Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Following up on recent calls for studies dealing with first-order understandings of face (Arundale 2013Haugh 2013), this paper presents arguments in favor of an empirical investigation of cultural conceptualizations (Sharifian 2011) underlying these first-order (or emic) models. The arguments are based on the findings of a study on business communication in international contexts (Mendes de Oliveira 2020). The study comprises the analysis of (a) interviews with business people from different sectors and (b) a compilation of e-mails exchanged by Brazilian and German employees of a healthcare company. I focus specifically on conceptualizations of ‘respect in business negotiations’ (Mendes de Oliveira 2017) as well as on their pragmatic instantiations in e-mails. For instance, the recurrent image schema in the Brazilian interview excerpts on the topic of respect in business negotiations is shown to be pragmatically instantiated in terms of how participants acknowledge ‘hierarchy’ in their construals of face in e-mail interactions. The image schema is shown to be related to how German participants construe ‘face’ as a transactional phenomenon in the e-mail exchanges. I conclude that cultural conceptualizations play an important role in the Brazilian and German emic models of face. Future studies can take the reflections presented in this paper into consideration in order to strengthen the arguments that favor the inclusion of culturally-based views on face into an overarching theoretical model of face (Arundale 2013).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arundale, R.
    (2006) Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research2(2), 193–216. 10.1515/PR.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2010) Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics42(8), 2078–2105. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arundale, R. B.
    (2013) Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics58, 108–120. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B.
    (1996) Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatia, V. K.
    (1993) Analysing genre–language use in professional settings. London: Longmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2001) Analyzing genre: Some conceptual issues. InM. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp.79–92). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bou-Franch, P.
    (2006) Solidarity and deference in Spanish computer-mediated communication: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of students’ emails to lecturers. InP. Bou Franch (Ed.), Ways into discourse (pp.61–79). Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987 [1978]) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang, W., & Haugh, M.
    (2011) Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interaction. Journal of Pragmatics43(12), 2948–2963. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, W.
    (2013) Face and face practices in talk-in-interaction: An empirical analysis of Taiwanese business interactions, PhD thesis, Griffith University.
  11. Dillon, R.
    (2015) Respect. InE. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), available atplato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/respect/date of accessApril 2nd, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dörnyei, Z.
    (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, E.
    (1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry18(3), 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grainger, K., Mills, S., & Sibanda, M.
    (2010) “Just tell us what to do”: Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2158–2171. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gumperz, J.
    (1999) On interactional sociolinguistic method. In: S. Sarangi; & C. Robert (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order (pp.453–472). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208375.4.453
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.4.453 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haugh, M.
    (2013) Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kecskés, I.
    (2008) Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014) Intercultural pragmatics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  23. Matsumoto, Y.
    (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–426. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90003‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mendes de Oliveira, M.
    (2017) Conceptualizations of respect in business negotiations: A research note. International Journal of Language and Culture4(2), 254–272. 10.1075/ijolc.4.2.07oli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.4.2.07oli [Google Scholar]
  25. Mendes de Oliveira
    (2020) Business negotiations in ELF from a cultural linguistic perspective. [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 43]. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110630466
  26. Palmer, G.
    (1996) Toward a theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pearson, V., & Stephan, W.
    (1998) Preferences for styles of negotiation: A comparison of Brazil and the US. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 67–83. 10.1016/S0147‑1767(97)00036‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00036-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H-G.
    (2007) Culture-specific conceptualisations of corruption in African English: Linguistic analyses and pragmatic applications. InF. Sharifian, & G. Palmer (Eds.), Applied cultural linguistics (pp.125–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.7.09pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.09pol [Google Scholar]
  29. Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H. G.
    (2010) Investigating culture from a linguistic perspective: An exemplification with Hong Kong English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 58(3), 281–303. 10.1515/zaa.2010.58.3.281
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2010.58.3.281 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1999) Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 405–435. 10.1177/1461445699001004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001004002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schröder, U.
    (2014) The interplay of (im)politeness, conflict styles, rapport management, and metacommunication in Brazilian–German interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(1), 57–82. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schröder, U.; Mendes de Oliveira, M.; Nascimento, T.
    (manuscript). The ‘Olympic spirit’ from a cross-cultural perspective: a cognitive-pragmatic analysis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications (Vol.1). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) (Ed.). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sørensen, H. E.
    (2012) Business development. InD. Teece & M. Augier (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp.1–2). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Swales, J.
    (2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  37. Swales, J., & Feak, C.
    (2003) English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wenger, E.
    (1998) Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2003) The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wolf, H.-G.
    (2015) Language and culture in intercultural communication. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.445–459). Oxford, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cultural conceptualizations; e-mail communication; face; Face Constituting Theory
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error