Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

to bring themselves and their interlocutors closer together; it is in effect a
ratification of sameness. In the facework as politeness paradigm, this is
normally taken to be achieved via a range of discourse strategies, from specific
politeness 'markers' in the realisation of speech acts (e. g. the use of "we" over
"I"), to general orientations to conversation per se (e. g. 'showing interest') (see
Brown and Levinson 1987). The importance and salience in conversation of
solidaric expression underlies both Goffman's and Brown and Levinson's
development of facework. Goffman (1967) for instance speaks in quite general
terms of 'working consensus' or'lip-service'. Whilst Brown and Levinson (1987)
provide a comprehensive list of 'positive politeness' strategies. In short, positive
facework can be perceived of as a kind of '-social accelerant' functioning to
bring people 'closer together'. (Brown and Levinson 1987,103). This general
ethos associated with positive politeness was shown to underlie subsequent
models of facework which have incorporated and sought to build on this
fundamental reading (e. g. Arndt and Janney 1987; Lim and Bowers 1991;
Scollon and Scollon 1981) as well as in more conventional studies of politeness
(e. g. Lakoff 1973; 1979; Leech 1983; Fraser 1990). Conversely, negative
facework was shown to be generally treated as an 'avoidance' based
phenomenon. That is, by employing negative facework, persons seek to keep
their own selves and others at some 'symbolic distance', thereby recognising
and ratifying themselves and others as autonomous preserves. Again, as with
positive facework as politeness, a range of discourse strategies have been
identified within the facework as politeness paradigm. As with positive
politeness, the focus on a recognition and redressing of the autonomy of one's
interlocutor underlies both Goffman's and Brown and Levinson's work.
Although well-proven concepts in the analysis of facework, I noted in
Chapter 3 that studies subsequent to Brown and Levinson have increasingly
noted the complexity of discourse and its apparent recalcitrance to systematic
analysis for facework using the facework as politeness paradigm. These
observations have come about even though there has been an increasing call
for the turn to naturally occurring conversational data drawn from naturally
occurring settings for a more valid and comprehensive understanding of
facework practices.
293