Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
degree of reconsideration and reconceptualisation. In particular I shall point to the analytical import provided by the concept of the self as 'self- construal'. I shall then move on to focus on evidence pointing to cross- cultural variation in communicative norms and practices, which seem to undermine conventional understanding of politeness and facework, particularly those, which equate facework with indirectness of expression. In concluding the chapter I shall suggest that how participants in various cultures achieve and sustainritual equilibrium' (Goffman 1967) by engaging in quite different, and often prima facie contradictory - facework practices. The aim of this chapter will be, in essence, to ground the concepts and notions of facework in a cross-cultural context. I shall begin Chapter 2 by inserting something of myself into the thesis, that is, I shall speak briefly of my own observations, feelings, and initial problems of participating in sociable gatherings within the German milieu. This personal grounding is a necessary one, as it is out of personal experience that my interest in the basis for English - German differences in communicative style originally emerged. Following this, I shall identity salient characteristics of German and English communicative style, a term I shall use as a generic one to encompass a range of discourse practices. Here I shall draw on literature that has addressed a range of discourse phenomena, from single speech acts to more general orientations to ongoing conversational interaction. The emphasis here will be to highlight essential differences between the two speech communities, ones which will effectively corroborate my own personal experiences, and which in a more general sense may point to issues such as cross-cultural (mis)perception. In an attempt to consolidate this range of observations and findings, I shall move on to identify salient cultural parameters along which German and English communicative style differs. Following this, I shall pose the question of how far the conceptualisations of face and frameworks for the interpretation of facework introduced in Chapter 1 can help illuminate the cultural basis for such salient differences in communicative style. It will be argued that, although current frameworks for understanding facework across cultures allows some insight into the bases for German - English differences, fundamental concepts such as 6
the self and its relationship to ongoing conversational style remain essentially under explored. Finally, I shall consider the methodological, analytical and procedural characteristics of extant comparative research into English - German differences in communicative style, identifying the benefits and limitations of each and suggesting areas, which require further investigation and elaboration. Here I shall also point to the nature of the data on which this study is based, and sites from which it is drawn. Chapter 3 will be perhaps the most fundamental chapter of the whole study. This is largely due to the theoretical and analytical propositions developed and advanced. I shall begin by outlining the main approaches to the analysis of facework in discourse, these being largely applications or developments of Goffman's (1967) and Brown and Levinson's (1987) frameworks. Again, although I shall identify the analytical purchase provided by extant approaches to facework in discourse, I shall argue that, the nature of discourse itself - particular naturally occurring ongoing discourse - remains recalcitrant to systematic and valid analysis in terms of its facework features, due to such things as multi-functionality of utterances, the import of contextual factors, and inherent problems with identifying a particular unit of analysis for the analysis of facework. In conclusion I shall suggest that facework - particular the notions of positive and negative face (Brown and Levinson 1987) and equilibrium (Goffman 1967) - might best be treated as 'heuristics' in the analysis of facework, that is, as sensitising devices rather than indexing particular linguistic form of, for example, particular utterances. Following this - and changing footing somewhat -I shall consider the contingencies and dynamics of the particular type of discourse on which this particular study is based, that is, sociable interaction (Blum-Kulka 1997; Eggins and Slade 1997; Riesman and Watson 1964; Schiffrin 1984; Simmel 1949 [1911]; Tannen 1984; Watson 1958; Watson and Potter 1962). Here I shall draw on a body of literature that points to particular fundamental underlying dynamics, which guide conversational behaviour during episodes of sociable conversation. Drawing on these observations - and in the light of the particular empirical basis for this study -I shall move on to suggest how the sociological 7
- 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 and 10: Acknowledgments Acknowledgements se
- Page 11 and 12: The 'Research Problem' Introduction
- Page 13 and 14: Taking these problematics as a star
- Page 15: At the time, this proposal seemed e
- 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
- Page 61 and 62: salient differences. For example, G
- Page 63 and 64: Watts observed that German conversa
- Page 65 and 66: Finally, although Watts argued that
degree <strong>of</strong> reconsideration and reconceptualisation. In particular I shall<br />
point to the analytical import provided by the concept <strong>of</strong> the self as 'self-<br />
construal'. I shall then move on to focus on evidence pointing to cross-<br />
cultural variation in communicative norms and practices, which seem to<br />
undermine conventional understanding <strong>of</strong> politeness and facework,<br />
particularly those, which equate facework with indirectness <strong>of</strong> expression.<br />
In concluding the chapter I shall suggest that how participants in various<br />
cultures achieve and sustainritual equilibrium' (G<strong>of</strong>fman 1967) by<br />
engaging in quite different, and <strong>of</strong>ten prima facie contradictory - facework<br />
practices. The aim <strong>of</strong> this chapter will be, in essence, to ground the<br />
concepts and notions <strong>of</strong> facework in a cross-cultural context.<br />
I shall begin Chapter 2 by inserting something <strong>of</strong> myself into the<br />
thesis, that is, I shall speak briefly <strong>of</strong> my own observations, feelings, and<br />
initial problems <strong>of</strong> participating in sociable gatherings within the German<br />
milieu. This personal grounding is a necessary one, as it is out <strong>of</strong> personal<br />
experience that my interest in the basis for English - German differences<br />
in communicative style originally emerged. Following this, I shall identity<br />
salient characteristics <strong>of</strong> German and English communicative style, a term<br />
I shall use as a generic one to encompass a range <strong>of</strong> discourse practices.<br />
Here I shall draw on literature that has addressed a range <strong>of</strong> discourse<br />
phenomena, from single speech acts to more general orientations to<br />
ongoing conversational interaction. The emphasis here will be to highlight<br />
essential differences between the two speech communities, ones which<br />
will effectively corroborate my own personal experiences, and which in a<br />
more general sense may point to issues such as cross-cultural<br />
(mis)perception. In an attempt to consolidate this range <strong>of</strong> observations<br />
and findings, I shall move on to identify salient cultural parameters along<br />
which German and English communicative style differs. Following this, I<br />
shall pose the question <strong>of</strong> how far the conceptualisations <strong>of</strong> face and<br />
frameworks for the interpretation <strong>of</strong> facework introduced in Chapter 1 can<br />
help illuminate the cultural basis for such salient differences in<br />
communicative style. It will be argued that, although current frameworks<br />
for understanding facework across cultures allows some insight into the<br />
bases for German - English differences, fundamental concepts such as<br />
6