Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Notes to Chapter I
1 This is no doubt exacerbated by the fact that the term 'facework' enjoys today a seemingly
generalised 'umbrella' meaning of '... a variety of communicative devices', aimed at one's own or
another's face (Metts 1997,374). Alongside this, the concept of 'face'to which facework is
directed is often given short definitional shrift, with most works relying on Goffman (1967),
Brown and Levinson (1987), a sketchy synthesis of the two, or sometimes no definition at all
(See Ervin-Tripp et al 1995 for an attempt to trace the etymology and outline the semantics of
'face' in several cultures including English).
2 Tracy further sub-divides Socio-psychological approaches into: (1) Goffman based work; (2)
largely psychologically based self-presentational studies; and (3) studies focussing on faceconcerns
in bargaining. The first approach need only concern us here, and, is in effect the
foundation on which the other two are based.
3 Originally published as Goffman, E. (1955) 'On face-work: An analysis of the ritual elements in
social interaction', Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3), 213-231.
Goffman's (1967) collection of essays however, which contains the later publication, is
invariably cited as the seminal text in facework studies.
4 See Fraser (1990), Kasper (1990; 1994), Thomas (1995), Wafts et al. (1992), as well as
special issues of Journal of Pragmatics (1990, Vol. 14), and Multilingua (1988,7-4; 1989,8-2/3)
for more thorough discussions of key perspectives in politeness research.
5 Here I will focus on what is usually termed 'volitional' politeness, i. e. politeness based in
speaker strategies to achieve certain pragmatic or ihterpersonal goals, as opposed to
'discernment' politeness which is based on fixed hierarchical relations between interlocutors and
is more oriented to linguistically 'marking'these relations. See Hill et al (1986) for a discussion
of 'volition' and 'discernment' politeness.
r3 Lakoff, Leech, and Fraser also see their work as being universally applicable. However, it is
Brown and Levinson's work - essentially designed as a universal thesis - which stands as by
far the most influential work on cross-cultural analyses of facework as politeness.
7 The following review is based largely on responses to Brown and Levinson. In this respect,
although section 1.1 was organised around the general approaches of Goffman and Politeness,
it is the later which is being accorded more treatment here. This exegetic 'skewing' is simply due
to the huge amount of research directly inspired by and subsequently responding to Brown and
Levinson's conceptualisations. It also reflects the relative neglect which has been shown to
Goffman in favour of Brown and Levinson by those scholars engaged in cross-cultural research
- one which this thesis hopes in part at least to rectify.
8 Due in no small degree no doubt to Goffman's'close appropriation' of the Chinese
cOnceptualisation of the term.
9A
comprehensive overview of work carried out cannot be given here. See Brown and Levinson
ý1987,1-51); Kasper (1990; 1994); and Tracy (1990) for overviews.
0 Indeed, Tracey and Baratz (1994) note that studies applying Brown and Levinson's model fall
into two camps: those calling for revision and those calling for an abandoning of the model.
11
'Asian' here will be used as a generic concept relating to cultures geographically located in
the general area known as Southeast Asia, including China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and
The Philippines.
12 Ting-Toomey (1998) also draws on the distinction between independent and interdependent
self-construals to illustrate'... the degree to which people conceive of themselves as relatively
autonomous from, or connected to others' (p. 196). In an interesting extension to these two
types, Ting-Toomey (op cit. ) incorporates these two opposing types and two new types - biconstrual
(high in both independent and interdependent characteristics) and ambivalent (Iow in
both).
13 Schiffrin does note that such argumentation only functions as sociability as long as the
'search for truth' does not override the relational work of actively engaging in 'truth searching' as
it were. (p. 316). See also Muntigi and Turnbull (1998) who identify familial settings per se as
being characterised by a different form of argumentation - one based on overarching solidarity,
as opposed to antagonism.
44