Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

This chapter then can be regarded as being central to the procedural and
analytic stance taken in this study. To that end it will guide the following analytical
chapters (see Chapters 6-8), and is one on which the thesis rests.
3.1 Facework in Discourse
In Chapter II outlined the general stances taken by Goffman and Brown
and Levinson towards the concept of face and facework practices. I now want to
consider more carefully the analytical purchase afforded by these major paradigms
and subsequent attempts to further develop them in the light of the current
conceptual, empirical, and analytic concerns.
Although not setting out a formal model for analysis as such, Goffman's
musings filter into most studies of facework. Indeed several cross-cultural studies,
including those focusing on non Anglo-American or non-Westem cultures, extol the
virtues of Goffman's approach. As I mentioned in Chapter 1, Goffman identified a
range of discreet phenomena which he framed as facework (see Goffman 1967;
1971). These have formed the basis of much work drawing specifically on
Goffman's interpretive stance in the consideration of actions such as accounts and
apologies (e. g. Owen 1983), actions generically referred to by Goffman as
components of 'remedial interchanges' (Goffman 1971). Issues such as
embarrassment and self-presentational work has also been subject to
Goffmanesque interpretation (see Cupach and Metts 1994; Metts 1997; and
Tracey 1990 for reviews). What Goffman's approach has done is in effect sensitise
researchers to these phenomena as being part and parcel of facework.
Unfortunately,
the majority of studies employing a Goffmanesque
standpoint
focus not on equilibric action per se, but rather on actual or potential disequilibrium,
where face may be under threat in some way. Actions such as requests or
apologies are thus framed using Goffman's conceptual schema as 'aligning actions'
- essentially
remedial in nature. Indeed, even though Goffman himself highlighted
the fundamental nature of facework as a condition of interaction, his own work
seems to be best suited to moments in interaction where face becomes potentially
or actually threatened - becomes 'an issue' (Goffman 1967). Salient, often highly
ritualised and formulaic acts such as accounts and apologies, although clearly
77