Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in ...

Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in Scent of a
Woman

Ning ZHAO•


Abstract
Discourse analysis is conducted to analyze the "face-threatening acts"
(FTA) in some conversations of Scent of a Woman (1993), the Best Picture of
Oscar in 1993. Brown and Levinson's (1978) framework of positive politeness
or negative politeness is adopted to examine how a cynical old colonel talked
with a nice junior and a beautiful girl respectively in unconventional ways,
which enable them to develop friendship thanks to the (im)politeness strategies
used, e.g. bald-on-record or off-record tactic. The "meaning in interaction" in
the (im)politeness strategies is explored. The analysis of politeness in action in
this film uncovers both the informational and affective dimensions of language
use in structuring human relationship and friendship.
Key words: positive politeness, negative politeness, bald-on-record, off-
record, Scent of a Woman






Introduction

• English Department, Sanjiang University, China.

---

630
Ning ZHAO
Politeness is understood in terms of conflict avoidance (Lakoff 1990; Brown
& Levinson 1978). In a pragmatic perspective, Lakoff (1990:34) states that
politeness “facilitate(s) interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and
confrontation inherent in all human interchange”. It is assumed that people follow
Cooperative Principle by engaging with each other for meaningful communications
in which they act as rational agents (Grice, 1975). According to Brown and
Levinson (1978) (B&L here forth), linguistic strategies are employed by speakers
to realize politeness, which manifests one’s respect and recognition of another’s
face – self-image (Goffman 1959). The choices of such strategies depend on the
power and personal relationship between the speaker and hearer, and the degree of
negativity of the message. Grice (1975) and B&L (1978) think that the analysis of
politeness is to access the actors’ intentions. Speaker strategically manages his/her
“face-threatening acts” (FTA) to account for either “positive” or “negative” face.
Positive face is the desire to have social approval and acceptance, and negative face
is the need to have independence and freedom in action. Hence FTA is performed
with redress in positive or negative politeness. In addition, FTA can be performed
directly without any redress (bald-on-record) or indirectly with multiple
interpretations (off-record) (B &L 1978). Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness
is characterized by its interactionist perspectives rooted in social psychology
(Engel 2003). Fraser (1990:233) views politeness as the implementation of
conversational rights and obligations as speaker and hearer operate under the
“terms and conditions of the conversational contract”. Thus politeness is
conceptualized as social interaction with the activation of interlocutors’
psychological needs. This paper attempts to apply B& L’s (1978) concepts to
investigate some conversations in the film of “Scent of a Woman” (1993) as a
socio-pragmatic analysis, probing both speaker meaning and utterance
interpretation (Dlali 2001). As the title of Thomas’s book (1995) suggests, the
“meaning in interaction” is explored. “Politeness” is often misinterpreted as only
referring to the courteous and refined expressions by lay audience. However, the
discussion about politeness encompasses both polite and impolite speech acts
(Thomas 1995). Thus this paper focuses on both dimensions of politeness. As
Holmes (1995: 21) claims, (im)politeness is “always context dependent". The study
of (im)politeness shall involve both (a) the referential function as information
transmission, and (b) the affective function as the representation of feelings and
relationships (Holmes 1995). Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984) found situational
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in Scent of a Woman 631
factors, such as social status, familiarity or gender considerably influenced people’s
politeness strategies. Therefore, this paper examines the politeness strategies in this
film in terms of “the linguistic form + the context of utterance + the relationship
between the speaker and the hearer” (Thomas 1995:157).

Introducing the Film
Scent of a Woman (1993) was awarded the prize of the Best Picture of Oscar
in 1993. Charlie Simms (played by Chris O'Donnell), a poor, intelligent and
hardworking 17-year-old on a scholarship at a Boston elite prep school, worked
during the Thanksgiving weekend as the caretaker of Lt. Colonel Frank Slade
(played by Al Pacino), a disillusioned, blind and lonely veteran. Frank took Charlie
to New York, intending to commit suicide after enjoying worldly pleasures.
Friendship was developed between the two men. Charlie’s “integrity, courage and
compassion” touched cynic Frank, who recognized that the “root of his bitterness is
not loss of his sight, but regret at his failings” (Hopkins 1993:44). Discourse
analysis is conducted on certain conversations (please see Appendix). Ironically,
though titled “Scent of a Woman”, no woman plays leading and supporting roles in
the film. It features only two meaningful scenes of women, both are chance
encounters (except the presence of Frank’s daughter). One scene with the tango
dance is examined as it is considered as the “magical moment” in the film
(Berardinelli 1993 online). In this paper, PP stands for positive politeness, and NP
negative politeness.
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

632
Ning ZHAO

Fig. 1. The poster of Scent of a Woman
[http://www.impawards.com/1992/scent_of_a_woman_ver2.html]

Finding and Discussion
In Charlie’s words, as he told Rossi, Frank’s daughter, he was “screwed up” in
the first encounter with Frank. Such description suggested Frank’s impoliteness
disturbed Charlie. The following discussion concerns their second meeting when
Charlie started his job of care-taking at Frank’s home. Charlie gave a light cough
when Frank was talking to a telephone operator to check the arrival of his taxi. On
the one hand, Frank employed two different strategies in one sentence: (a) Due to
the interruption of the telephone conversation, Frank attempted to reduce the size
of imposition (Leech 1983) of waiting on the female operator by saying “just a
minute”; (b) In addition, by calling the operator “sweetheart”, Frank tended to
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in Scent of a Woman 633
create intimacy with a casual tone. On the other hand, Frank covered the telephone
with one of his hands and responded to the Charlie’s sound by saying directly “You
are back, huh?”. This was followed by several bald-on-record (B& L 1978)
imperatives asking Charlie to take out Frank’s military uniform in the manner of a
Colonel’s order to his solider, leaving no time for the other to answer. Moreover,
this order was reinforced by a strong urge with unquestionable authority for instant
execution, “A.S.A.P. That means now!”. Such authoritative tone was quickly
shifted into formulaic polite expression to address the operator, “Sorry to keep you
waiting! Sweetheart.”. The conversation between Charlie and Frank was
characterized by increasing bald-on-record utterances by Frank, to which Charlie
responded with diminishing courtesy. Initially, Charlie adopted a cautious and
respectful tone by asking whether Frank was going out instead of inquiring the
exact location, “Are we going to someplace?”, and used the honorific term
“Colonel”. Frank became blunter as if such question annoyed him by laying blame
on Charlie and issuing order again: “What’s business that is yours? Don’t shrug
imbecile. Save your body language in a bimbi. Get my gear out!”. When Frank was
tidying up his uniform, he used another imperative: “Here, take a look at that.”,
expecting merely a verbal reminder of any untidiness that he could not see. As
Charlie was trimming his uniform, a deliberately offensive remark was made by
Frank as a threat, as in military fashion, which was intensified by a vulgar term of
curse : “Touch me again, I will kill ya, you little son-of-a-bitch. I touch you.
Understand?”. Upon knowing that he would accompany Frank to New York,
Charlie first tried to minimize the imposition and hinted (B& L 1978) that care-
taking during the trip was beyond his job description, “Mr. and Mrs. Rossi didn’t
say anything to me about going anywhere”. Then Charlie asked Frank’s permission
to contact them, “Shall we call her”, which was confront with a off-record
rhetorical question from Frank, “You kidding me? Call her?”. Finally Charlie
resorted to bald-on-record strategy by refusing to be subservient to Frank, who
assumed the power as both a superior officer and a client. Charlie said, “Colonel, I
can’t go to New York city”. Charlie’s refusal was supplemented by giving his
reason (PP) as of taking “too much responsibility”, returning to his original hinted
argument. Trying to avoid using the pronoun of “you” to refer to Charlie (NP),
Frank reassumed his power by linguistically acting as the caretaker of Charlie: “I
had a lot of 17-year-olds in my first platoon. I took care of them”.

Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

634
Ning ZHAO
Frank’s retained his stance as a military superior before Charlie, which was in
sharp contrast to his courteous remarks on the phone. The contextual difference
between the two is that the operator didn’t know Frank as a disabled retiree. Frank
would employ his well-mannered politeness to actualize the role as an educated
middle-class client. However, the face-to-face communication between a 17-year-
old teenager as a caretaker and a blind pensioner with limited income in need of
care would confer symbolic power on Charlie. This is because Charlie would
symbolize vital youth and energy and Frank aging debilitation and invalidity. Frank
tended to subvert this prescribed pattern by claiming his status as a military
superior and his seniority as an experienced person in his bald-on-record bluntness.
Such linguistic retrieval of Frank’s power would also be evident in subsequent
short conversation at the airport. Similar to his threat to “kill” Charlie when Charlie
tried to “touch” (support) him, Frank’s linguistic edifice was featured by rudeness
when Charlie supported him again at the airport. Frank said twice, “Are you
blind?” His anger continued with non-minimization (NP) of the face-threat to
Charlie, “Then why do you keep grabbing my god-damn arm?”, which again was
followed by an order, “I take your arm!”. Such rudeness was greeted by Charlie’s
formulaic apology “I am sorry”. Linguistically speaking, Charlie’s apology is
unwarranted. Pragmatically, the impression of a teenager supporting a disabled in
public would construct an image of powerless Frank, undermining Frank’s dignity.
What Frank really cherished would be the love and affection as symbolized by the
title “Scent of a Woman”, but Frank would find that being constructed as a frail
invalid is too hurtful. His question of “Are you blind?!” would be interpreted as his
request for Charlie to recognize his pain – are you blind to my pain? Charlie’s
apology would be understood as being sorry for such neglect. In this way, Frank
grabbed Charlie’s arm and walked as a senior leading and guiding a junior,
repossessing his power. Because Charlie’s effort to render assistance was genuine
and the offensiveness would hurt Charlie, Frank seemed to redress this imbalance
by highlighting his seniority instead of his military rank. So after Charlie’s apology,
Frank seemed to act in the principle of positive politeness by giving understanding
to Charlie (B& L 1978), as he alleviated the tension by posing as a considerate
senior who was tolerant of the young’s behavior , “Do not be sorry. How would
you know, watching MTV all your life?”. Pragmatically, it would save Charlie
from any guilt and reveal Frank’s appreciation of the differences in life experience
and generation gap between a teenager and a disabled senior.
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in Scent of a Woman 635
In the airplane, Charlie asked for the purpose of the trip in conventionally
indirect way (NP) with a honorific term, using “we” to involve both Frank and him
into the activity (PP), “Colonel, why we are going to New York?”. Frank’s answer
seemingly fits in the PP strategies of asserting speaker’s knowledge and concern
for hearer’s wants and making a promise (B & L 1978), again in the military style –
“All information will be given on a need-to-know basis”. In the following talk, the
construction of Frank’s identity started to shift from a military superior and
experienced senior to a friend of Charlie. The appearance of airhostess triggered
Frank’s remarks on sex. The fact that sex itself as a topic between them would
indicate the narrowing of their social distance. Moreover, Frank’s use of the F word
and his over-explicit observation about some fetishized body parts of women may
go beyond the politeness tactic of asking several rhetorical questions (off-record)
and presupposing common ground (PP). In a rhetorical question, Frank defied the
reverence of God by referring to him with F word: “Who made them? God must
have been a f—king genius”. In his half self-monologue, half linguistic-
performance speech, Frank talked about women’s hair, lips and breast blatantly.
Such direct talk with a junior whom he just knew would be face-threatening to
Charlie, but it would simultaneously construct Frank’s peer-group identity with
Charlie as both men would desire to enjoy the love of women. We would speculate
that Frank’s fetishization would find echoes in Charlie’s fantasy dreams when
Frank linguistically painted graphic, sensual, and erotic images in metaphorical
ways to describe women’s hair (“Have you ever buried your nose in the mountain
of curls”), lips (“that first swallow of wine after you just crossed the desert”), and
breast (“Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right at ya like secret search lights”),
which were followed by more explicit remarks. Frank then asked another rhetorical
question, “Are you listening to me?”, which may also be the hint (PP) to solicit
Charlie’s agreement. Charlie laughed, replying with a point-of-view distancing
strategy and an off-record understatement, “I guess you really like women”. “I
guess you…” seems to create a linguistic distance and “really like” would imply
“crazy about”. But pragmatically, such reply would shorten their social distance,
and the laughter and understatement would at least indicate that Charlie didn’t
perceive these remarks as irritating. Frank’s response would be an off-record
overstatement – “Oh, above all things. A very, very distant second is a Ferrari”. Up
to this point, Frank would linguistically establish a sort of bond with Charlie as an
about-to-be-adult. This would be illustrated by Frank’s imperative to invite a
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

636
Ning ZHAO
physical gesture, “Charlie. Give me your hand”, and a statement to nominalize
(NP) such talk with the hope for the continuation of such friendship (“This is just
the start of your education, son”). Off-record ironic reference of “education” is
presented here, which would contrast erotic pleasure in sexual fantasy with serious
academic achievement in Charlie’s elite school.
In the film, Frank and Charlie gradually consolidated their friendship. Frank
displayed graciousness to Charlie in contrast to his initial rudeness. In the latter
part of the film, “I am eternally grateful” was said by Frank to Charlie instead of
“thank you” to maximize the force of his gratitude. In contrast to his anger at
Charlie’s arm-grabbing to support him, Frank said “Give me you arm” to Frank
when he got off a test-driven Ferrari and augmented with “I am OK”. Again Frank
said “Give me you arm” when Charlie helped him to stand up after his fall to the
ground amid his anti-social behavior to piss in downtown New York street. Such
gestures of affection reached a climax when the moment of farewell was coming as
Frank uttered “Give me, son” when he touched every feature of Charlie’s face.
Actually, their friendship was significantly cemented when Charlie willingly put
his own life at risk to prevent Frank from committing suicide, which forced Frank
to abandon his attempt. After this incident, the topic of woman was picked up again
by Frank. Abandoning the honorific “Colonel”, Charlie used in-group identity
marker (PP) “boy” to address old Frank in a metaphorical manner (off-record),
“Boy, you have only one track in your mind”. Later Charlie complimented (PP)
Frank, assuring and encouraging Frank to take a positive faith in his life and to
marry a woman: “You’re a good-looking guy, and you’re fun to be with, and you
are a great travel companion, sensitive, compassionate.” Replied in a literally bald-
on-record way with smile, Frank said, “Charlie, are you f—king with me?”, which
actually contains no offensive meaning and could be read as “do you really mean
that? ” and “do you really like me?” only between intimate friends. In the farewell,
Frank promised (PP) to be the reference and mentor for Charlie - “If you ever need
some references, Charlie, I’m your man”. Similarly, as a strategy of assuming
reciprocity (PP), Frank expected another meeting to entertain Charlie - “Come back
before you go home for Christmas. If you like, do stay for dinner.”
In one of only two meaningful representations of women in the film, Frank
tried to assume the identity of a refined and attractive gentleman in social
interaction. In a high-profile restaurant, Frank and Charlie noticed a beautiful girl
(Donna, played by Gabrielle Anwar), who was sitting alone. Moving to Donna’s
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

Analyzing the Meaning in Interaction in Politeness Strategies in Scent of a Woman 637
table, Frank started his dialogue with the girl following conventional indirectness
(NP), “Excuse me, Senorita, do you mind if we join you?”. This request-making
with conventionalization is further softened by the adoption of an in-group address
form (PP), “Senorita”. Calling an unknown girl “Senorita” tends to suggest Frank’s
stature as a seasoned man with experience of befriending girls. Meanwhile, it
seems to reveal Frank’s Hispanic heritage as “Senorita” denotes the Hispanic style.
Frank would prefer to further narrow their social distance by noticing and attending
to Donna’s needs (PP), as he said, “I am feeling you are being neglected”. Feeling
a little surprised at the sudden appearance of Frank and Charlie, a hedge - “well”
(PP) was uttered by Donna, which was followed by her answer to avoid
disagreement (PP) – “I am expecting somebody”. The word “expecting” would
imply that Frank’s appearance was unexpected, and “somebody” would engender a
literally vague (off-record) and pragmatically transparent indication – Donna’s
boyfriend. This social-distance-maintaining answer met with Frank’s rhetorical
overstatement (off-record), “Instantly?”. Then again Donna produced a
disagreement-avoiding reply (PP), but defending herself with a similar
overstatement - “but any minute”. Frank didn’t withdraw himself, generating an
ambiguous statement in the style of tautology (off-record), “Any minute. Some
people live a lifetime in a minute”. This could be interpreted as Frank’s expression
of fondness of Donna and his desire to communicate with her just for a while. Or it
could be understood as an ironic reminder of war-inflicted deaths and casualties in
the battlefield as a Colonel could envision, which would make the request to talk to
a girl a not-a-big-deal and fair matter. Again with conventional indirectness, Frank
politely demanded, “Would you mind if we waited with you”, which was followed
by a hedge “just” and an imposition-minimizing (NP) and simultaneously ironic
(off-record) reason “to keep the womanizers from bothering you”. Donna’s
conventional “No, I don’t mind” would entail vagueness (off-record) as it could be
interpreted in its literal meaning and pragmatic connotation – “I don’t mind if you
act like a womanizer”.
Frank and Charlie took their seats, which would enable Frank to kick-start a
talk between adults of different sexes after his exchanges with Donna as strangers.
Frank began with “You know” as a booster to intensify the force of this new
relationship (Holmes 1995:76). He declares, “I detect a fragrance in the air”, which
functioned as presupposition (off-record) suggesting it was released by Donna, and
specified the soap-brand (“Ogilvie Sister”). This would reinforce their affective
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---

638
Ning ZHAO
relationship as it would render Frank linguistic access into Donna’s private and
intimate moments of bathing of skin and related sensual satisfaction. Donna reacted
with a booster, “Ah” and an exaggeration with approval (PP), “that is amazing”. A
similar booster “Oh” was uttered by Frank, who then contextualized his fondness
in a common-ground-raising (PP) and vague (off-record) announcement – “I’m in
the amazing business” with the repetition of “amazing”. This conversation would
also be regarded as mutual compliments between men and women (Holmes 1995).
Donna gladly admitted her use of the soap, and Frank humorously captured
Donna’s appreciation in his introduction of Charlie. Then Frank used the booster
“So Donna” and asked directly “do you tango?”. This would reflect their closeness,
which renders conventionalization redundant. The connotation of tango would
symbolize active seeking of enjoyment and excitement with friends of different sex
as well as aesthetic pleasure. Asserting a common ground with Frank (PP), Donna
pointed out her intention to tango was thwarted by his boyfriend, deliberately
leaving the answer incomplete (off-record) (“No, I wanted to learn once, but ….
Michael doesn’t want to”). Here Donna’s boyfriend was nominalized by Frank by
point-of-view distancing, “Michael, the one you are waiting for.”(NP), which
would linguistically move Frank and Donna closer. “Michael thinks tango is
hysterical” was explained as the reason (PP) by Donna, who also kept a linguistic
distance with his boyfriend. Here Frank made a linguistically offensive comment
with a booster and tautology (off-record), “I think Michael is hysterical”.
Pragmatically, Frank would recognize the legitimacy and reasonableness of
Donna’s affective and aesthetic pursuits by blaming Michael. Charlie attempted to
deflect the unsociable effect of Frank’s linguistic disrespect by making an implicit
apology (NP), “Don’t pay attention on him. Did I already say that?”. Donna chose
to say nothing, releasing a sweet laugh, which was complimented by Frank - “What
a beautiful laugh” in exaggeration with approval (PP). Frank’s motive of
appreciating Donna as a sexy and charming woman could be discerned in his hint-
dropping (off-record) of “beautiful”. Such compliment tended to solidify their
mutual appreciation when Donna replied with “Thank you, Frank”.
Uluslararası Sosyal Ara tırmalar Dergisi
The Journal Of International Social Research
Volume 1/4 Summer 2008

---