Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Abstract This research focuses on cross-cultural differences in facework between English and German conversation. Specifically, the research addresses facework occurring as part and parcel of sociable conversation, as it is played out within moments of focused topic development - what I term 'sociable episodes'. Drawing on extant literature, the study identifies a range of communicative parameters along which English and German communicative style has been shown to differ, non more so than those suggesting different facework norms, and orientation to face needs as opposed to such things as ideational aspects of talk. In an attempt to address these differences, the study develops a model of facework - facework as alignment -which is posited as being appropriate to the study of essentially apolite conversational interaction. Further, although utilising the notions of ritual equilibrium (Goffman 1967) and positive - negative aspects of face (Brown and Levinson), the posited model of facework focuses specifically on aspects of sociable selfhood informing sociable conversation. It is argued that facework in sociable episodes is a matter of positive and negative alignment of sociable selves in and through the claiming of solidarity with and autonomy from other co-participants in terms of expressions of definitions, evaluations, experiences. In terms of English - German differences, these are demonstrated to be a matter of alignment of different sociable selves, ones normatively and routinely positively and negatively aligned in the achievement of sociable conversation, and ones indexing prevailing but culturally differing positive social values (Goffman 1967). The study concludes by identifying areas for future research based on the facework as alignment model developed and applied throughout the thesis. ix
The 'Research Problem' Introduction Comparative research of English and German discourse has identified a number of salient ways in which German and English speakers differ in their communicative style. Studies have focused on an array of different data which includes both textual materials, (e. g. Snell-Hornby 1984; Evans 1998; Clyne 1987; Luchtenberg 1994; Krenn 1991; Kienpointer and Kindt 1997; Pufahl 1992) and spoken interaction (e. g. Blum-Kulka and House 1989; Byrnes 1986; Fetzer 1996,1997; Friday 1994; Hellweg, Samovar, and Skow 1994; House 1979,1982a, 1982b, 1982c, 1989; House and Kasper 1981; Kotthoff 1989,1991,1993,1994; Straehle 1997; and Watts 1989). What these studies have shown is that German and English speakers differ along a range of communicative parameters, which include such things as levels of directness in realising speech acts, varying focus on one's own or one's interlocutors' concerns in communicative exchanges, interpersonal versus ideational concerns emphasis in talk, and the avoidance or pursuit of conflictual conversation. Fundamentally, what many of these studies suggest is that the Germans and the English, across a range of discourse practices, engage in differing levels of facework (Goffman 1967; Brown and Levinson 1987), that is, the communicative practices engaged in to recognise and support either one's own or one's interlocutor's face needs. However, although the concept of face is often drawn upon in studies addressing German - English differences in communicative style, it is very often employed only cursorily. In fact, there exist to date no sustained systematic comparative study of facework in the two cultures. This study seeks to do exactly that - to address German and English differences in communicative style as cultural variations in facework. Although the term face and facework have effectively nowadays become incorporated into common parlance, within discourse studies the terms refer to quite precise conceptual i sations and communicative 1
- Page 1 and 2: FACEWORK IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN SOCI
- Page 3 and 4: CHAPTER 4: DOING SOCIA(B)L(E) SCIEN
- Page 5 and 6: Table List of Tables 1.1 Archetypal
- Page 7 and 8: Conversational Excerpts Excerpt Pag
- Page 9: Acknowledgments Acknowledgements se
- Page 13 and 14: Taking these problematics as a star
- Page 15 and 16: At the time, this proposal seemed e
- Page 17 and 18: the self and its relationship to on
- Page 19 and 20: activity of sociable conversation,
- Page 21 and 22: including the application of the fa
- Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER I FACE AND FACEWORK: CONCEP
- Page 25 and 26: 1.1 Foundational Texts In order to
- Page 27 and 28: communicative action could be seen
- Page 29 and 30: Fig. 1.1 Goffman's Model of Ritual
- Page 31 and 32: distribution of his feelings, and t
- Page 33 and 34: empirically difficult' phenomenon (
- Page 35 and 36: etween self and other). Conversatio
- Page 37 and 38: allowing in effect a speaker to cri
- Page 39 and 40: as an equilibric practice, allowing
- Page 41 and 42: universality, particularly in studi
- Page 43 and 44: Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and C
- Page 45 and 46: Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) emplo
- Page 47 and 48: Mao (1994) addresses this tension b
- Page 49 and 50: Tannen's work (1981 a; 1981 b) perh
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 2 ANGLO-SAXON CHALK AND TEU
- Page 57 and 58: impolite. However, I soon came to r
- Page 59 and 60: in potential or actual conflict sit
Abstract<br />
This research focuses on cross-cultural differences in facework<br />
between English and German conversation. Specifically, the research<br />
addresses facework occurring as part and parcel <strong>of</strong> sociable conversation, as<br />
it is played out within moments <strong>of</strong> focused topic development - what I term<br />
'sociable episodes'. Drawing on extant literature, the study identifies a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> communicative parameters along which English and German<br />
communicative style has been shown to differ, non more so than those<br />
suggesting different facework norms, and orientation to face needs as<br />
opposed to such things as ideational aspects <strong>of</strong> talk. In an attempt to address<br />
these differences, the study develops a model <strong>of</strong> facework - facework as<br />
alignment -which is posited as being appropriate to the study <strong>of</strong> essentially<br />
apolite conversational interaction. Further, although utilising the notions <strong>of</strong><br />
ritual equilibrium (G<strong>of</strong>fman 1967) and positive - negative aspects <strong>of</strong> face<br />
(Brown and Levinson), the posited model <strong>of</strong> facework focuses specifically on<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> sociable selfhood informing sociable conversation. It is argued that<br />
facework in sociable episodes is a matter <strong>of</strong> positive and negative alignment<br />
<strong>of</strong> sociable selves in and through the claiming <strong>of</strong> solidarity with and autonomy<br />
from other co-participants in terms <strong>of</strong> expressions <strong>of</strong> definitions, evaluations,<br />
experiences. In terms <strong>of</strong> English - German differences, these are<br />
demonstrated to be a matter <strong>of</strong> alignment <strong>of</strong> different sociable selves, ones<br />
normatively and routinely positively and negatively aligned in the achievement<br />
<strong>of</strong> sociable conversation, and ones indexing prevailing but culturally differing<br />
positive social values (G<strong>of</strong>fman 1967). The study concludes by identifying<br />
areas for future research based on the facework as alignment model<br />
developed and applied throughout the thesis.<br />
ix