Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
A fundamental concept to emerge out of a cross-cultural reading of facework is that of the self. I began the review by quoting Goffman's reading of facework as one oriented essentially to supporting selves presented as images over the flow of talk. It has also been shown that variability in the conceptual isation of self had directly informed facework practices. Although the arguments based on cultural variations in selfhood have drawn upon this for explaining East-West differences in facework practices, work has also suggested that facework based on the prevailing notion of the self may be a more dynamic issue, with propensities for, for example individualist and collectivist orientation being omni-present ones in all cultures. There appears than to be a direct relationship between culturally specific conceptualisation of the self from both a Goffmanian perspective and what was classed as a self- construal reading, and the normative communicative practices routinely engaged in to achieve equilibrium - that is, face ratificatory and face supportive interaction. I shall further develop these suggestions below. 1.4 Summary At the beginning I described this chapter as a 'primer' and issued a caveat about its 'non-encyclopaedic' status. For this reason, there is much that has been omitted. However, the preceding discussion can now be summarised. First, face is a universal phenomenon. It can be seen to exist, albeit in its various nuances, across all cultures. Second, face consists of both the needs for solidarity with and independence from others. Again, striking cultural differences have been shown in various cultures, none more so than Asian versus Western societies. However, these two essentially competing forces should not be regarded as mutually exclusive, but rather two ends of a dimension which applies equally to all societies. These first two points lead on to the third, namely that face as a concept, and facework as a practice can be subject to cross-cultural variation. Fourth, face is closely associated with the concept of the self. Indeed, it is the self as mobilised in talk which allows participants to claim aspects of face. Fifth, face resides in discourse, that is, it is only manifest in the communicative practices as facework which work to index, ratify and support it. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, the practice of 42
facework operates on an underlying condition that all participants are working towards, or are at least willing to work within, a set of interactional and communicative boundaries which will allow for the maintenance of ritual equilibrium. 1.5 Conclusion In this chapter I began by sketching out the key premises of what I identified to be foundational works for the majority of extant face and facework studies, viz., Goffman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987) (1.1). Following this, I addressed the notion of face and facework across cultures, and identified discrepancies between Eastern and Western conceptualisations of face, based largely on differences in conceptualisation of the self as construal. In addition, cultural variations in facework were identified which prima facie appeared to be face-threatening activity but, when considered in their cultural context, were posited as equilibric (1.2). 1 will draw upon these issues in more detail in later chapters. Next however, I want to address more closely the central problem which this study seeks to illuminate, that of differences in English and German communicative style. 43
- 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 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: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- 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
- Page 67 and 68: elatively little overlap, and a gen
- Page 69 and 70: contributions, with the former set
- Page 71 and 72: fully and substantively, what was r
- Page 73 and 74: oriented to unmitigated disagreemen
- Page 75 and 76: 2.3 Communicative Underpinnings The
- Page 77 and 78: service but by more confrontational
- Page 79 and 80: Finally, additional explanatory dim
- Page 81 and 82: specific communicative practices, a
- Page 83 and 84: Brown and Levinson (1987). Indeed,
- Page 85 and 86: Notes to Chapter 2 11 use the term
- Page 87 and 88: This chapter then can be regarded a
- Page 89 and 90: asic irreducible sociological varia
- Page 91 and 92: Fraser (1990) who, in also attempti
- Page 93 and 94: particularly amenable to such a heu
- Page 95 and 96: identify certain underlying dynamic
- Page 97 and 98: In fact, these two opposing orienta
- Page 99 and 100: at any given point in the flow of c
- Page 101 and 102: orderly and meaningful conversation
facework operates on an underlying condition that all participants are working<br />
towards, or are at least willing to work within, a set <strong>of</strong> interactional and<br />
communicative boundaries which will allow for the maintenance <strong>of</strong> ritual<br />
equilibrium.<br />
1.5 Conclusion<br />
In this chapter I began by sketching out the key premises <strong>of</strong> what I<br />
identified to be foundational works for the majority <strong>of</strong> extant face and facework<br />
studies, viz., G<strong>of</strong>fman (1967) and Brown and Levinson (1987) (1.1). Following<br />
this, I addressed the notion <strong>of</strong> face and facework across cultures, and identified<br />
discrepancies between Eastern and Western conceptualisations <strong>of</strong> face, based<br />
largely on differences in conceptualisation <strong>of</strong> the self as construal. In addition,<br />
cultural variations in facework were identified which prima facie appeared to be<br />
face-threatening activity but, when considered in their cultural context, were<br />
posited as equilibric (1.2). 1 will draw upon these issues in more detail in later<br />
chapters. Next however, I want to address more closely the central problem<br />
which this study seeks to illuminate, that <strong>of</strong> differences in English and German<br />
communicative style.<br />
43
Change language