Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting

References

Antaki, Charles & Sue Widdicombe. 1998. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 1–14. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446216958.n1Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9(1). 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2). 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2006.011.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2). 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip.2008.012.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Francesca Bargiella-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction, 33–54. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2078–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2012. On understandings of communication: A response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2). 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2013a. Conceptualizing “interaction” in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics 58(1). 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2013b. Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics 58(1). 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2013c. Face, relating, and dialectics: A response to Spencer-Oatey. Journal of Pragmatics 58(1). 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.012.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2013d. Is face the best metaphor?/¿Es imagen social la mejor metáphora? Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(2). 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2013-0012.Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2020. Communicating & relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190210199.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2021. Relationships and relating. In Michael Haugh, Daniel Z. Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 272–292. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108954105.016Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Robert B. 2023. The emergence of social order in everyday interacting: Reconceptualizing a venerable sociological concept in light of conversation analysis. Frontiers in Sociology 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1102449.Search in Google Scholar

Bavelas, Janet B. 1991. Some problems linking goals to discourse. In Karen Tracy (ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse, 119–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Baxter, Leslie A. & Barbara M. Montgomery. 1996. Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407.Search in Google Scholar

Craig, Robert T. 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9(2). 119–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00166.x.Search in Google Scholar

Craig, Robert T. 2015. The constitutive metamodel: A 16-year review. Communication Theory 25(4). 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12076.Search in Google Scholar

Domenici, Kathy & Stephen W. Littlejohn. 2006. Facework: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452204222Search in Google Scholar

Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1933. The division of labor in society. Glencoe IL: The Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Search in Google Scholar

Fitch, Kristine L. 1998. Speaking relationally: Culture, communication, and interpersonal connection. New York: Guilford.Search in Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2013. Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research 9(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2021. Analysing identity. In Michael Haugh, Daniel Z. Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 293–314. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108954105.017Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 2007. Lebenswelt origins of the sciences: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Human Studies 30. 9–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9046-9.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1955. On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 83(3). 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. London: Allen Lane.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1976. Replies and responses. Language in Society 5(3). 257–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500007156.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1983. The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review 18(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2005. The importance of place in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(1). 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2007. Emic conceptualizations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4). 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2009. Face and interaction. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction, 1–30. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2013. Disentangling face, facework, and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1). 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2012-0005.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini. 2010. Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2073–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael, Daniel Z. Kádár & Mills Sara. 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009.Search in Google Scholar

Holtgraves, Thomas. 1992. The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(2). 141–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786943.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Hsien C. 1944. The Chinese concept of ‘face’. American Anthropologist 46(1). 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040.Search in Google Scholar

Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.Search in Google Scholar

Kinnison, Li Q. 2017. Power, integrity, and mask—an attempt to disentangle the Chinese face concept. Journal of Pragmatics 114. 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.015.Search in Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1970. On generating data in communication research. Journal of Communication 20(3). 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1970.tb00883.x.Search in Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus. 2009. On communicating: Otherness, meaning, and information, Fernando Bermejo (ed.). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203894804Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 1996. Finding ‘face’ in preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4). 303–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073.Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam. 2008. Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In Gerd Antos & Eija Ventola (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 509–540. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211399.4.509Search in Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim. 1996. About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25(1). 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00069-x.Search in Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim. 2007. Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can—and can’t—help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4). 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip.2007.024.Search in Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim. 2011. Some issues with the concept of face: When, what, how, and how much? In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Daniel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 17–41. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.10.1057/9780230305939_2Search in Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim. 2017. Face and (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 89–118. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_5Search in Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, Jim. 2022. Face-work. In Michael H. Jacobsen & Greg Smith (eds.), The Routledge international handbook of Goffman studies, 85–96. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003160861-9Search in Google Scholar

Pearce, W. Barnett & Vernon E. Cronen. 1980. Communication, action, and meaning. New York: Praeger.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, Anne W. 1987. The interaction order sui generis: Goffman’s contribution to social theory. Sociological Theory 5(2). 136–149. https://doi.org/10.2307/201935.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, Anne W. 1989. Language, self, and social order: A reformulation of Goffman and Sacks. Human Studies 12(1/2). 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00142843.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, Anne W. 2003. Orders of interaction and intelligibility: Intersections between Goffman and Garfinkel by way of Durkheim. In A. Jaiver Trevino (ed.), Goffman’s legacy, 216–253. Lantham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social interaction: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 69(6). 939–967.10.1177/000312240306800607Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, Volumes I & II, Gail Jefferson (ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2005. Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511734892Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1988. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 89–135. Cambridge UK: Polity.Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack & Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001Search in Google Scholar

Sifianou, Maria. 2011. On the concept of face and politeness. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Daniel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 42–58. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillian.10.1057/9780230305939_3Search in Google Scholar

Sifianou, Maria & Angeliki Tzanne. 2021. Face, facework, and face-threatening acts. In Michael Haugh, Daniel Z. Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 249–271. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108954105.015Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11–46. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4). 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2015. Rapport management model. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Todd Sandell (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 1286–1291. Boston: Wiley.10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi080Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina.. 2007. Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In Istvan Kecskes & Lawrence Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects, 307–338. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198843.3.313Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Derek Bousfeld & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay and power in theory and practice, 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.1.45Search in Google Scholar

Ting-Toomey, Stella. 2005. The matrix of face: An updated Face-Negotiation Theory. In William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 71–92. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4324/9781003252955-8Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen. 1990. The many faces of facework. In Howard Giles & W. Peter Robinson (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 209–226. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Watzlawick, Paul, Janet H. Beavin & Donald D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.Search in Google Scholar