Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

The intent of this chapter is to provide the reader with a balanced and
informative, yet digestible overview of face and facework. The intent is not - and
for reasons of space and brevity cannot be - to provide an encyclopaedic
overview of all that has been said and done in face and facework research (see
Cupach and Metts 1994; Earley 1997; Metts 1997; Spiers 1998; Tracey 1990;
and Ting-Toomey 1994). Rather, the chapter aims, in the first instance, to
provide a necessary conceptual background to the more specific concerns of
this particular study whilst, at the same time, providing the reader with a
foundational understanding of issues surrounding the study of face and
facework in general.
I shall begin by considering key foundational texts, to which the majority
of facework studies can be conceptually traced, namely, the work of Goffman
(1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987) (1.1). These two bodies of work are not
only essential to understanding the concept of face and facework practices per
se, but also provide the basis for the conceptual and theoretical arguments
advanced later in this thesis. Following this I shall point to recent conceptual
debates address. ing the concept of face as a universal, drawing particularly on
work conducted by scholars focussing on non-Western conceptualisations,
largely in response to Brown and Levinson (1.2). 1 shall then focus on evidence
of cross-cultural variation in communicative norms and practices which seem to
undermine conventional understanding of politeness and facework (1.3). Next I
shall provide a short summary of the preceding discussion (1.4) before moving
on to conclude the chapter (1.5).
In the first instance, this chapter should not be read as an authoritative
account of face and facework per se, but rather, a sketching of the conceptual
terrain on which this particular thesis is built, and as a primer for subsequent
chapters.
14