Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2013
-
(2013): Introduction. Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. In: Journal of Politeness Research 9 (1), S. 1-33. DOI: 10.1515/pr-2013-0001
Abstract: The field of linguistic politeness has of late experienced a renewed interest in conceptualizations of one of its core concepts, face. Since the publication of Brown and Levinson’s formative paper in 1978 and the subsequent application of its tenets, politeness scholars, mainly Asian and non-Anglo, have raised concerns regarding the suitability of Brown and Levinson’s conceptualization of face to their respective cultures (Wierzbicka 1985; Matsumoto 1988; Ide 1989; Gu 1990; Nwoye 1992; Mao 1994). Different options were put forth to solve what was seen by many as a fundamental flaw of the model, from culture-specific reconceptualizations (Sifianou 1992; Strecker 1993; Bravo 1999) to elaborations (O’Driscoll 1996; Terkourafi 2008) or simplifications (Bousfield 2008). Some (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003; Locher and Watts 2005), have argued for a return to the Goffmanian essence of face. Yet, others, Arundale (2006, 2009, 2010), have posited new approaches to face inspired by more current models of communication based on the dyad and on social constructionist premises or have come up with discursive accounts of face (O’Driscoll 2011, Sifianou 2011). Furthermore, there seems to be a consensus that to come to grips with an understanding of face, it has to be studied on its own right, aside from politeness (Bargiela Chiappini and Haugh 2009; Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini 2010). This renewed interest in face has coincided with the advent, albeit with some delay, of the discursive turn within politeness scholarship. The discursive turn refers to the strong trend that emerged toward the end of the 20th century to reconfigure the subject as something socio-cultural and socio-historical: an unfinished product of discourse (Benwell and Stokoe 2006). Its impact on im/politeness scholarship has been manifold. Among the many effects, it has had important repercussions for the relationship between face and identity, the focus of this special issue.
2010
-
(2010): Constituting face in conversation. Face, facework, and interactional achievement. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2078-2105. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Abstract: Face Constituting Theory addresses the question “How do participants achieve face in everyday talk?” explaining face and facework as achieved by participants engaged in face-to-face communication in situated relationships. Outlining the theory involves first sketching the Conjoint Co-constituting Model of Communication as a conceptualization of the achieving of meaning and action in interaction, and second conceptualizing face as a relational phenomenon at both culture-general and culture-specific levels. Using these conceptualizations, Face Constituting Theory explains face as participants’ interpretings of relational connectedness and separateness, conjointly co-constituted in talk/conduct-in-interaction. Face Constituting Theory adds to this explanation a new conceptualization of how of face interpretings are evaluated as threatening to, in stasis, or supportive of relationships, drawing into a single explanation the full range of observations on facework from outright face threat, through face maintenance, to outright face support. Consistent with ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, Face Constituting Theory is framed from the participant's perspective, and applying the theory in examining the achievement of face in an instance of everyday interaction both illustrates the application of the new theory in research, and indicates how it is distinct from the approaches existing theories employ in studying face and facework.
Keywords: Angesicht, Communication, Conversation, Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Face, Face-Constituting View, Facework, Favoriten, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der dritten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Interaction, Kultur, Kulturdifferenz, Kulturelle Normen, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Relationship, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker 2009
-
(2009) : Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman In: Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca; Haugh, Michael (Hg.): Face, communication and social interaction: First published 2009: Sheffield, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing Ltd, S. 33-54Keywords: Angesicht, Communication, Conversation, Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Face, Face-Constituting View, Facework, Favoriten, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der dritten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Interaction, Kultur, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker
- <<
- <
- 1