Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2011
-
(2011): What Korean apologies require of politeness theory. In: Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5), S. 1303-1317. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028 Abstract: This paper examines a corpus of Korean apologies to discover why a person apologizes and why they choose the form of apology that they do. It argues for an abstracted, generalized politeness1 model (Locher and Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003) in which politeness work in Korean is primarily concerned with relationship construction (Arundale, 2006; Haugh, 2007c; Matsumoto, 1988). This will involve both a notion of face, conceived as a psychological, acquired construct, and a set of frames (Terkourafi, 2005) that do not directly reference face. To arrive at this theoretical point, the paper begins by examining the social factors that influence choices in apology forms as predicted by Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson’s model accurately predicts the relevance of many factors in form selection in Korean, such as relative power, social distance, and the severity of the act. However, the model itself is not an accurate model for Korean even in high abstraction. Instead of choosing a strategy based upon the weight of a face-threatening act, Koreans actively manage and create expectations for behavior in a relationship. Some expectations will resemble classic positive and negative face issues, while others will more directly reference culture-specific roles or common events.
Keywords: Angesicht, Apologies, Brown and Levinson's model, Distanz, Disziplin, Entschuldigung, Entschuldigungsforschung, Ernsthaftigkeit einer Situation, Erwartungen, Face, frames, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Interaktionspartner, Korean, Kultur, Kulturelle Normen, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Macht, Politeness, Situationsbedingter Kontext, Sociolinguistics, Soziale Angemessenheit, Soziale Distanz, Soziale Hierarchie, Sozialer Abstand, Sprachgebrauch 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 -
(2010): “Just tell us what to do”. Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2158-2171. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017 Abstract: This paper contributes to the debate on the precise nature of face as a universal phenomenon, and the cultural variability within it. Specifically, we bring the 'Southern' perspective to the debate by discussing the previously neglected African dimension. Recent scholarship suggests that the concept of face and the notion of self in traditional African culture may have more in common with Eastern collectivist cultures than with Anglo-American culture. We examine the interactional management of an encounter between a Zimbabwean English speaker and British English speakers in a community singing group. We argue that, while face needs may be universally relevant in such a situation, the way in which they are oriented to in interaction depends on cultural understandings of which aspects of face are paramount in particular circumstances. Since these assumptions are deep-seated and invisible they are not easily open to explicit negotiation and hence can lead to misinterpretation. By conducting an ethnographic study of the communicative event and combining it with a detailed examination of the co-construction of meaning in this interaction, we show how the participants' contributions can be related to differing - and potentially conflicting - interpretation frameworks. These frameworks are informed by culture-specific notions of appropriate self-presentation.
-
(2010): Face in interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2073-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 Abstract: Face has become firmly established as a key concept not only in pragmatics but also in anthropology, sociolinguistics, communication studies, sociology, psychology, and other related fields. Yet while it was Goffman (1955) who first introduced the notion, it has been Brown and Levinson’s (1987) application of face in the context of politeness theory that has dominated much of the debate thus far. Such discussions have often centred on the validity of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face for explicating politeness across various cultural contexts (Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988; Nwoye, 1992; Pizziconi, 2003). The continuing controversy as to whether or not honorifics in Modern Standard Japanese are indeed examples of a failure of Brown and Levinson’s theory is a case in point. On the one hand, there is the often cited argument by Matsumoto (1988) that ‘‘what is of paramount importance to a Japanese is not his/her territory [negative face], but the position in relation to others in the group and his/her acceptance by others’’ (p. 405). On the other hand, other scholars have argued that Brown and Levinson’s notion of face can in fact be applied to the study of honorifics, and thus politeness, in Modern Standard Japanese (Fukada and Asato, 2004; Fukushima, 2000; Ishiyama, 2009; Usami, 2002). In these latter approaches, however, Brown and Levinson’s notions of positive and negative face are reduced to an undifferentiated notion that can be ‘‘lost’’ or ‘‘saved’’ (Haugh, 2005:44). It appears that what may actually be fuelling such (endless) controversies is the continued conflation of politeness with face. In this special issue, then, while acknowledging the important role face plays in politeness and impoliteness research, it is suggested that the time has come for face to be theorized on its own terms. In this way, echoing Bargiela-Chiappini’s (2003) re-opening of discussion about face, (new) insights may be gained into these (old) debates.
Keywords: Angesicht, Brown, Brown and Levinson's model, Face, Face (general), Gesichtswahrung, Goffman, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Honorifics, (Im)Politeness Research, Levinson, Linguistik, Politeness, Politeness Theory, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Überblick, Übersicht zu Politeness Theory -
(2010): Face as an indexical category in interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2131-2146. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020 Abstract: Informed by the understanding of indexicality and membership categorization in ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Sacks, 1986, 1989), the paper proposes that face is a Janus-like indexical concept which categorizes the self-in-interaction, as it indexes and is indexed by (linguistic) acts, and features of underlying conceptualizations of social practices relevant to the interaction. According to this understanding of face, affective responses, such as pride, liking, solidarity, dissociation, embarrassment or resentment, and other orientations to face derive from (perceived) categorizations emerging in the unfolding interaction. To examine the indexicality of face, membership categorization analysis (Sacks, 1986) is adopted as an analytic tool, and applied to a sequence of interactions in a ceremonial event. The paper further demonstrates that face may be made accountable by employing ‘parallel documents’ in research, defined in the study as data that stand in indexical relations to the situated interaction.
Keywords: Affective responses, Angesicht, Ausdruck von Affekten, Ethnologie, Ethnomethodology, Face, Face (general), Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Indexicality, Indexikalität, Linguistik, Membership categorization analysis, Parallel documents, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Sprachverhalten / sprachliches, zu Emotionen korreliertes Feedback, Übermitteln von Gefühlen/Emotionen 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