1887
Volume 28, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In recent work, Arundale proposed a Face Constituting Theory based on the Conjoint Co-Constituting Model of Communication. His main concern is directed towards a shift from the individualistic conception of face and (im)politeness to a non-summative view on communication based on fundamental insights from conversation analysis. Based on two film shootings between German and Brazilian exchange students, which are part of the larger corpus NUCOI, we will take a closer look at moments in which face comes to the fore in the light of (dis)alignment and (dis)affiliation. While in the German example facework is negotiated metacommunicatively, in the Brazilian example facework is calibrated in more subtle ways represented by prosodic and visual cues, which are either given or held back by the co-participants. We will show that these two different patterns may be related to culture-specific construals of face.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17037.sch
2018-10-23
2019-08-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arundale, Robert B.
    1999 “An Alternative Model and Ideology of Communication for an Alternative to Politeness Theory.” Pragmatics9 (1): 119–153. 10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru [Google Scholar]
  2. 2008 “Relating Japanese Emic Face Concepts and Face Constituting Theory.” University of Alaska Fairbanks, unpublished manuscript.
  3. 2009 “Face as Emergent in Interpersonal Communication: An Alternative to Goffman.” InFace, Communication, and Social Interaction, ed. byFrancesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Michael Haugh, 33–54. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2010 “Constituting Face in Conversation: Face, Facework, and Interactional Achievement.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2078–2105. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013a “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]
  6. 2013b “Is Face the Best Metaphor? / ¿Es imagen social la mejor metáfora?” Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics. Revista Internacional sobre Lingüística del Español / An International Journal of Spanish Linguistics1(2): 282–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Atkinson, Maxwell, and John Heritage
    1984 “Preference Organization.” InStrutures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 53–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbosa de Lima, Fábio
    2012 “Parecer bom x parecer justo – o pedido de desculpas na gestão da imagem nas interações mediáticas.” Dissertação de Mestrado. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.
  9. Barbora, Livia
    2006O jeitinho brasileiro. A arte de ser mais igual do que os outros. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; Editora Campus.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca
    2003 “Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts).” Journal of Pragmatics35: 1453–1469. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00173‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X [Google Scholar]
  11. Bastide, Roger
    1971Brasil – Terra de Contrastes. São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baxter, Leslie A., and Barbara M. Montgomery
    1996Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bousfeld, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bravo, Diana
    2008 “(Im)Politeness in Spanish-Speaking Socio-Cultural Contexts: Introduction.” Pragmatics28(4): 563–576. 10.1075/prag.18.4.01bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.4.01bra [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987[1978]Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage. x>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  16. Buarque de Holanda, Sérgio
    1995 [1936] “O Homem Cordial.” In: Vanguardas Latino-Americanas. Polêmicas, Manifestos e Textos Críticos, ed. byJorge Schwartz, 553–556. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bühler, Karl
    1982 [1934]Sprachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, Wei-Lin Melody
    2016Face and Face Practices in Chinese Talk-in-Interaction. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Covarrubias, Patricia O.
    2002Culture, Communication and Cooperation: Interpersonal Relations and Pronominal Address in a Mexican Organization. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2005 “Impoliteness and the Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  22. DaMatta, Roberto
    1997 [1979]Carnavais, malandros e heróis. Para uma sociologia do Dilema Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Drew, Paul, and Traci Walker
    2009 “Going too Far: Complaining, Escalating and Disaffiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 2400–2414. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046 [Google Scholar]
  24. Duranti, Alessandro
    1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  25. Elias, Norbert
    1997aÜber den Prozeß der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Erster Band. Wandlungen des Verhaltens in den weltlichen Oberschichten des Abendlandes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1997bÜber den Prozeß der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band. Wandlungen der Gesellschaft – Entwurf zu einer Theorie der Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fant, Lars
    2006 “National Cultural Norms or Activity Type Conventions? Negotiation Talk and Informal Conversation Among Swedes and Spaniards.” SYNAPS19: 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferreira, Maria C. et al.
    2012 “Unraveling the Mystery of Brazilian Jeitinho: A Cultural Exploration of Social Norms.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(3): 331–344. 10.1177/0146167211427148
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427148 [Google Scholar]
  29. Flusser, Vilém
    1998Fenomenologia do Brasileiro: Em Busca de um Novo Homem. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goffman, Erving
    1967 [1955] “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” InInteraction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, ed. byErving Goffman, 5–45. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1980 “Processes of Mutual Monitoring Implicated in the Production of Description Sequences.” Sociological Inquiry50: 303–317. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00024.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00024.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Günthner, Susanne
    1999 “Thematisierung moralischer Normen in der interkulturellen Kommunikation.” InKommunikative Konstruktion von Moral, ed. byJörg Bergmann, and Thomas Luckmann, 325–351. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Haugh, Michael
    2005 “The Importance of ‘Place’ in Japanese Politeness: Implications for Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Analyses.” Intercultural Pragmatics2: 41–68. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2007 “Emic Conceptualisations of (Im)politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (4): 657–680. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 “Jocular Mockery, (Dis)affiliation, and Face.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2106–2119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2017 “Jocular Language Play, Social Action and (Dis)affiliation in Conversational Interaction.” InMultiple perspectives on language play, ed. byNancy Bell, 143–168. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hayashi, Makoto
    2013 “Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 167–190. Malden, Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Henne, Helmut, and Helmut Rehbock
    2001Einführung in die Gesprächsanalyse. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110906189
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110906189 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hofstede, Geert
    1983 “National Culture in Four Dimensions. A Research Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations.” International Studies of Management and Organization13: 46–74. 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358 [Google Scholar]
  41. Höhle, Tilmann N.
    1992 “Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen.” InInformationsstruktur und Grammatik, ed. byJoachim Jacobs, 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  42. House, Juliane
    2010 “Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural Encounters in Everyday and Instutional Talk.” Intercultural Pragmatics7(4): 561–595. 10.1515/iprg.2010.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.026 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ianni, Octavio
    1993O Labirinto Latino-Americano. Petrópolis: Vozes.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kasper, Gabriele
    2008 “Data Collection in Pragmatics Research.” InCulturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. byHelen Spencer-Oatey, 279–303. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kecskes, Istvan
    2014Intercultural Pragmatics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    2017 “Abordagem intercultural da polidez linguística: problemas teóricas e estudo de caso.” InDescortesia e Cortesia: Expressões de Culturas, ed. byAna Lúcia Tinoco Cabral, Isabel Roboredo Seara, and Manoel Francisco Guaranha, 17–55. São Paulo: Cortez.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lerner, Gene H.
    1992 “Assisted Storytelling: Deploying Shared Knowledge as a Practical Matter.” Qualitative Sociology15(3): 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2002 “Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Luhmann, Niklas
    1989 “Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft. Band 3.” Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  51. Marcuschi, Luiz A.
    2006 “Atividades de compreensão na interação verbal.” InEstudos de Língua Falada. Variações e Confrontos, ed. byDino Preti, 15–45. São Paulo: Associação Editorial Humanitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Marlangeon, Silvia Kaul de
    2017 “Contribuições para o estudo da descortesia verbal.” InDescortesia e Cortesia: Expressões de Cultura, ed. byAna Lúcia Tinoco Cabral, Isabel Roboredo Seara, and Manoel Francisco Guaranha, 93–108. São Paulo: Cortez.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mead, George H.
    1967 [1932]Mind, Self, & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Works of George Herbert Mead. Volume 1, ed. byCharles W. Morris. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226516608.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226516608.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Meireles, Selma Martins
    2001 “A negação sintática em diálogos do alemão e do português do Brasil.“ Pandaemonium Germanicum5: 139–168. 10.11606/1982‑8837.pg.2001.64331
    https://doi.org/10.11606/1982-8837.pg.2001.64331 [Google Scholar]
  55. Meireles, Selma M.
    2016 “Uso de verbos com valor epistêmico no Trabalho da Face por falantes alemães e brasileiros.” InAnais do I Congresso da ABEG, ed. byHelmut P. E. Galle, and S. Valéria, 395–401. São Paulo: ABEG Editora Associação Brasileira de Estudos Germanísticos (ABEG).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Philburn, Rob
    2011 “Aspects of English and German Sociable Selfhood.” InIntercultural competence: concepts, challenges, evaluations, ed. byArnd Witte, and Theo Harden, 411–435. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Taxt and Talk, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmidt, Thomas, and Kai Wörner
    2009 “EXMARaLDA – Creating, Analysing and Sharing Spoken Language Corpora for Pragmatic Research.” Pragmatics19: 565–582. 10.1075/prag.19.4.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.4.06sch [Google Scholar]
  61. Schröder, Ulrike
    2003Brasilianische und deutsche Wirklichkeiten. Eine vergleichende Fallstudie zu kommunikativ erzeugten Sinnwelten. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑81302‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-81302-2 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2010 “Speech Styles and Functions of Speech From a Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 466–476. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2014a “The Interplay of Politeness, Conflict Styles, Rapport Management and Metacommunication in Brazilian-German Interaction”. Intercultural Pragmatics11: 57–82. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0003 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2014b “Interkulturelle Kommunikation zwischen Deutschen und Brasilianern im Lichte von Strategien der (Un-)höflichkeit, divergierenden Konfliktstilen und Formen des Beziehungsmanagements.” InInterkulturalität unter dem Blickwinkel von Semantik und Pragmatik, ed. byCsaba Földes, 207–224. Tübingen: Narr, Francke Attempto.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2017 “The Interactive (Self-)reflexive Construction of Culture-Related Key Words.” InCurrent Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics, ed. byIstvan Kecskes, and Stavros Assimakopoulos, 182–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.274.09sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.09sch [Google Scholar]
  66. Schröder, Ulrike, and Carolina de Viterbo Lage
    2014 “Estratégias de polidez em momentos de dissensão: análise de uma interação entre estudantes brasileiros e alemães.” Revista de Estudos da Linguagem22 (1): 153–179. 10.17851/2237‑2083.22.1.153‑179
    https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.22.1.153-179 [Google Scholar]
  67. Schwitalla, Joachim
    2001 “Lächelndes Sprechen und Lachen als Kontextualisierungsverfahren.” InSprachkontakt, -vergleich, -variation, ed. byAdamzik Kirsten, and Helen Christen, 325–344. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Selting, Margret
    1994 “Emphatic Speech Style: With Special Focus on the Prosodic Signaling of Heightened Emotive Involvement in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics22: 375–408. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90116‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90116-3 [Google Scholar]
  69. Selting, Margret et al.
    2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2; translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion12: 1–51; www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2011/px-gat2-englisch.pdf; last accessed onSeptember 30, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Senft, Gunter
    1995 “Elicitation.” InHandbook of Pragmatics: Manual, ed. byJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 577–581. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.m.eli1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.eli1 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sidnell, Jack
    2010Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Malden, Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.21832/9781847692849‑020
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692849-020 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sharifian, Farzad
    2011Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2015 “Cultural Linguistics.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture, ed. byFarzad Sharifian, 473–492. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sorj, Bernardo
    2000A Nova Sociedade Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor Ltda.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2008 “Introduction.” InCulturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. byHelen Spencer-Oatey, 1–8. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language & Social Interaction41(1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2013 “Sequence Organization.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 191–209. Malden, Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ting-Toomey, Stella, and John Oetzel
    2007 “Intercultural Conflict: A Culture-Based Situational Model.” InIntercultural Communication. A Text with Readings, ed. byPamela J. Cooper, Carolyn Calloway-Thomas, and Cheri J. Simonds, 121–130. Boston: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Triandis, Harry C.
    1984 “A Theoretical Framework for the More Efficient Construction of Culture Assimilators.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations8: 301–330. 10.1016/0147‑1767(84)90029‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(84)90029-4 [Google Scholar]
  80. Ungeheuer, Gerold
    2010 [1983]Einführung in die Kommunikationstheorie, ed. byKarin Kolb, Jens Loenhoff, and H. Walter Schmitz. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 1987 “Vor-Urteile über Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen.” InKommunikationstheoretische Schriften I: Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen, ed. byJohann G. Juchem, 290–338. Aachen: Rader Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Viterbo Lage, Caroline de
    2013 Comunicação Interpessoal e Intercultural entre Brasileiros e Alemães: Análise dos Momentos de Conflito. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Dissertação de Mestrado.
  83. Weber, Max
    1991 [1904]Die protestantische Ethik I. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, ed. byJohannes Winckelmann. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wegener, Philipp
    1991 [1885]Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens, ed. byKonrad Koerner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/10.1075/cipl.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/10.1075/cipl.5 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17037.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17037.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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