Sociolinguistics - Panhandling, Politeness, and Facework

PANHANDLING, POLITENESS, AND FACE-WORK

God bless you sir thank you god bless you: Panhandling, politeness, and face-work

John R. Jordan

The city of Monterey, California, is described on its official Website (2011) as “a

waterfront community on the central coast of California with a temperate climate year-round…

Hotels, inns, shops and restaurants are located in all the City’s business districts…From Cannery

Row, you can walk or ride a rented surrey along the scenic Recreation Trail to Fisherman’s

Wharf. Along the way, you’ll see harbor seals, sea otters and pelicans in natural habitats on the

dazzling waterfront of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.” While the website paints a

nice picture for potential visitors, it fails to mention the ever-present panhandlers. During a

downtown stroll to the Fisherman’s Wharf on a sunny weekend afternoon, 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 to think about how

panhandlers act. Here are people resigned to working on the street, trying to get the eye and

dollar of people who go by. What do they say? Why do some ask and some not? I wanted to

investigate, using traditional sociolinguistic methods, the speech and actions of the panhandlers I

always see in Monterey.

Literature Review

Panhandling and Homelessness

Although it is often assumed that panhandlers are homeless, a Department of Justice

guide for policing problems (Scott, 2003) found both that the number of homeless who

panhandle was low and also that a small percentage of panhandlers were homeless. Lee and

1


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 (Table 1, p. 343).

Still, because the public’s main direct contact with the homeless is via panhandlers, “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 shows a limited connection, panhandling still represents the main source of contact

between the homeless and society at large.

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 rarely saved and often spent on short-term items like alcohol, drugs, or food.

She also found 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 traditional means of acquiring

2


goods.

Ethnographic Panhandler Research

There has not been extensive scholarly research on panhandlers (e.g., Goldstein, 1993;

Hayati & Maniati, 2010; Lankenau, 1999a, 1999b; Lee & Farrell, 2003; Olauson, 2009; Stark

1992). In 1992, Stark went as far as to write that “little is known about homeless panhandlers”

(p. 341). However, the majority of the work that has been done follows an ethnographic

approach. What follows is a summary of some ethnographic work that dealt with communication

patterns of panhandlers.

Lankenau (1999a, 1999b) did ethnographic work with Washington D.C. panhandlers for

almost two years, from 1994 to 1996. In one study (1999a), the author looked at how

panhandlers overcame the blasé attitude of passersby 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 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

nonhuman treatment of passersby acclimated to panhandling. (His other work (1999b) looked at

how panhandlers developed relationships and managed their emotions to overcome the stigma of

begging on the street.)

3


Hayati and Maniati (2010) researched narrative acts within the speech of Iranian beggars

(their term) working near mosques. Again using ethnographic methods, 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 speech acts fit under

Labov’s (2006) narrative framework, and 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” (Hayati & Maniati, 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).

Olauson (2009) looked at the discourse of Nigerian beggars. The author used Critical

Discourse Analysis to interpret 10 panhandling speech acts in southwestern Nigeria. 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 three studies show that panhandlers

construct their work to both 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-human treatment routinely afforded them by passersby

accustomed to being asked for money; the Iranian beggars used narrative acts to captivate their

audiences and distance themselves from their panhandling; the Nigerian beggars used their

discourse to transform an unfavorable social context into a favorable one for their activities. All

4


three studies show panhandlers to be active agents engaging in communicative strategies and

techniques 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 found in maintaining participants’ views and evaluations of a situation—their lines—

based on what participants do, who they are, and what the norms of their society are. Brown and

Levinson (1987/2006) further defined face by separating it into two aspects, negative and

positive face. Negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, 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 Levinson’s (1987/2006) assumptions, panhandling threatens both the

positive face of the panhandler and the negative face of the person on the street. Panhandlers are

threatening their positive face by admitting a need. By asking for money, the panhandlers are

presenting themselves as members of society who either can no longer provide for themselves

through traditional means or choose not to. The disheveled appearance, stigma of substance

abuse, and general negative connotation of panhandlers in society can also threaten their positive

5


face. The negative face of the addressee is also threatened in the act. By requesting assistance

from a stranger, the panhandler is interrupting the personal preserve of the addressee. For the

panhandler, being a stranger and a perceived vagrant increases the threat of loss of negative face

of their interlocutors. If panhandlers are, as Brown and Levinson assume, rational members of

society, while panhandling they must factor in the potential loss of positive face, the imposition

of negative face of the addressee, and the social and power differentials between their

interlocutors.

Goffman (1967/2006) offered many examples of face-work that could be employed by

people in potential face-threatening acts. The first solution was avoidance. Panhandlers may

employ this strategy by simply avoiding directly asking people. Lankenau (1999a) quoted a D.C.

panhandler on using a silent method:

Then I started to develop my own thing—something 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

wants you to have anything they’ll give it to you. You know, you don’t have to ask. I’m

not gonna ask everybody that comes up and down the street to give me a nickel [laughs].

I’ve tried it, I’ve done it. You know, I just let my cup do the talking. (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” (p. 193).

Goffman (1967/2006) also gave 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 this in practice by panhandlers. Panhandlers

show signs of respect. Stark (1992) wrote:

6


Finally, like sales personnel everywhere, many panhandlers conclude a business

transaction with “Have a nice day!” even when their solicitation has been turned down. In

fact, as Al, a thirty-two-year-old homeless man reports, “I don’t know why, but

sometimes I really get a kick out of telling someone to have a nice day after they’ve

turned me down.” (pp. 345-346)

The panhandlers may be discrete 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 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 potential strategies to

mitigate face-threatening acts, which is replicated below in Figure 1. Using Brown and

Levinson’s framework, 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 record.

For example, Lankenau (1999a) describes mendicants who provide a service—finding a parking

spot, for example—with the hope of getting a tip. The author quoted a panhandler as saying, “It’s

free money out there. I don’t ask for nothing. I just direct cars into parking spaces and people

give me money” (p. 198). Otherwise, panhandlers can go on-record, and add redressive action to

limit loss of face. Brown and Levinson’s (1987/2006) editors listed strategies that could give the

face-threatening act redress for the positive face of the speaker: joking, giving reasons,

exaggerating, intensifying interest, and/or being optimistic; and forms of redress for the negative

ace of the addressee: giving deference, hedging, being direct or conventionally indirect, and/or

incurring debt (pp. 322-323).

7


Figure 1: Possible Strategies for doing a FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987/2006, p. 326)

How can these strategies be used by panhandlers? 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) described 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 the addressee by the panhandler. Greetings help establish a relationship

with the strangers who walk by extending “any ceremonial treatment that might be their due”

(Goffman, 1967/2006, p. 303).

As mentioned earlier, to panhandle someone is an act ripe 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). Lankenau (1999a) pointed out that the act is associated with deviance, alcohol and drug

do the FTA?

do the FTA

on record

without redressive action,

baldly

with redressive action

positive politeness

negative politenessoff record

don't do the FTA

8


abuse, mental illness, and lack of work ethic. 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 for strategies panhandlers use to overcome these inherent threats to

face. Specifically, this paper looks at what 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 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, in the evenings, and during the 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 “homeless-like vibe” consisting 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” like signs, cups, or plates to collect money) with the hope of being

asked, and then I recorded the encounter, regardless of whether or not 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. My operationalization of panhandling

9


encounters led to all verbal panhandling requests I encountered during these two months as being

recorded, but only non-verbal solicitations noted if I had a recording device and was looking. My

bias in favor of spoken encounters lead to data that are skewed in favor of verbal requests. I

recorded, by audio or by 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 written in a table where I recorded 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 I had about the request. In my table I also tallied uses of these politeness strategies:

indirect questions, forms of address, hedging, thanks, and greetings.

I attempted to audio record 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. All permitted, recorded requests were transcribed by me. I found that the irregular

nature of being panhandled—even while studying it—made capturing recorded data difficult. A

technological glitch unfortunately erased one good token.

Location

Data were taken in three nearby 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 also taken one block south of downtown near

Traders Joe’s supermarket across from the Monterey Transit Plaza. Finally, I encountered

panhandlers near the Fisherman’s Wharf on the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail north of downtown.

10


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 Stark (1992)

described: commercial areas with high foot traffic. Outside of Walgreens drugstore in Monterey

is a notorious hotspot of vagrants, a place matching a description of a panhandling locale from

Stark “where alcohol can be purchased … along with food, aspirin, and diapers” (p. 344). This

area is also close to cheap eating establishments, like Roadhouse Pizza and La Troia’s Market.

Monterey also provide panhandlers with plentiful access to tourists visiting Monterey. Joe, a 27-

year-old Phoenix panhandler quoted by Stark, explained why they are prime marks: “Tourists are

great. They’re on vacation, feeling good about themselves. They’re spending a lot of money

anyway, so what’s a little more thrown in” (p. 345). The locations provided convenience for me

and fit typical panhandling spots.

Participants

11


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 vast majority—35—were male. Of the six females, only one

was by herself, and only one made a request to me. In total, most panhandlers were white. Three

were African American, and one was Latino. The ages of the participants were difficult to guess.

A few could have been in their 20s or 30s, but I recorded most as being in their 40s, 50s, or 60s.

Age estimates were quick guesses. All speech and writing encountered was in English

Results

Somewhat surprisingly, the majority of encounters were not spoken requests. Of the 33

panhandling encounters only 12 were verbalized requests. Three encounters were 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,

props such as cups of change, and three instances of no sign/prop or request.

Verbal Requests

In total, 12 of the 33 encounters were verbal requests (see Appendix A for transcripts of

the verbal encounters). Most of the requests were given by a panhandler with no sign or prop.

Figure 3 breaks down the types of verbal request. In each request, both the initial utterance and

any following ones were analyzed for the presence of possible face-work strategies. I looked for

instances of hedging, indirect questions, using 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 (Appendix A), I was asked: “How’re you doing tonight?

Have any change? Nickel, dime, anything?” This request has a greeting, hedge, and an

12


indirect question; after giving a dollar, he also thanked me, saying, “Thanks for the buck.”

Request alone8

67%

Request with sign

325%

Request with prop

18%

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.

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 panhandler—an

African American male judged to be in his 50s, and blind—heard 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 what was said:

13


P: [singing] (.) he↑llo (.) 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: ↑ indicates high intonation; (.) indicates short pause; CAPS

indicate louder speech; [?] indicates rising intonation; [.] indicates 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

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.”

Non-Verbal Panhandling Encounters

In my data the majority of the encounters 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.

Signs were the most common strategy among the non-askers. Although the signs were

largely used in lieu of verbal requests (I had three instances of verbal requests paired 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

14


the signs. Six of the signs also gave specific reasons to give, and I added this strategy in place of

Signs13

72%

Props2

11%

Nothing3

17%

Figure 4: Non-Verbal Encounters: “Nothing” means a panhandler had no sign or prop, and did not speak. I noted the three as panhandling encounters for three reasons: (1) the panhandler asked for money the next time I walked by, (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 where panhandlers frequent. The two props indicated were a plate with money in it and a cup.

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

honorifics or other forms of address as none of the signs featured this primarily oral feature.

Discussion

Although limited in scope, this study has shown that clearly panhandlers use strategies to

limit threats to face. Avoidance was the most prevalent strategy, but what may be surprising is

15


the depth of avoidance. For example, I recorded 13 encounters of panhandlers who avoided a

verbal request in favor of a written sign. Yet none of the signs made direct requests either. In fact

the only requests mentioned on the signs were variations of “anything helps,” which is not even

an indirect question. In the verbal requests too, eight of the twelve used indirect requests. One

explanation of the pervasiveness of avoidance is—to borrow a term from Goffman (1967/

2006)—the ritualization of the event. In society at large, and Monterey in particular, panhandling

is a common, everyday occurrence. As a panhandler in Goldstein (1993) put it, “They know why

you’re sitting here…[y]ou don’t need to say anything about money” (p. 319). With all the

participants knowing how the ritual’s objective, panhandlers are not required to make explicit

their request and chance (any additional) loss of face to convey illocutionary meaning.

Avoidance, though, was not the only strategy used. Let us now look closer at how both

the verbal and non-verbal encounters displayed the strategies discussed to downplay both loss of

the positive face of the panhandlers and the negative face of the addressees.

For negative politeness, hedging, indirect questions, and thanking were all commonly

used in the verbal requests. As indicated in Table 1, five of the twelve requests used all three,

and ten used at least one. In the recorded interaction, the panhandler managed to repeat an

indirect request (“spare change…spare change?”), use two separate hedges (“spare,” “anyone”),

and give thanks four times (“thank you…god bless you sir thank you god bless you”) in just six

seconds. The density of the three strategies show panhandlers to be quite efficient with negative

politeness. The negative politeness combined with positive politeness; greetings and vocatives

were also common strategies. The recorded interaction had a greeting (“hello”) and two different

vocatives (“brother,” “sir”). Panhandlers encountering passersby must overcome being both a

stigmatized “other” with the negative associations of both panhandling and homelessness, and

16


simply being strangers. The use of greetings normalizes the interaction. More interesting was the

high frequencies of 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 again may account for such high frequencies. “Buddy, can

you spare a dime?” (a vocative, hedge, and indirect question) is such a traditional phrasing that

Lee and Farrel (2003) titled their paper with it.

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) I recorded contained the phrase. As a piece of face-work, the sign is pure

politeness: The simple phrase redresses the negative face of the addressee by both heding

(anything) and being indirect (there is not stated request at all). It also adds to the positive face of

the addressee, who will be helping the panhandler. Five of the signs mentioned travel or going

home, a positive connotation for the panhandlers compared to the associations of alcohol and

drug abuse and lack of work ethic mentioned by Lankenau (1999a). One sign—“Anything

helps/Trying to get home/for the holidays/God bless”—pulled 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 Maniati’s (2010) narratives. The signs 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. Signs—as a form of negative

politeness by themselves, and the face-work contained in their language—again portray

panhandlers as ever-aware of the face-threats in their acts.

17


This study has attempted to answer the question of how panhandlers use face-work;

future ethnographic work could add some answers to why. Yet the limited scope of “hows”

afforded by this study could be expanded too. A more systematic approach to recording tokens

would more accurately reflect the true rate of avoidance. Certainly more data could give more

insight on the relative frequencies of different verbal strategies. More audio transcriptions would

be useful too. Geographic expansion could investigate differences in the panhandling of more

urban areas than Monterey.

Conclusion

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. That in a study designed to collect

verbal data the majority of encounters still went silent highlights the importance of maintaining

face—even among one of society’s lowest rungs. The actions of panhandlers reflect and

exemplify both Goffman’s (1967/2006) and Brown and Levinson’s (1987/2006) theories on face

and politeness among one community of practice.

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 limited study has started.

Further studies could examine how face-work is related to the success of panhandling attempts,

and how face-work interacts with panhandlers views’ of themselves and their work. For

obviously face-work can be used to make encounters more successful, but ultimately must work

to help panhandlers maintain their own face if they are to continue to seek goods on the streets of

Monterey and everywhere.

18

PANHANDLING, POLITENESS, AND FACE-WORK 19


References

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (2006). Politeness: Some universals in language use. In A. Jaworski

& N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 311-323). London, New York:

Routledge. (Reprinted from Politeness: Some universals in language usage, by P. Brown

& S. C. Levinson, 1987, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press)

City of Monterey. (2011). Official City Website of Monterey, California. Retrieved from

http://www.monterey.org/

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,

New York: Routledge. (Reprinted from Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face

behavior, by E. Goffman, 1967, Garolen City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday)

Goldstein, B. J. (1993). Panhandlers at Yale: A case study in the limits of law. Indiana Law

Review, 27, 295-359.

Google Maps. (2011). [Downtown Monterey, California] [Street map]. Retrieved from

http://maps.google.com

Hayati, A. and Maniati, M. (2010). Beggars are sometimes the choosers! Discourse Society,

21(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1177/0957926509345069

Labov, W. (2006). The transformation of experience in narrative. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland

(Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed., pp. 214-235). London, New York: Routledge.

Lankenau, S. (1999a). Panhandling repertoires and routines for overcoming the nonperson

treatment. Deviant Behavior, 20(2), 183-206. doi: 10.1080/016396299266551

20


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. and 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. (2006). 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. and 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&printsec=frontcover&dq=Down+on+their+luck&hl=en&ei=xDC3Ts

GpN9TWiAKR0LRl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEw

AA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Stark, L. (1992). From lemons to lemonade: an ethnographic sketch of late 20th century

panhandling. New England Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 341–352. 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=homelessness%3A

%20new%20england%20and%20beyond&f=false

21

PANHANDLING, POLITENESS, AND FACE-WORK 22


Appendix A: Verbal Panhandling Requests and Strategies Used

The following is a list of the verbal requests encountered during my research with some demographic information for each. They are not complete transcripts. 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 (used in Table 1) 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 did not see what it said. On Alvarado St. near Walgreens, 8 pm. Strategies: none

P: can I have a dollarMe: sorry manP: (no response)

2) Fifty-year-old white male sitting on a chair next the Monterey Crêpe 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 yeahP: 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 sorryP: 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: yeahP: thanks sir

5) Two fifty-year-old white males standing opposite Well’s 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 manP1: you got one for him too Me: (give P2 cigarette)P1: we’re trying to get a whole packP2: actually I'm trying to get a bag of tobacco

23


6) Thirty-year-old Hispanic male walking near Trader Joe’s, 3:45 pm. Strategies: HedgeP: spare a dollarMe: yeahP: (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: 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, indirect question, thanks

P: you got a cigarette by any chance?Me: sureP: thank you

9) Fifty-year-old white male sitting at Fisherman’s Wharf, 5:30 pm. Strategies: Hedge, indirect question, thanks, greeting

P: how’re you doing tonight (.) have any change? nickel dime anythingMe: yeahP: 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 items—food, tobacco, alcohol, etc.—after requesting “that.” I was smoking a cigarette at the time. Strategies: none

P: can I have thatMe: sorry manP: (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 anythingMe: I got somethingP: god bless your sir…thank you for your kindness

12) Thirty-year-old white male walking with bicycle near bus stop at Monterey Transit Plaza across from Trader Joe’s. Strategies: Indirect question, vocative

P: can I bum a smoke dudeMe: sorry manP: (no response)

24


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 VeteranNeed help to get home

(3)I’m homelessIn god I believeAnything helps!!

(4)[stenciled]HOMELESSHUNGRYHOBO

(5)[stenciled]HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE HOMELESS

(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

25

Documents

Sociolinguistics - Panhandling, Politeness, and Facework