Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
indexing face concerns, provide it seems little analytical purchase where face concerns are not an issue - where they are not potentially of actually threatened. Of course, the fundamental weakness with the equilibric framework for understanding facework practices is the lack of an explicit model set out by Goffman. One suspects that this is in no small part down to the difficulty with pinning down equilibric as opposed to non-equilibric, or equilibric reparative (see fig. 1.1) facework practices. It may be then that - at least in considering equilibric facework practices - the analytical purchase offered by the Goffmanian framework of facework is at best heuristic. Conversely, Brown and Levinson's conceptualisations of face (see Chapter 1) allowed for the development and presentation of a systematic model for the analysis of facework as politeness in discourse. Subsequently this has gone on to become the seminal framework for facework researchers. What brown and Levinson present is essentially a hierarchical ordering of facework practices ranging from direct and unmitigated utterances to ones encoding negative politeness (see fig. 1.2). To append this framework and allow a systematic analysis of specific utterances, Brown and Levinson present a series of specific ways in which both positive and negative politeness can be encoded. This approach to facework as specific linguistic manifestations of politeness provides the researcher with a clearly defined set of strategies and a codification system for specific linguistic units of analysis. Drawing on Brown and Levinson's model, scholars have turned to the analysis of facework in a range of settings and contexts. Subsequently, Brown and Levinson's framework has been successfully applied to include encounters between strangers, interaction in work settings, consultations between medical practitioners and patients, talk between intimate partners, courtroom cross- questioning episodes, and obscure contexts such as talk between aircraft crew in potential emergency situations. The applicability of the politeness model to these varied situations and contexts bears impressive testimony to the analytical purchase of the facework as politeness approach. However, several weakness with the framework have been identified. For instance, rather than being influenced primarily by - as Brown and Levinson claim - 7A
asic irreducible sociological variables of power and distance between interlocutors, discourse has been identified as being subject to a much broader range of situated and relational contingencies. Thus, several scholars have called into question the adequacy of the contextual sensitivity of Brown and Levinson's framework. Further, certain omni-present discourse phenomena have been identified which are not easily incorporated into the politeness based analysis of discourse. Two such prominent examples are the need for self-oriented facework and the uses of aggressive facework (see e. g. Baxter 1984; Cupach and Metts 1994; Coupland, Granger, and Coupland 1988; Craig, Tracey, and Spisak 1986; Katriel 1986; Lim and Bowers 1991; Metts 1997; Muntigl and Turnbull 1998; Penman 1990; Tracey 1990; Wilson et al 1991; Wood and Kroger 1994)1. The facework as politeness model does not easily accommodate these and other factors, and to that end suddenly appears rather limited in its ability to allow a full interpretation of the contingencies of actual discourse usage. Perhaps more fundamental problems lie with not the nature or complexity of the analytical framework itself, but rather, in the central question of the ability of any framework to fully cater for the complexity of utterance construction as encoding face concerns. Finally, of course, even Brown and Levinson attempt to provide an explicit framework for the analysis of facework in discourse and taking into account the above criticism the emphasis again seems to be on facework practices as operating essentially in the face of some actual or potential face-threat. Alongside neglected aspects of discourse, utterances themselves have been shown to be far from the unproblematic units of analysis implied by Brown and Levinson's framework. Rather, speaker utterances have been shown to have wide and complex array of functions vis-6-vis face, beyond their markedness for positive and / or negative politeness. These observations have led to a growing corpus of terminology employed across a range of studies to point to how specific utterances can aggravate, antagonise, compensate, co-operate with, show contempt for, depreciate, derogate, enhance, give, honour, mitigate, protect, respect, restore, be neutral thr, save, or threaten various aspects of face. Further, the multifunctional quality of single utterances points to the fact that they can function to perform more than one of these things simultaneously, have their true function non-determinate until subsequent utterances are made 2 or perhaps even remain inaccessible to persons outside of the relationship of the interlocutors at all 3 Trying to interpret the function and effects of a given utterance vis-6-vis some 70
- 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 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- 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: This chapter then can be regarded a
- 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
- Page 103 and 104: locally managed and constantly in d
- Page 105 and 106: Poles of Alignment Fig. 3.6 Sociabl
- Page 107 and 108: toward a clearer understanding of w
- Page 109 and 110: Notes to Chapter 3 1 See also Brown
- Page 111 and 112: 4.1 Research Questions In the previ
- Page 113 and 114: eferring to as sociable includes in
- Page 115 and 116: The decision on quantity of data wa
- Page 117 and 118: largely anecdotal evidence from whi
- Page 119 and 120: such as laughter sequences. I also
- Page 121 and 122: Table 4.3 Data: Omissions from Anal
- Page 123 and 124: The obtrusiveness of my recording w
- Page 125 and 126: hand, I did not want to engage in t
- Page 127 and 128: German. However, these episodes asi
- Page 129 and 130: presented here provides a necessary
- Page 131 and 132: two chapters (Chapters 6 and 7). He
- Page 133 and 134: Hand shakes for example were infreq
- Page 135 and 136: eing invariably solidaric in nature
- Page 137 and 138: claimed on the part of the particip
asic irreducible sociological variables <strong>of</strong> power and distance between<br />
interlocutors, discourse has been identified as being subject to a much broader<br />
range <strong>of</strong> situated and relational contingencies. Thus, several scholars have called<br />
into question the adequacy <strong>of</strong> the contextual sensitivity <strong>of</strong> Brown and Levinson's<br />
framework. Further, certain omni-present discourse phenomena have been<br />
identified which are not easily incorporated into the politeness based analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
discourse. Two such prominent examples are the need for self-oriented facework<br />
and the uses <strong>of</strong> aggressive facework (see e. g. Baxter 1984; Cupach and Metts<br />
1994; Coupland, Granger, and Coupland 1988; Craig, Tracey, and Spisak 1986;<br />
Katriel 1986; Lim and Bowers 1991; Metts 1997; Muntigl and Turnbull 1998;<br />
Penman 1990; Tracey 1990; Wilson et al 1991; Wood and Kroger 1994)1. The<br />
facework as politeness model does not easily accommodate these and other<br />
factors, and to that end suddenly appears rather limited in its ability to allow a full<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> the contingencies <strong>of</strong> actual discourse usage.<br />
Perhaps more fundamental problems lie with not the nature or complexity <strong>of</strong><br />
the analytical framework itself, but rather, in the central question <strong>of</strong> the ability <strong>of</strong> any<br />
framework to fully cater for the complexity <strong>of</strong> utterance construction as encoding<br />
face concerns. Finally, <strong>of</strong> course, even Brown and Levinson attempt to provide an<br />
explicit framework for the analysis <strong>of</strong> facework in discourse and taking into account<br />
the above criticism the emphasis again seems to be on facework practices as<br />
operating essentially in the face <strong>of</strong> some actual or potential face-threat.<br />
Alongside neglected aspects <strong>of</strong> discourse, utterances themselves have<br />
been shown to be far from the unproblematic units <strong>of</strong> analysis implied by Brown<br />
and Levinson's framework. Rather, speaker utterances have been shown to have<br />
wide and complex array <strong>of</strong> functions vis-6-vis face, beyond their markedness for<br />
positive and / or negative politeness. These observations have led to a growing<br />
corpus <strong>of</strong> terminology employed across a range <strong>of</strong> studies to point to how specific<br />
utterances can aggravate, antagonise, compensate, co-operate with, show<br />
contempt for, depreciate, derogate, enhance, give, honour, mitigate, protect,<br />
respect, restore, be neutral thr, save, or threaten various aspects <strong>of</strong> face. Further,<br />
the multifunctional quality <strong>of</strong> single utterances points to the fact that they can<br />
function to perform more than one <strong>of</strong> these things simultaneously, have their true<br />
function non-determinate until subsequent utterances are made 2 or perhaps even<br />
remain inaccessible<br />
to persons outside <strong>of</strong> the relationship <strong>of</strong> the interlocutors at all 3<br />
Trying to interpret the function and effects <strong>of</strong> a given utterance vis-6-vis some<br />
70