Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Issues with the Concept of Face: When, What, How and How Much?

  • Chapter
Politeness Across Cultures

Abstract

As this volume and numerous other works demonstrate, the concept of face has proved enormously stimulating to scholars of the interpersonal aspects of communication. Its appeal seems to lie in the possibilities it offers for examining instantiation both of the macro concept of identity and also of personal concerns such as self-esteem, self-image and reputation — things which in themselves have nothing to do with interaction — within interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arundale, R.B. (2006) ‘Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness’, Journal of Politeness Research, 2/2, pp. 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, R.B. (2009) ‘Face as Emergent in Interpersonal Communication: An Alternative to Goffman’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003) ‘Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts)’, Journal of Pragmatics, 35/10-11, pp. 1453–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargiela-Chiappini, F., and Haugh, M. (eds) (2009) Face, Communication and Social Interaction, London, Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, D. (2008) ‘(Im)politeness in Spanish-Speaking Socio-Cultural Context: Introduction’, Pragmatics, 18, pp. 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., and Levinson, S.C. (1987 [1978]) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289. (Main body of which first published in E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (forthcoming) Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., and Kádár, D.Z. (eds) (2010) Historical (Im)politeness, Berne, Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B.L., Merrison, A.J., and Goddard, A. (2007) ‘Institutional Apologies in UK Higher Education: Getting Back into the Black Before Going into the Red’, Journal of Politeness Research, 3/1, pp. 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Kadt, E. (1998) ‘The Concept of Face and Its Applicability to the Zulu Language’, Journal of Pragmatics, 29, pp. 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2005) ‘“Yes, Tell Me Please, What Time Is the Midday Flight from Athens Arriving?”: Telephone Service Encounter and Politeness’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2/3, pp. 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eelen, G. (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester, St. Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferencïk, M. (2007) ‘Exercising Politeness: Membership Categorization in a Radio Phone-in Programme’, Pragmatics, 17/3, pp. 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, G. (2009) ‘Face and Self in Chinese Communication’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, New York, The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1964) ‘The Neglected Situation’, American Anthropologist, 66/6, Part II (Special Issue), pp. 133–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967 [1955]) ‘On Face-Work’, in E. Goffman (collection), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp. 5–45. (Originally in Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 1/3, pp. 213-231.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk, Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Speech Acts, Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts, New York, Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, H., and Hahn, J.-W. (2007) Concepts of Face and Korean Apologies, unpublished manuscript, accessed on 7 January 2010 from: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hunterh/Docs/FaceAndKoreanApologies.pdf.

  • Haugh, M. (2009) ‘Face and Interaction’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., and Ogino, T. (1986) ‘Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English’, Journal of Pragmatics, 10, pp. 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. (1972) ‘Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life’, in J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 38–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D.Z. (2010) ‘Exploring the Historical Chinese Polite Denigration/Elevation Phenomenon’, in Culpeper and Kádár (2010), pp. 119–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koutlaki, S. (2002) Offers and Expressions of Thanks As Face-Enhancing Acts: Tae’rof in Persian’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34/2, pp. 1733–1756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsantoni, D. (2004) ‘Certainty across Cultures: A Comparison of the Degree of Certainty Expressed by Greek and English Speaking Scientific Authors’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2/2, pp. 121–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1992 [1979]) ‘Activity Types and Language’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100. (Originally in Linguistics, 17, pp. 365-399.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T.-S. (2009) ‘Face in the Holistic and Relativistic Society’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 250–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T.-S., and Bowers, J.W. (1991) ‘Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact’, Human Communication Research, 17/3, pp. 415–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T.-S., and Choi, S.H. (1996) ‘Interpersonal Relationships in Korea’, in W.B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey and T. Nishida (eds), Communication in Personal Relationships across Cultures, Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp. 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M.A., and Watts, R.J. (2005) ‘Politeness Theory and Relational Work’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1/1, pp. 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, L.M. (1994) ‘Beyond Politeness Theory: “Face” Revisited and Renewed’, Journal of Pragmatics, 21, pp. 451–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquez-Reiter, R. (2005) ‘Complaint Calls to a Caregiver Service Company: The Case of Desahogo’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 2/4, pp. 481–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquez-Reiter, R. (2009) ‘How to Get Rid of a Telemarketing Agent? Facework Strategies in an Intercultural Service Call’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrison, A., Haugh, M., Davies, B.L., and Wilson, J.J. (in preparation) ‘Getting Stuff Done: Comparing “E-Mail Requests” from Students in Higher Education in Britain and Australia’, Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue on ‘Im/politeness across Englishes’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2003) Gender and Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2005) ‘Gender and Impoliteness’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1/2, pp. 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1989) ‘The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles’, Applied Linguistics, 10, pp. 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwoye, O.G. (1992) ‘Linguistic Politeness and Sociocultural Variation of the Notion of Face’, Journal of Pragmatics, 18/4, pp. 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (1996) ‘About Face: A Defence and Elaboration of Universal Dualism’, Journal of Pragmatics, 25, pp. 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2001) ‘A Face Model of Language Choice’, Multilingua, 20/3, pp. 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2007a) ‘What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a Chance Meeting with Claudine’, Journal of Politeness Research, 3/2, pp. 243–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2007b) ‘Brown & Levinson’s Face: How It Can — and Can’t — Help Us to Understand Interaction across Cultures’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 4/4, pp. 463–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2010) ‘Epilogue’, in Culpeper and Kádár (2010), pp. 267–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizziconi, B. (2007) ‘Facework and Multiple Selves in Apologetic Metapragmatic Comments in Japanese’, in W. Bublitz and A. Huebler (eds), Metapragmatics in Use, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 49–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhi, §. (2009) ‘Evoking Face in Self and Other Presentation in Turkish’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhi, and I§tk-Güler, H. (2007) ‘Conceptualising Face and Relational Work in (Im)politeness: Revelations from Politeness Lexemes and Idioms in Turkish’, Journal of Pragmatics, 39, pp. 681–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, M. (1989) ‘On the Telephone Again! Differences in Telephone Behaviour: England Versus Greece’, Language and Society, 18, pp. 527–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. (1985) ‘EIL versus ESL/EFL: What’s the Difference and What Difference Does the Difference Make?’, English Teaching Forum, 23/4, pp. 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005) ‘(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1/1, pp. 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2009) ‘Face, Identity and Interactional Goals’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. (2005) ‘Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research’, Journal of Politeness Research, 1/2, pp. 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. (2007) ‘Toward a Universal Notion of Face for a Universal Notion of Cooperation’, in I. Kecskés and L. Horn (eds), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, Mouton Series in Pragmatics 1, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 307–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (1983) ‘Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure’, Applied Linguistics, 4/2, pp. 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S. (2005) ‘The Matrix of Face: An Updated Face Negotiation Theory’, in W.B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing aboutIntercultural Communication, London, Sage, pp. 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S. (2009) ‘Facework Collision in Intercultural Communication’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 227–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. (1992) ‘The Many Faces of Facework’, in H. Giles and P. Robinson (eds), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, Chichester, Wiley, pp. 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K., and Baratz, S. (1994) ‘The Case for Case Studies of Facework’, in S. Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework, Albany, State University of New York, pp. 287–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ukosakul, M. (2009) ‘The Significance of “Face” and Politeness in Social Interaction as Revealed through Thai “Face” Idioms’, in Bargiela-Chiappini and Haugh (2009), pp. 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R.J. (2003) Politeness, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R.J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K. (1992) ‘Introduction’, in R.J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, N. (1988) ‘The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social Distance’, in J. Fine (ed.), Second Language Discourse, Norwood, Ablex, pp. 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jim O’Driscoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, UK

    Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini (Honorary Associate Professor) (Honorary Associate Professor)

  2. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

    Dániel Z. Kádár (Research Fellow, Associate Professor) (Research Fellow, Associate Professor)

  3. Asia University, Taiwan

    Dániel Z. Kádár (Research Fellow, Associate Professor) (Research Fellow, Associate Professor)

Copyright information

© 2011 Jim O’Driscoll

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Some Issues with the Concept of Face: When, What, How and How Much?. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Kádár, D.Z. (eds) Politeness Across Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305939_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation