Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

as an equilibric practice, allowing for the presenting of self and claiming of
positive social values across the flow on ongoing talk. The facework as
politeness approach conceived of facework within a positive - negative
paradigm of face needs. I shall discuss the analytical purchase afforded by
these fundamental readings of face and frameworks for addressing facework
below (see Chapter 3). Before this however, I want to consider more closely the
question of the applicability of the concept of face as advanced over the
preceding pages and underlying assumptions of facework in a cross-cultural
context, that is, as universally valid and applicable.
In the preceding pages I have accorded considerable time to both
Goffman's and Brown and Levinson's appropriation of face. This should rightly
reflect the fundamental nature of these two texts in helping to understand how
concerns with face, and routine practices to orient to face guide everyday
interaction. Goffman's sociological writings essentially provided sensitising
concepts for researchers to apply to everyday settings. Brown and Levinson's
work however provided a linguistic basis for analysis, and thus set the ball
rolling for the analyses of a multitude of specific speech acts, as well as
inspiring texts variously recognising the import of face in studying discourse use
(the present study included). However the preceding review is not to imply that
face and facework are unproblematic, issues. Indeed, as I suggested in 1.0, the
opposite of this is the case, with an increasing number of studies conceptually
developing the concept of face and the facework practices employed in
everyday life.
Although many of these developments essentially corroborate the
premises set out and implicit in the work of Goffman and Brown and Levinson,
there has been work which, prima facie at least, seems to undermine the
essentially Anglo-American paradigms for understanding facework.
29