research on panhandling and politeness theory

8/13/2019 Research on Panhandling and Politeness Theory

1/27

John Jordan C6Revised Data-Based Research Report 1

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 encounterswere 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 specificallylooked 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 signsand 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 theseusing 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.


2/27


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 Montereysever-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


3/27


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.


4/27


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 repertoirespanhandlers 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


5/27


6/27


7/27


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).


8/27


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.

Fi gure 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.Hedgingcan be an attempt to downplay the request made.

Panhandlers hedgeby 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 addresscan be a form of deference, and include

conversational vocatives, such assir, man, and brother. Thankingis a form of indebtedness to

do the FTA?

do the FTA

on record

withoutredressive

action, baldly

with redressiveaction

positive

politeness

negativepoliteness

off record

don't do theFTA


9/27


the addressee by the panhandler. Greetingshelp 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 encounteris 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


10/27


homeless-like vibeconsisting of: a somewhat disheveled appearance, several layers of older-

looking 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.


11/27


Location

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 Trailnorth of downtown.

Fi gure 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


12/27


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, anda 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

1The 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.


13/27


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


14/27


Fi gure 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.

Request

alone

8

67%

Request

with sign

325%

Request

with prop

1

8%


15/27


Non-Verbal Panhandling Encounters

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.

Fi gure 4. Non-Verbal Encounters: Nothing meansthat 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

Signs

13

72%

Props

2

11%

Nothing

3

17%


16/27


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.

Hedging Indirect

Question T ha n ks G re e t in g

Gave

R easons

1 no X X - - - 2

2 no - X - - X 23 no X X - - 2

4 no - X - - - 1

5 no - X - X - 2

6 no X X - - X 3

7 no X X X - X 4

8 no X X X X 4

9 no X X X - X 4

10 no X X - - X 3

11 no X X - - X 3

12 no - X - - - 1

13 no X X - - - 2

Total - 9 13 3 1 7 33

SIGNS

S t r a te g i e s f o r P o s . F a c eS t r a te g i e s f o r N e g . F a c e

Strategies

UsedS ig n N o.

Did I

give?


17/27


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

helpingthe 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


18/27


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 unitbriefly 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 studentscommunities. 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 marklanguage learners as inappropriate or non-competent language users, and

thus build learnerscritical language awareness. Fairclough (1992) wrote that viewing language


19/27


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


20/27


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 fromPoliteness: 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. 1-

30). 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 fromInteraction 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


21/27


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


22/27


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


23/27


Appendix A: Verbal Panhandling Requests and Strategies Used

The following is a list of the verbal requests collected in my research with some demographicinformation 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 isthe panhandler and a question mark (?) represents rising intonation. Politeness strategies arelisted for each.

1) Thirty- to forty-year-old white male sitting next to a female who was singing. There was asign, 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, thanksP: 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, greetingP: 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


24/27


6) Thirty-year-old Hispanic male walking near Trader Joes, 3:45 pm. Strategies: Hedge

P: spare a dollar

Me: yeahP: (no response)

7)Fifty-year-old African-American blind male standing and singing Christmas songs nearWalgreens on Alvarado St., 12:45 pm.Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, vocative, thanks,greeting

P: hello. spare change anyone today? spare change?

Me: sureP: 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, indirectquestion, thanks

P: you got a cigarette by any chance?

Me: sureP: thank you

9)Fifty-year-old white male sitting at Fishermans Wharf, 5:30 pm. Strategies: Hedge, indirect

question, thanks, greetingP: howre you doing tonight (.) have any change? nickel dimeanything

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: noneP: 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, thanksP: 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 manP: (no response)


25/27


Appendix B: Panhandlers Signs

The following represent signs I have seen. Most signs were hand-written on cardboard; twoappeared to be stenciled.

(1)Anything helps

(2)Stranded VeteranNeed help to get home

(3)Im homelessIn god I believeAnything helps!!

(4)[stenciled]HOMELESSHUNGRYHOBO

(5)[stenciled]HAPPYHOLIDAYSFROM THEHOMELESS

(6)Veteran just trying to get homeAnything helps

(7)Anything helpsTrying to get homefor the holidaysGod bless

(8)Anything helpsHave any work?Full time part timeGod bless

(9)19 yrs.Clean and SoberHomeless and could use something to

eatThanks God Bless

(10)TravellingHungry & BrokeAnything helps!!

(11)Trying to get homeanything helps

(12)Needs helps

(13)Anything helps


26/27


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 inan 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) analyzetheir data looking for politeness strategies real speakers use, and 4) build a critical awareness ofhow language choices can mark learners and their requests.

Population: This unit is best carried out in an immersive setting, as learners go out into thecommunity 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) Part 2 (2 hours) Part 3 (2 hours)

Students look at authenticrequest speech acts and

identify politeness strategies

English users employ inmaking requests.

Students discuss collectingdata on real speech requests.

Students are assigned to

gather data on a variety ofspeech request from different

people.

Students analyze and reporton the data collected. Students

discuss how language choices

and politeness strategies canaffect 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 beauthentic and come from a variety of (preferably local) sources and situations: Friends makingrequests, 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 anystrategies 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 datashould 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 whichsituations 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 communityand 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


27/27


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-to-

student interactions, service encounters, and requests to strangers. They are to record thelanguage 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. Theylook for patterns, similarities, and differences among various situations. They compare language-

learner 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 sharesfindings 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 groupsgive formal presentations that develop and present their findings, or students can write

reflections on what they learned from gathering and analyzing speech data.

research on panhandling and politeness theory

Documents