Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In theorizing face as relational and interactional, Arundale (2010) argues that face encompasses a dialectic of relational connection and separation, which is culture-general, but can be voiced differently in different cultures. This paper examines how Arundale’s Face Constituting Theory (FCT) relates to the culture-specific emic understanding of face in Persian culture in talk in dissertation defense sessions. The data are two argumentative excerpts of natural interaction from a corpus of 12 PhD defense sessions in Iran. It is first argued that relational connection and separation is voiced as bonding and differentiation. Second, it is shown how the Persian emic concept of can be accommodated in FCT. The analyses, grounded in CA and FCT, show how the dialectic of bonding and differentiation is interactionally achieved in the practices of .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahmadi, Nader & Fereshteh Ahmadi
    1998Iranian Islam. London: Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230373495
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230373495 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, Robert B.
    1999 An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics9: 119–153. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006 Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research2: 193–216. doi: 10.1515/PR.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: an alternative to Goffman. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 33–54. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 Constituting face in conversation: face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics42: 2078–2105. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2013 Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics58: 108–120. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca
    2003 Face and politeness: new (insights) for (old) concepts. Journal of Pragmatics35: 1453–1469. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00173‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Don, Zuraidah M. & Ahmad Izadi
    2011 Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defences. Journal of Pragmatics43: 3782–3792. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 Interactionally achieving face in criticism criticism-response exchanges. Language and Communication33: 221–231. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul & John Heritage
    1992 Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Eslami, Zohreh
    2005 Invitations in Persian: Ostensible or genuine. Intercultural Pragmatics2 (4): 453–480. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453 [Google Scholar]
  13. Geyer, Naomi
    2008Discourse and politeness: ambivalent face in Japanese. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haugh, Michael
    2005 The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses, Intercultural Pragmatics2 (1): 41–68. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research3: 295–317. doi: 10.1515/PR.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 Epilogue: The first order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research8: 111–134. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2012‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haugh, Michael & Francisca Bargiela-Chiappini
    2010 Face in interaction, Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2073–2077. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heritage, John
    2005 Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L Fitch & R. Sanders , (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, 103–148. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, Ken
    1998 Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. Text18: 349–382. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349 [Google Scholar]
  21. Izadi, Ahmad
    2012 Talk, Face and Politeness in Dissertation Defenses. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Malaya.
  22. 2015 Persian honorifics and [im]politeness as social practice. Journal of Pragmatics85: 81–91. doi: 10.16/j.pragma.2015.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.16/j.pragma.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2016 Over-politeness in Persion professional interactons. Journal of Pragmatics102: 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Koshik, Irene
    2002 A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1851–1877. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00057‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1075/sidag.16
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  26. Koutlaki, Sofia
    2002 Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tae’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics34 (12): 1733–1756. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00055-8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Locher, Miriam
    2004Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson , & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68: 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruhi, Sükriye
    2010 Face as an indexical category in interactions. Journal of Pragmatics42(8): 2131–2146. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 On talk and its institutional occasions. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 101–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharifian, Farzad
    2007 L1 cultural conceptualization in L2 learning: the case of Persian-speaking learners of English. In Farzad Sharifian & Gary Palmer (eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics, 32–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.7.04sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.7.04sha [Google Scholar]
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