208 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS then. Thus the second social rule seems to be: ‘Express a negative attitude to yourself and to the situation, especially if you are talking about the course, and especially in the spring term’. A detailed qualitative analysis of the predominant speech acts within the category ‘negative attitude to a situation or third party’ in CK dialogues showed that students evaluate negatively the work, books and lecturers. They complain that the revision for the examination is ‘a lot of work’, that 3,000 words for the project is ‘lot’ to write, that there is ‘a lot of pressure’, and that the main problem is ‘time’. They express dis- satisfaction with theories, fields of thought and courses about them, saying that they are ‘rubbish’, as in: (1) AM Gram- Grammar Two. But it I mean it’s it’s just (0.5) I don’t know. It’s just I don’t know. Bloody tosh, isn’t it? CM Well it’s- it’s a bit abstract. ((1)) [Note: numbers in brackets indicate length of pause, in seconds]. This example shows that negative evaluations are interactive in the sense that if one speaker displays a negative attitude, the other(s) are expected to do the same. The students complain that books are too ‘theoretical’, and that articles are ‘completely useless’. In (2), BM and DM are discussing an article. (2) BM It’s pretty it’s scurrilous isn’t it? DM I think it is awful. Again, BM chooses to talk negatively and DM is expected to echo the sentiments. They evaluate some lecturers in an exaggeratedly negative fashion: one is ‘a fanatic’, and another ‘a complete maniac’. It would seem that one way that students can show a positive attitude to the course is when they are being ironic and flouting the maxim of quality to imply a negative attitude [note that the transcription note // used by Cutting here signals simultaneous speech]: (3) AF You did this last week didn’t you? // (heh) NF // Yeah. I really like the teacher very much. AF (heh heh) DM It’s very relaxing. (1) Here, NF gives the teacher as the cause of her being late to class again. Using an indirect speech act, she implies that she does not like the teacher; DM echoes her sentiments and her ironic conversational implicature. The analysis of expressions of a ‘negative attitude to self’ in CK dialogues showed that the main speech acts in this category are ‘criticise yourself’, ‘express worry’, and ‘minimise your progress’. Students evaluate themselves and their work negatively, possibly in the expectation that the interlocutor will contradict them or reassure them of the normality of the situation. They say that their ‘handwriting is awful’, that they Joan Cutting THE SPEECH ACTS OF THE IN-GROUP 209 are ‘no good at memory things’, that they ‘never get things done on time’, that they cannot ‘get [their] brains going’, that they cannot ‘come up with’ a point themselves in their project. In (4), the speaker shows himself in a negative light as he describes how he did the tutorial task: (4) BM And I reached the stage where I’d no idea. BF Yeah. (1) BM And also when I- when I was looking back I realised I actually hadn’t read the first part again which gave me a real big clue for one of the first. It was really stupid. BF Yeah. BM But em (1.5) I didn’t do any reading. (0.5) I just had one book which wasn’t on the list which was too-too long really to give // me any conclusions. BF // No I- I haven’t read anything specific for it. (2.5) If speakers feel that they may have alarmed interlocutors about their good progress, perhaps showing themselves in a good light, they minimise the significance of it by playing it down, as in: (5) AF I’ve got a couple of totally uninformed sort of basically stupid ideas for a project. DM What? Well what are these yeah what are these ideas then? (1.5) A qualitative analysis of expressions of a ‘positive attitude to interlocutors’ shows that the main speech acts in this category are ‘empathise’, ‘console’, ‘encourage’ and ‘advise’. These occur in response to the negative evaluations of situation and self mentioned above. The students ‘empathise’ with each other using expressions such as ‘I’ve done that’ and ‘same here’; they show solidarity by saying that they are in the same boat. In (6) below, about whether to do a higher degree immediately or leave it till later, DM empathises with CM’s attitude in ‘It’s either now (2) or never for me’ and encourages him in his decision: (6) CM Not doing any more schooling. It’s either now (2) or never for me. DM Yeah. CM But = DM But as- as I feel at the moment I’m the same as you. CM Finish. DM No if you want to do it badly enough. You’re doing the right thing. // Do it now yeah. CM // Yeah. Another response to worried colleagues is to ‘console’ them; to tell them ‘don’t worry’, that their progress seems fine. This happens mostly in CK. In (7), CM says that he is going to miss the last week of class and seeks the approval of his colleagues; DM reassures him by minimising the problem: Joan Cutting 210 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS (7) DM Er it’s no big deal. By the time you get to the last week you’ll have done most of what you need to- you’ll know what you need to know for the portfolio. If you’re answering questions anyway (3) shouldn’t be a problem (2) On occasions, the students ‘encourage’ each other by praising or congratulating. This happens more in CK than in NCK: students tell each other they have done well, or have good arguments and ideas. In (8), DM has just read through BF’s project and praises it: (8) DM There’s nothing (1) there’s nothing startling that I can see missing from this (2) and it’s very readable. (1) Another reaction to the ‘negative to self ’ speech act is to ignore it. Notice in (4) that BF’s reaction to BM’s ‘It was really stupid’, and in (5) that DM’s reaction to AF’s ‘totally uninformed sort of basically stupid ideas for a project’ is not to ‘console’ (e.g.: ‘Don’t worry if you’re stupid’) or to ‘encourage’ by disagreeing (e.g.: ‘Oh no, you’re not stupid’), but rather to ignore the negative evaluation of self as if they knew that BM and AF were not serious about it. They let it pass with ‘Yeah’ or ‘What?’ and then concen- trate rather on empathising with the negative evaluation of the situation (‘No I- I haven’t read anything specific for it’) and prompting the speaker to continue with a question emptied of negative evaluation (‘Well what are these yeah what are these ideas then?’). In the summer term, sometimes students who feel close to each other do not respond to colleagues evaluating the situation and themselves negatively by showing empathy at all. By then, they trust each other enough to risk threatening each other’s face by offering ‘advice’ and ‘warning’ (transactional ‘positive to interlocutor’ talk). Thus, in (9), DM fears that he will have difficulty finding a dissertation topic: (9) DM Been trying to think of something that might stretch to twenty thousand words. (2) And is not excruciatingly boring. AF ((Blows nose)) Well you might have to just face that and cope with it. ((sniffs)) DM Mm (2) and AF’s response is not ‘I’ve been trying to think of something too’ but ‘face it and cope with it’. Her advice is softened with the hedge ‘well’ and the tentative modal ‘might’. Just as students can show a positive attitude to the course if they are using irony and implying a negative attitude, they can show a negative attitude to the interlocutor if they are indulging in a little banter and implying a positive attitude. Teasing colleagues in the context of the course is a risky endeavour and it only occurs in the autumn and the summer when the stress-level is lower (Cutting 1996). In (10), DM expresses contentment that the deadline for a project has been moved forward: (10) AM An // extra week. DM // O//h. BF Ah. Joan Cutting THE SPEECH ACTS OF THE IN-GROUP 211 Oh you dosser! You’re an absolute dosser! DM (heh heh heh) Brilliant= BF evaluates his attitude negatively, just to tease. It becomes more obvious that these social rules exist in the common room, when speakers break them and meet with an adverse reaction. Let us start with the first ‘social rule’: ‘Express a positive attitude to your interlocutors and the communication, whatever topic you are talking about, and especially in the spring and summer terms’. Speakers rarely go out of their way to worry their colleagues. Thus, when it happens, the tension that it creates is striking. (11) comes from the beginning of the spring term when the pressure has just begun; CM and AM are discussing their revi- sion for the examination: (11) AM But things like this linguistics as well. You know I don’t mi-mind it. CM You still got enough time for that? (0.5) AM There’s not a lot of things they can ask. Cos we haven’t actually done it that deeply have we? CM I’ve spent the most time right now on all this all this load of er in Language and Linguistics. AM // Yes. CM // Cos I really want to answer that question. AM And I’ve I’ve haven’t done anything about the Psycholinguistics. I haven’t done Chomsky. Which is (0.5) probably very stupid but you // know. CM // Avoiding Chomsky in Linguistics is // procrastination I think. AM We//ll. No em avoiding it in terms of em (1.5) in terms of er I mean obviously in relation to other things you’ve got to= CM Yeah= AM but not necessarily you know in depth. AM is evidently nervous about the linguistics revision. He obeys the rule of speaking negatively about oneself: ‘and I haven’t done Chomsky. Which is (0.5) probably very stupid but you // know’. However, CM makes no attempt to ‘console’ or ‘empathise’. His reaction is to intensify AM’s worry: ‘You still got enough time for that?’ and ‘Avoiding Chomsky in Linguistics is // procrastination I think’. These two conflicting utterances (amounting to ‘don’t do it now’ and ‘do it now’), co-occurring with statement that shows himself in a positive light (‘I’ve spent the most time right now on all this all this load of er in Language and Linguistics cos I really want to answer that question’) do not sound as friendly as AF did with her advice in example (9) above. More soli- darity and less power could have been expressed with a hedge and a modal, ‘Perhaps you might not have time for that now’. Unconsoled, AM is left consoling himself, showing himself a positive attitude, with ‘There’s not a lot of things they can ask. Cos we haven’t actually done it that deeply have we?’. He is thrown into confusion; witness his incoherent ‘No em avoiding it in terms of em (1.5) in terms of er I mean Joan Cutting 212 EXTENSION: LINGUISTIC READINGS obviously in relation to other things you’ve got to but not necessarily you know in depth’. When the second social rule of the common room, ‘Express a negative attitude to yourself and to the situation, especially if you are talking about the course, and especially in the spring term’, is broken, it meets with an adverse reaction. Starting with evaluations of the course, it would be fair to say that when students realise that they have expressed a positive attitude to the course, they themselves immediately counteract it with a negative expression. For example, in (12) AM says that the courses ‘Linguistics Research’ and ‘Language and Linguistics’ are ‘interesting’ and that he is ‘really quite pleased’: (12) AM Cos (0.5) I mean things like Linguistics Research and that stuff in Language and Linguistics. It’s quite interesting actually. I was really quite pleased. I mean it’s (2) I don’t know. I’ll be glad when it’s finished. (1) CM Yeah // it’s AM // I’m not really into it. (4) and then has to add negatively that he will ‘be glad when it’s finished’ and that he is ‘not really into it’. If, on the other hand, speakers express a positive attitude to the course and then leave it, this is met with open disagreement, an attitude ‘negative towards the interlocutor’. That is to say: if the speaker breaks the rules, the hearers break them too. (13) is an example: CM is overjoyed that the Easter holidays are upon them: (13) CM Do you realise that we have from er March nineteen until (0.5) April the twentieth? With nothing to do? AM Nothing // to do! FF // Well got a project to hand in at // em (heh heh) AM // Yes! There is a group outcry. [. . .] The study of speech acts shows general tendencies regardless of personality. Although personality was not studied in depth, an overall global impression of personality in the data was included. BM likes to express negative feelings about third parties and situations; CM tends to show himself in a positive light and deny solidarity and reassurance to his colleagues; DM is the warmest solidarity-giver, guaranteed to express a positive attitude towards his interlocutors; AF goes in for self-deprecation, modestly showing herself in a poor light; and BF most enjoys a little banter with her male colleagues, playfully showing a negative attitude to them. These differences were not great enough to invali- date the overall results: it can be seen that they are not the causes of the changes observed over time. When a calculation was made of the distribution of discourse units spoken by each of the six recordees in each of the three terms, it was found that BM and AF feature less in the spring and summer term recordings; yet they are the ones who are most negative to self and third party, and speech acts expressing a negative attitude to self and third party peak in the spring. It was also found that CM features more in Joan Cutting THE SPEECH ACTS OF THE IN-GROUP 213 the spring and summer dialogues than he does in the autumn and that he does not go in for expressions of positive attitude to interlocutor; yet the rate of such speech acts increases over the spring and summer. Thus it would seem that the changes are not a reflection of the characteristics of the recordee featuring most in each term. [. . .] The speaker’s choice of speech act depends on the speech acts in the immediately preceding discourse: in CK topics, speakers respond to their colleagues’ negative expres- sions about themselves and the course, by empathising, consoling, encouraging and occasionally advising and warning. When speakers do not show a positive attitude to interlocutors, the latter feel uncomfortable. When students find themselves express- ing a positive attitude to the course themselves, they add a negative expression; otherwise their positive attitude is met with an embarrassing ‘congratulations’, open disagreement or a minimal reaction. The more frequent reaction to the unwanted expres- sion of positive attitude is light-hearted irony or banter. This article has suggested that the common room dictates rules about the expres- sion of attitudes. The question is finally, why do the in-group members follow the rules? The overall function of common room conversations is interactional; students talk to show solidarity. If one accepts that ‘individuals shift their speech styles to become more like that of those with whom they are interacting’ (Giles 1979: 46), that the speech acts express strategies of rapport and involvement (Tannen 1984), that a show of feel- ing is a marker of intimacy (Goffman 1971; Taylor 1973), and that using irony and banter stressing the shared background and values constitutes a positive politeness tech- nique (Brown and Levinson 1987: 124), one could conclude that the students follow the rules in order to cohere with the rest of the group and feel its support. [. . .] Issues to consider q Cutting focuses on the speech act rules within a very specific discourse com- munity (see also A9), and suggests that the patterns she observes are primarily indicators of social solidarity. Can you generalise the same sort of patterns by identifying particular speech acts that are used in other discourse communities? Do you recognise the rules and complex applications around the rules in your own social setting? Based upon Cutting’s findings from this MSc student data, consider which of the following factors seems to you to be the most generalisable across different discourse communities: age relationships, occupational status, geographical location, shared group knowledge. q Cutting briefly mentions Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness strat- egies in the final paragraph when she is summarising how the common room talk between students governs their expression of attitudes. Analyse all data extracts in Cutting’s study from the perspective of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies, focusing firstly upon the positive politeness strategies outlined in B3. You should then consider whether there is any evidence of negative politeness strate- gies or impoliteness strategies. Place your politeness analysis alongside Cutting’s speech act analysis and re-examine the evidence that you have for how the students are building rapport and expressing involvement with one another. You should then consider the overall usefulness of combining a speech act analysis with an analysis of linguistic politeness. Joan Cutting . ‘Linguistics Research’ and Language and Linguistics’ are ‘interesting’ and that he is ‘really quite pleased’: (12) AM Cos (0.5) I mean things like Linguistics Research and that stuff in Language and Linguistics. It’s. yet they are the ones who are most negative to self and third party, and speech acts expressing a negative attitude to self and third party peak in the spring. It was also found that CM features. it that deeply have we? CM I’ve spent the most time right now on all this all this load of er in Language and Linguistics. AM // Yes. CM // Cos I really want to answer that question. AM And I’ve