Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

usir.salford.ac.uk
from usir.salford.ac.uk More from this publisher
23.03.2013 Views

ecognition of and orientation to the individual as an autonomous entity (6 la Brown and Levinson), the latter by taking the individual to be intrinsically bound up to a much greater extent with the wider community. Because of their conceptualisation of the individual and beliefs and values associated with facework, various cultures can be placed along the individualism - collectivism continuum (see fig. 1.5). Fig. 1.4 Examples of Collectivist and Individualist Cultures Collectivist, Japan / China US / Canada 10 Individualist Similarly affecting communicative style across cultures, the high-context - low-context dimension has been posited as more appropriate for understanding cultural variation in situated facework practices. In the former, contextual factors such as the hierarchical relations between interlocutors heavily impact on the nature of the interaction. Conversely, in low-context cultures this is much reduced, with, in effect, more expressive freedom allowed the individual speaker. Again, scholars drawing on this paradigm frequently place Eastern and Western cultures towards opposing ends (see fig. 1.5). Fig. 1.5 Examples of HCC / LCC Cultures HCC LCC -4 lo Korea / Vietnam Germany / Switzerland A culture's positioning along either of these dimensions, not only informs the general attitude an individual may have toward his / her own and others' face concerns, but is manifest in the communicative preferences routinely played out in face to face communication (see table 1.3). 32

Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and Collectivist (HCC) Communicative Behaviour Individualism Collectivism Emphasis on "I" identity Emphasis on "We" identity Self-face concern Need for autonomy, Other-face concern Need for inclusion, association disassociation (neg. face (pos. face need) need) Self-oriented facework Other-oriented facework Direct speech style Controlling / confrontational style Competitive strategies Direct emotional expression Indirect speech style Obliging / avoidance style Integrative strategies Indirect emotional expression Derived from Ting-Toomey (1988,230) Although useful in helping us to 'classify' various cultures - largely emphasising and reinforcing East-West differences - the real conceptual ramifications for understanding facework as an interpersonal practice are those concerning the status of the individual, or more specifically, the conceptualisation and status of 'self Several cross-cultural studies have noted that a true understanding of face and facework practices can only be achieved if one takes into account the nature and status of the self. The concept used in cross-cultural reading s of selfhood is somewhat different to the concept as employed in the work of Goffman (1967) or sociological literature in general. It is however one which is, albeit of a different conceptual provenance, essential to the understanding of facework as universal practice. 33

Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and Collectivist (HCC) Communicative<br />

Behaviour<br />

Individualism Collectivism<br />

Emphasis on "I" identity Emphasis on "We" identity<br />

Self-face concern<br />

Need for autonomy,<br />

Other-face concern<br />

Need for inclusion, association<br />

disassociation (neg. face (pos. face need)<br />

need)<br />

Self-oriented facework Other-oriented facework<br />

Direct speech style<br />

Controlling / confrontational<br />

style<br />

Competitive strategies<br />

Direct emotional expression<br />

Indirect speech style<br />

Obliging / avoidance style<br />

Integrative strategies<br />

Indirect emotional expression<br />

Derived from Ting-Toomey (1988,230)<br />

Although useful in helping us to 'classify' various cultures - largely<br />

emphasising and reinforcing East-West differences - the real conceptual<br />

ramifications for understanding facework as an interpersonal practice are those<br />

concerning the status <strong>of</strong> the individual, or more specifically, the<br />

conceptualisation and status <strong>of</strong> 'self<br />

Several cross-cultural studies have noted that a true understanding <strong>of</strong><br />

face and facework practices can only be achieved if one takes into account the<br />

nature and status <strong>of</strong> the self. The concept used in cross-cultural reading s <strong>of</strong><br />

selfhood is somewhat different to the concept as employed in the work <strong>of</strong><br />

G<strong>of</strong>fman (1967) or sociological literature in general. It is however one which is,<br />

albeit <strong>of</strong> a different conceptual provenance, essential to the understanding <strong>of</strong><br />

facework as universal practice.<br />

33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!