the programs, Alim wrote, is that they encourage students to become ethnographers and collect their own data from their local communities (p. 167). The unit briefly outlined below (see Appendix C for complete unit plan) is based on the data and methods presented in this study to help adult language learners in an intensive ESL program gain awareness of the face-work strategies employed in requests within various contexts in students communities. Although the work of students does not involve researching panhandling, the data collected in this study can be used in a unit to give an introduction to the methods involved in sociolinguistic research and the face-work strategies English speakers use. In the unit, learners are first exposed to authentic texts of various requests. They read email requests sent from ESL students to teachers, examine transcribed spoken data from campus interactions, and listen to the taped interaction I captured of the panhandler (see Appendix C, part X for these materials). Students are asked to search for strategies and features speakers use in request speech acts. The data show examples of all the strategies (and lack thereof) found in this study: avoidance, hedging, indirect questions, thanking, forms of address, rapport building via greetings, and giving reasons. Students also compare and contrast the proficient-speaker and language-learner data samples. For example, learners compare and contrast email requests written by language learners and native speakers (see Appendix C, part X for these materials). These comparisons allow learners to see how differences in face-work strategies and other structures can mark language learners as inappropriate or non-competent language users, and thus build learners critical language awareness. Fairclough (1992) wrote that viewing language

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 19

through a critical approach helps us understand how language conventions and language practices are invested with power relations and ideological processes which people are often unaware (p. 7). In-line with Alim (2007, 2010), Fairclough (1992), and Kumaravadivelu (2003), a major goal of this unit is for students to critically examine how language use can give or take away status as competent member of a discourse community. This approach is a practical way to empower students to develop the language skills necessary for making appropriate requests within their discourse communities. In the next part, echoing Alim (2007, 2010), learners investigate the methods of sociolinguistic research. Students are guided on how they can collect samples of authentic requests among a variety of interlocutors (teachers, students, native/non-native speakers) and situations (in class, on campus, outside of school). Students are guided to note sociolinguistic characteristics that can help explain variation, such as speech events, the relationship between participants, and the degree of threats to face inherent in different requests. Students then gather their own data, collecting at least five samples of request speech acts from different contexts: from themselves and others, peer-to-peer and teacher-to-student interactions, service encounters, and requests to strangers. In class, students work together to code and analyze their data. They notice patterns of face-work and speculate on the reasons for these patterns, much as I did in my study. The overall objective is for students to notice how sociolinguistic research can elevate both their general and critical language awareness. Along the way, students are empowered by doing their own research in their own community. Word Count: 4,981

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 20 References

Alim, H. S. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 6(2), 161-176. doi:10.1080/15348450701341378 Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (2nd ed., pp. 205-231). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2006). Politeness: Some universals in language use. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 311-323). London, UK: Routledge. (Reprinted from Politeness: Some universals in language usage, by P. Brown & S. C. Levinson, 1987, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press) City of Monterey. (2011). Official City Website of Monterey, California. Retrieved from http://www.monterey.org/ Fairclough, N. (1992). Introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical Language Awareness (pp. 130). New York, NY: Longman. Goffman, E. (2006). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 299-310). London, UK: Routledge. (Reprinted from Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, by E. Goffman, 1967, Garolen City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday) Google Maps. (2011). [Downtown Monterey, California] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://maps.google.com

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 21

Hayati, A., & Maniati, M. (2010). Beggars are sometimes the choosers! Discourse Society, 21(1), 41-57. doi:10.1177/0957926509345069 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lankenau, S. (1999a). Panhandling repertoires and routines for overcoming the nonperson treatment. Deviant Behavior, 20(2), 183-206. doi:10.1080/016396299266551 Lankenau, S. (1999b). Stronger than dirt: Public humiliation and status enhancement among panhandlers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(3), 288-318. doi:10.1177/ 089124199129023451 Lee, B., & Farrell, C. (2003). Buddy, can you spare a dime?: Homelessness, panhandling, and the public. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 299-324. doi:10.1177/1078087402238804 Olauson, I. (2009). Panhandlers as rhetors: Discourse practices of peripatetic beggars in southwestern Nigeria. California Linguistic Notes, 34(2). Retrieved from http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/SP09%20PDF/Olaosun-beggars.pdf Scott, M. (2003). Panhandling. Problem-oriented guides for police problem-specific guides series, No. 13. Retrieved from Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Justice Department, website: www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e08032028.pdf Snow, D., & Anderson, L. (1993). Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books? id=gGCqJic8ms4C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Down+on+Their+Luck&source=bl&ots =PBqkqusSh1&sig=Ke5CCOpv4oPlVitHp1XN0a7k5o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pnRqUJfjJoq UiQK7moH4Ag&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Down%20on%20Their%20Lu ck&f=false

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 22

Stark, L. (1992). From lemons to lemonade: An ethnographic sketch of late 20th century panhandling. New England Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 341352. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?id=7-m8L9wfzTkC&printsec=frontcover&dq= homelessness:+new+england+and+beyond&hl=en&ei=D7isTr_3BpPWiALVj7i1Cw&sa =X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=home lessness%3A%20new%20england%20and%20beyond&f=false

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 23 Appendix A: Verbal Panhandling Requests and Strategies Used

The following is a list of the verbal requests collected in my research with some demographic information for each. They represent the phrasing of the request, my response, and any response of thanks given by the panhandler. In some instances, there was more talking that I was not able to faithfully remember or record. They follow the same basic transcription conventions: P is the panhandler and a question mark (?) represents rising intonation. Politeness strategies are listed for each. 1) Thirty- to forty-year-old white male sitting next to a female who was singing. There was a sign, but I could not see what it said. On Alvarado St. near Walgreens, 8 pm. Strategies: none P: can I have a dollar Me: sorry man P: (no response) 2) Fifty-year-old white male sitting on a chair next the Monterey Crpe Company on 300 block of Alvarado St, 2:45 pm. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, vocative, thanks P: can you spare a little change bro? Me: uh yeah P: thank you very much 3) Forty-year-old white male. I was with two friends, walking on the outside of the group. The man may not have seen me. On Alvarado St. near Walgreens, 12 pm. G is one of the girls I was with. I did not speak. Strategies: Indirect question, vocative, thanks, greeting P: hello ladies do any of you have some change? G: no sorry P: thank you have a nice day 4) Fifty-year-old white male sitting with a dog near Walgreens, 7:40 pm. Strategies: Vocative, thanks P: can I have a dollar? Me: yeah P: thanks sir 5) Two fifty-year-old white males standing opposite Wells Fargo Bank on the intersection of Franklin and Alvarado streets, 2:30 pm. There was a plate with coins and dollars on it. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, vocative, greeting P1: hey man got an extra smoke Me: yeah man P1: you got one for him too Me: (give P2 cigarette) P1: were trying to get a whole pack P2: actually I'm trying to get a bag of tobacco

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 24

6) Thirty-year-old Hispanic male walking near Trader Joes, 3:45 pm. Strategies: Hedge P: spare a dollar Me: yeah P: (no response) 7) Fifty-year-old African-American blind male standing and singing Christmas songs near Walgreens on Alvarado St., 12:45 pm. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, vocative, thanks, greeting P: hello. spare change anyone today? spare change? Me: sure P: god bless you sir thank you god bless you. 8) Thirty-year-old white woman on Monterey Bay Coastal Trail, 12 pm. The woman had been sitting with male above the trail, but came down to meet me walking. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, thanks P: you got a cigarette by any chance? Me: sure P: thank you 9) Fifty-year-old white male sitting at Fishermans Wharf, 5:30 pm. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, thanks, greeting P: howre you doing tonight (.) have any change? nickel dime anything Me: yeah P: thanks for the buck 10) Thirty-year-old white male sitting with 30-year-old white female on Alvarado St, 1:00 pm. Held up a sign with list of itemsfood, tobacco, alcohol, etc.after requesting that. I was smoking a cigarette at the time. Strategies: none P: can I have that Me: sorry man P: (no response) 11) Sixty-year-old white male sitting in front of Walgreens at 12:00 pm with a sign that read, Anything helps. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, vocative, thanks P: pennies nickels anything Me: I got something P: god bless your sirthank you for your kindness 12) Thirty-year-old white male walking with bicycle near bus stop at Monterey Transit Plaza across from Trader Joes. Strategies: Indirect question, vocative P: can I bum a smoke dude Me: sorry man P: (no response)

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 25 Appendix B: Panhandlers Signs

The following represent signs I have seen. Most signs were hand-written on cardboard; two appeared to be stenciled. (1) Anything helps (2) Stranded Veteran Need help to get home (3) Im homeless In god I believe Anything helps!! (4) [stenciled] HOMELESS HUNGRY HOBO (5) [stenciled] HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE HOMELESS (6) Veteran just trying to get home Anything helps (7) Anything helps Trying to get home for the holidays God bless (8) Anything helps Have any work? Full time part time God bless (9) 19 yrs. Clean and Sober Homeless and could use something to eat Thanks God Bless (10) Travelling Hungry & Broke Anything helps!! (11) Trying to get home anything helps (12) Needs helps (13) Anything helps

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 26 Appendix C: Unit PlanPolite Requests in the Community

Overview: This is a three-part unit or project of six hours of class time that can be spaced out in an ESL course. The main goals of the unit are to have language learners 1) build awareness of politeness strategies speakers and writers use to make successful requests, 2) systematically gather samples of actual spoken English from varying sources of request speech acts, 3) analyze their data looking for politeness strategies real speakers use, and 4) build a critical awareness of how language choices can mark learners and their requests. Population: This unit is best carried out in an immersive setting, as learners go out into the community to gather data. The learners language proficiency should be at least intermediate, and learners are ideally high-school age or above. Unit Outline: Part 1 (2 hours) Students look at authentic request speech acts and identify politeness strategies English users employ in making requests. Part 2 (2 hours) Students discuss collecting data on real speech requests. Students are assigned to gather data on a variety of speech request from different people. Part 3 (2 hours) Students analyze and report on the data collected. Students discuss how language choices and politeness strategies can affect peoples impressions of learner requests.

Unit Summary: Part I: To begin a unit on politeness, students look at request speech act data. The data should be authentic and come from a variety of (preferably local) sources and situations: Friends making requests, service encounters, student-teacher and teacher-student requests, email requests, and language learner and proficient speaker requests. Data should be both transcribed and audio/video-recorded interactions. As students look through the data, they are asked to note any strategies speakers and writers use while making these requests. As strategies emerge, the teacher can copy them down. Hedging, politeness, vocatives (such as sir or miss or man or buddy), indirectness, giving reasons, and rapport building are such strategies that the data should represent. As the learners find strategies, the teacher can note and group them, helping the class keep a framework of politeness strategies. This can lead to discussion on students experience, questions, and learning on how to best make requests. For outside-of-class work, students are directed to think and report to class (either in written or spoken forms) about which situations different strategy seem appropriate for. Part II: Students share their ideas on how different situations set up different politeness strategies. They are then told that to test these ideas, they are going to go out into the community and collect data on how people really make requests. The teacher uses a worksheet or handout to have students identify the necessary information needed for the data: setting, participants demographical information, relationships between participants, type of request, and the language

John Jordan

C6 Revised Data-Based Research Report 27

used. Students are then are tasked to collect their own data, to get at least five samples of request speech acts from different contexts: from themselves and others, peer-to-peer and teacher-tostudent interactions, service encounters, and requests to strangers. They are to record the language used, and the pertinent information needed to analyze the data discussed above. Students are given a set time frame within which to collect their samples. Part III: Students take the data they have all collected, and in groups analyze it together. They look for patterns, similarities, and differences among various situations. They compare languagelearner requests to native-speaker requests, peer and teacher interactions, and other different types. The groups summarize the different conclusions they make, and then each group shares findings with the class. After all the groups have presented, the teacher has the classes focus on the language-learner data. Here, learners reflect on how language choices (e.g., what politeness strategies and language they use) affect both the success of requests and the hearer or readers perception of the speaker or writer. As assessment options, the teacher can either have groups give formal presentations that develop and present their findings, or students can write reflections on what they learned from gathering and analyzing speech data.