Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

clearly reflect both Goffman's and Brown and Levinson's comments as to the
culturally variability allowed for by their respective frameworks.
In addition to the potential import of the premises set out in Goffman's
and Brown and Levinson's work, other cross-cultural facework oriented
frameworks have been cited as allowing some interpretary purchase on these
differences. For example, drawing on the German tendency for self-orientation
versus the English for other-orientation, House (1996) has suggested that
differences in communicative styles may well be interpreted in terms of
Hofstede's (1980) dimension of 'col I ectivi sm-i ndivi dual ism' discussed above
(see 1.2):
[The Self-orientation vs. other-orientation dimension]
... is similar to
Hofstede's (1980) dimension of "collectivistic vs. individualistic"
cultures, respectively displaying features such as an "us vs. an I
feeling" or "responsibility to society vs. responsibility to self'. Germans
appear to be more on the individualistic end of the scale than Anglo-
Americans (House 1996,352).
(House 1996,352)
This proposition is interesting in that it demonstrates the applicability of a
framework on which explanation of East-West differences have been based
might provide some analytical purchase on understanding differences in
communicative style between two western and historically and geographically
quite close cultures. This may also carry consequences for the reading of
cultural conceptual i sati ons of the self, particularly in terms of the self as
construal, bounded by the individual in individualistic cultures, but
encompassing aspects of the wider community in collectivist cultures. Both
Byrnes (1996), and Kuhn (1995) have also drawn on frameworks largely
associated with explanations for East-West differences, specifically the in-group
- out-group distinction. It has been suggested that, compared to Anglo-US
cultures the German culture may be marked more by 'in-group' orientation,
where fundamental solidarity between participants is assumed rather than
explicitly referenced. This might explain for the absence of overt politeness and
facework, particularly in contexts where agonistic conversation is pursued.
R