Two phenomena behind the terminology of face
-
René Lacroix
René Lacroix is associate professor of General Linguistics at University Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris, France. His research interests are in the syntax and morphology of South Caucasian languages, especially Laz, which he described in his PhD thesis. He also works on face and aligning actions.
Abstract
In politeness research and other areas, scholars use a range of metaphorical expressions involving the term face, as in “lose face”, “threaten face” and “save face”, drawing upon Goffman’s paper “On face-work” (Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books), often through Brown and Levinson’s influential theory of politeness (Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). The present paper argues that the interactional processes referred to by such expressions are of at least two kinds, here labeled “Observed-Behavior (OB) face-processes” and “Expressed-Attitude (EA) face-processes”. X’s OB face loss occurs when others negatively evaluate X on the basis of her behavior; X’s EA face loss occurs when others convey to X that they do not have the same values as her (“positive face”) or act in a way that impedes her freedom (“negative face”). Ten differences between OB and EA face-processes are set out. These differences are not acknowledged in the literature, which, as shown in this paper, leads to much ambiguity and confusion.
About the author
René Lacroix is associate professor of General Linguistics at University Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris, France. His research interests are in the syntax and morphology of South Caucasian languages, especially Laz, which he described in his PhD thesis. He also works on face and aligning actions.
Appendix A– Uses of the terminology of face for OB and EA face-processes
The tables below provide examples of situations of face loss found in works where the terminology of face is used in the OB sense (Table 2) and in the EA sense (Table 3).
Examples from the literature where the terminology of face is used in the OB sense.
| T breaks wind in the presence of other people (O). | Gross and Stone (1964: 10) |
| T accepts too readily O’s invitation to have dinner with O’s family, without knowing whether the inviting is sincere or if the inviter is merely paying lip-service. She is thus seen as greedy by O. | Gu (1990: 254, 255) |
| T’s zipper is undone, revealing to others (O) an intimate location. | Sharkey and Stafford (1990: 336) |
| T enters an elevator with some toilet paper hanging out of the bottom of her pants. Another person in the elevator (O) seems to have already noticed it. | Vaid et al. (2008: 147) |
| During a religious service (O), a congregant (T) responds to a communal prayer at an inappropriate time. | Donnelly and Wright (2013: 6) |
Examples from the literature where the terminology of face is used in the EA sense.
| D compliments T, thereby indicating that D would like to have something belonging to T. | Holmes (1988: 448, 449) |
| D, the author of an academic paper, rejects a belief entertained by T, the reader. | Meyer (1997: 31) |
| D doesn’t preface his request to T with an expression such as qingwen or laojia (‘excuse me’). | Ji (2000: 1061) |
| D is unsympathetic to T. | Culpeper et al. (2003: 1555, 1569) |
| A sales agent (D) knocks on a prospect’s (T) door, thereby imposing on that person’s freedom. | Kong (2003: 491, 506) |
Other passages in the literature where the terminology of face is used in the OB sense are Apsler (1975: 148), Berk (1977: 532), Brown and Garland (1971: 494), Davies (2012: 23), Dong et al. (2013: 2005), Haugh and Hinze (2003: 1589), Leary and Kowalski (1990: 42), Lim et al. (2012: 355–356), Markkanen and Schröder (1997: 8), Roberts (2012: 162), and Schlenker and Leary (1982: 663).
Other passages in the literature where the terminology of face is used in the EA sense are Brett et al. (2007: 89), Briz and Estellés (2010: 290), Chen (2015: 827, 828), Culpeper (1996: 358), Dobs and Blitvich (2013: 22), Greenebaum (2012: 316), Hongladarom (2007: 33), Lerner (1996: 316), Lim and Bowers (1991: 426), Spencer-Oatey (2005: 108, 2007: 645), Tsui (1991: 611, 619), and Ukosakul (2009: 294).
Appendix B– Assertions which may be interpreted as true of both OB and EA face-processes
Goffman (1967: 19):
[A state of ritual disequilibrium or disgrace is established when] the participants in an undertaking or encounter fail to prevent the occurrence of an event that is expressively incompatible with the judgments of social worth that are being maintained […].
Ho (1976: 875):
[F]ace is not an attribute located within the individual; instead, it is what others have recognized and extended to him.
Tracy (1990: 210):
Face is a social phenomenon; it comes into being when one person comes into the presence of another; it is created through the communicative moves of interactants. [It] references the socially situated identities people claim or attribute to others […].
Shimanoff (1994: 159):
Facework may be defined as behaviors which establish, enhance, threaten, or diminish the images/identities of communicators.
Cupach and Metts (1994: 4, 36):
Face threats occur when a person’s desired identity in a particular interaction is challenged.
[W]e can present any identity (or maintain a face) only to the extent that it is supported by the other people present during the interaction.
Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998: 188, 200):
Facework refers to a set of communicative behaviors that people use to regulate their social dignity and to support or challenge the other’s social dignity. Face and facework are about interpersonal self-worth issues and other-identity consideration issues.
Face-related concerns are viewed as identity- and relational-management issues in any types of problematic interpersonal situations.
Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini (2010: 2074):
[F]ace necessarily involves evaluation by others, which in turn presupposes that interaction has indeed taken place […].
Haugh (2013a: 51):
[W]hat face/facework and self/other presentation have in common is an underlying concern with what Cooley […] termed the “looking-glass self”, namely, what an individual thinks (i.e., assumes) others think of (i.e., evaluate) him or her; or to put it more simply, a deep-rooted concern with what others think of us.
Chen (2015: 821):
[H]aving face means one is valued as a relational partner.
References
Alberdi Urquizu, Carmen. 2009. Politesse, impolitesse, auto-politesse: Janus revisité. Çédille: Revista de Estudios Franceses 5. 24–55. https://doi.org/10.21071/ced.v5i.5400.Search in Google Scholar
Anchimbe, Eric A. 2009. “That’s a myth”: Linguistic avoidance as a political face-saving strategy in broadcast interviews. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social interaction, 96–114. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Apsler, Robert. 1975. Effects of embarrassment on behavior toward others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(1). 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076699.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
Austin, John L. 1979. Philosophical papers, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2003. Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11). 1453–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00173-x.Search in Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, Arın. 1991. Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 92(1). 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1991.92.5.Search in Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, Arın. 1992. Disagreement in Turkish troubles-talk. Text 12(3). 317–342.10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.317Search in Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, Arın. 2000. A repair mechanism in Turkish conversation: The case of Estağfurullah. Multilingua 19(3). 281–310.10.1515/mult.2000.19.3.281Search in Google Scholar
Berk, Bernard. 1977. Face-saving at the singles dance. Social Problems 24(5). 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1977.24.5.03a00050.Search in Google Scholar
Blumstein, Philip W., Kathryn Groves Carssow, Janet Hall, Barbara Hawkins, Ronald Hoffman, Ernest Ishem, Caroll Palmer Maurer, Dana Spens, John Taylor & D. Lee Zimmerman. 1974. The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review 39. 551–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094421.Search in Google Scholar
Brackett, Kim Pettigrew. 2000. Facework strategies among romance fiction readers. The Social Science Journal 37(3). 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0362-3319(00)00073-2.Search in Google Scholar
Brett, Jeanne M., Mara Olekalns, Ray Friedman, Nathan Goates, Cameron Anderson & Cara Cherry Lisco. 2007. Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management Journal 50(1). 85–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24161853.Search in Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio & Maria Estellés. 2010. On the relationship between attenuation, discourse particles and position. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 289–304. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004253247_014Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Bert R. & Howard Garland. 1971. The effects of incompetency, audience acquaintanceship, and anticipated evaluative feedback on face-saving behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7(5). 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90011-4.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Gina Masullo. 2015. Losing face on social media: Threats to positive face lead to an indirect effect on retaliatory aggression through negative affect. Communication Research 42(6). 819–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510937.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Rong. 2001. Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1). 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00124-1.Search in Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T., Karen Tracy & Frances Spisak. 1986. The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research 12(4). 437–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00087.x.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11). 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00118-2.Search in Google Scholar
Cupach, William R. & Sandra Metts. 1994. Facework. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781483326986Search in Google Scholar
Cupach, William R., Sandra Metts & Vincent Jr. Hazleton. 1986. Coping with embarrassing predicaments: Remedial strategies and their perceived utility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5(3). 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x8600500302.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Julia. 2012. Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers & Education 59(1). 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.007.Search in Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Gunther Kaltenböck. 2018. Modal meaning and illocutionary force: A corpus-based analysis of hedged performatives. Talk held at the 4th International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association, 1–3 November, Albany: University of Albany.Search in Google Scholar
Dobs, Abby Mueller & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2013. Impoliteness in polylogal interaction: Accounting for face-threat witnesses’ responses. Journal of Pragmatics 53. 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002.Search in Google Scholar
Dong, Ping, Xun Huang & Robert S. Wyerr. 2013. The illusion of saving face: How people symbolically cope with embarrassment. Psychological Science 24(10). 2005–2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482946.Search in Google Scholar
Donnelly, Christopher M. & Bradley R. E. Wright. 2013. Goffman goes to church: Face-saving and the maintenance of collective order in religious services. Sociological Research Online 18(1). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2869.Search in Google Scholar
Edelmann, Robert J. 1985. Social embarrassment: An analysis of the process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2(2). 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407585022006.Search in Google Scholar
Edelmann, Robert J. 1994. Embarrassment and blushing: Factors influencing face-saving strategies. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 231–267. Albany: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Eslami, Zohreh R. 2005. Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4). 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453.Search in Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Shiphra, Cees van der Vleuten, Kevin W. Eva & Lorelei Lingard. 2016. Hedging to save face: A linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports. Advances in Health Sciences Education 21(1). 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9622-0.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places. Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 2010. Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Gonzales, Marti H., Debra J. Manning & Julie A. Haugen. 1992. Explaining our sins: Factors influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(6). 958–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.958.Search in Google Scholar
Grainger, Karen, Sara Mills & Mandla Sibanda. 2010. “Just tell us what to do”: Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2158–2171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017.Search in Google Scholar
Greenebaum, Jessica B. 2012. Managing impressions: “Face-saving” strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity & Society 36(4). 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597612458898.Search in Google Scholar
Gross, Edward & Gregory P. Stone. 1964. Embarrassment and the analysis of role requirements. American Journal of Sociology 70(1). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/223733.Search in Google Scholar
Guan, Xiaowen & Hye Eun Lee. 2017. Fight and flight: A multilevel analysis of facework strategies in intercultural face-threatening acts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 58. 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.008.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o.Search in Google Scholar
Hammer, Mitchell R. & Randall G. Rogan. 1997. Negotiation models in crisis situations: The value of a communication-based approach. In Randall G. Rogan, Mitchell R. Hammer & Clinton R. Van Zandt (eds.), Dynamic processes of crisis negotiation: Theory, research and practice, 9–23. Westport: Praeger.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. 2012. Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 8(1). 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013a. Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Desentrañando la imagen social, la actividad de imagen y la (des)cortesía. Pragmática Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1). 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2012-0005.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013b. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Carl Hinze. 2003. A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11). 1581–1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(03)00049-3.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
Heisler, Troy, Diane Vincent & Annie Bergeron. 2003. Evaluative metadiscursive comments and face-work in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11). 1613–1631. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(03)00051-1.Search in Google Scholar
Hewitt, John P. & Randall Stokes. 1975. Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094442.Search in Google Scholar
Hinze, Carl G. 2012. Chinese politeness is not about ‘face’: Evidence from the business world. Journal of Politeness Research 8(1). 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2012.002.Search in Google Scholar
Ho, David Yau-Fai. 1976. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4). 867–884. https://doi.org/10.1086/226145.Search in Google Scholar
Ho, David Yau-Fai. 1994. Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 269–286. Albany: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Hodgins, Holley S. & Elizabeth Liebeskind. 2003. Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39(4). 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00024-6.Search in Google Scholar
Hodgins, Holley S., Elizabeth Liebeskind & Warren Schwartz. 1996. Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(2). 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.300.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4). 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7.Search in Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 1989. The form and function of remedial moves: Reported use, psychological reality and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 8(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x8900800101.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
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. “Don’t blame me for criticizing you …”: A study of metapragmatic comments in Thai. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 29–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.04honSearch in Google Scholar
Hu, Hsien Chin. 1944. The Chinese concepts of “face”. American Anthropologist, New Series 46(1). 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040.Search in Google Scholar
Imahori, T. Todd & William R. Cupach. 1994. A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: US American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(2). 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90028-0.Search in Google Scholar
Ji, Shaojun. 2000. ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Journal of Pragmatics 32(7). 1059–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00068-5.Search in Google Scholar
Katz, Mara. 2015. Politeness theory and the classification of speech acts. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 25(2). 45–55.Search in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1992. Les interactions verbales. Tome II. Paris: Armand Colin.10.1515/9783111678504-006Search in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1998. Les interactions verbales. Tome III. Paris: Armand Colin.Search in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1). 1–20.10.1075/prag.7.1.01kerSearch in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2005. Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.Search in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2014. (Im)politesse et gestion des faces dans deux types de situations communicatives: petits commerces et débats électoraux. Pragmática Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics 2(2). 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2014-0021.Search in Google Scholar
Kong, Kenneth C. C. 2003. “Are you my friend?”: Negotiating friendship in conversations between network marketers and their prospects. Language in Society 32(4). 487–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404503324029.Search in Google Scholar
Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tæ’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12). 1733–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00055-8.Search in Google Scholar
Lacroix, René. 2014. Pre-emptive utterances. Talk held at the 2nd International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association, 17–19 October, Los Angeles: University of California.Search in Google Scholar
Leary, Mark R. & Robin M. Kowalski. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin 107(1). 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4). 303–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Sun Sun, Shobha Vadrevu, Yoke Hian Chan & Iccha Basnyat. 2012. Facework on Facebook: The online publicness of juvenile delinquents and youths-at-risk. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(3). 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705198.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Tae-Seop. 1994. Facework and interpersonal relationships. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 209–229. Albany, New York: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Lim, Tae-Seop & John Waite Bowers. 1991. Facework. Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research 17(3). 415–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00239.x.Search in Google Scholar
Manusov, Valerie, Jody Koenig Kellas & April R. Trees. 2004. Do unto others? Conversational moves and perceptions of attentiveness toward other face in accounting sequences between friends. Human Communication Research 30(4). 514–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.4.514.Search in Google Scholar
Markkanen, Raija & Hartmut Schröder. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 3–18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.3Search in Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4). 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3.Search in Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Margaret L., Michael J. Cody & H. Dan O’Hair. 1983. The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research 9(3). 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00695.x.Search in Google Scholar
Meier, Ardith J. 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4). 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00053-h.Search in Google Scholar
Metts, Sandra & William R. Cupach. 1989. Situational influence on the use of remedial strategies in embarrassing predicaments. Communication Monographs 56(2). 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390256.Search in Google Scholar
Metts, Sandra & William R. Cupach. 2008. Face theory. In Leslie A. Baxter & Dawn O. Braithwaite (eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication. Multiple perspectives, 203–214. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781483329529.n15Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, Paul Georg. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 21–41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.21Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Rowland S. 1992. The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(2). 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292182010.Search in Google Scholar
Modigliani, Andre. 1968. Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry 31(3). 313–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786616.Search in Google Scholar
Modigliani, Andre. 1971. Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17(1). 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030460.Search in Google Scholar
Nikula, Tarja. 1997. Interlanguage view on hedging. In Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, 188–207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110807332.188Search in Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2007. What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a chance meeting with Claudine. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2007.011.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 & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 17–41. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230305939_2Search in Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2017. Face and (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 89–118. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_5Search in Google Scholar
Penman, Robyn. 1990. Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9(1–2). 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x9091002.Search in Google Scholar
Qi, Xiaoying. 2011. Face: A Chinese concept in a global sociology. Journal of Sociology 47(3). 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311407692.Search in Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1965. Structure and function in primitive society. New York: The Free Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Derek John. 2012. Secret ink: Tattoo’s place in contemporary American culture. The Journal of American Culture 35(2). 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-734x.2012.00804.x.Search in Google Scholar
Sattler, Jerome M. 1965. A theoretical, developmental, and clinical investigation of embarrassment. Genetic Psychology Monographs 71. 19–59.Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Barry R. & Mark R. Leary. 1982. Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin 92(3). 641–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, Marvin B. & Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. Accounts. American Sociological Review 33(1). 46–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sharkey, William F. 1992. Use and responses to intentional embarrassment. Communication Studies 43(4). 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979209368377.Search in Google Scholar
Sharkey, William F. & Laura Stafford. 1990. Responses to embarrassment. Human Communication Research 17(2). 315–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00235.x.Search in Google Scholar
Shimanoff, Susan B. 1994. Gender perspective on facework: Simplistic stereotypes versus complex realities. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 159–207. Albany: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Siebold, Kathrin & Hannah Busch. 2015. (No) need for clarity – Facework in Spanish and German refusals. Journal of Pragmatics 75. 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.006.Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2001. “Oh! How appropriate!” Compliments and politeness. In Arın Bayraktaroğlu & Maria Sifianou (eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish, 391–430. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.88.14sifSearch in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2011. On the concept of face and politeness. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 42–58. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230305939_3Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2012. Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12). 1554–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95.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
Tarr, Noreen D., Min-Sun Kim & William F. Sharkey. 2005. The effects of self–construals and embarrassability on predicament response strategies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29(5). 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2007. Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In Istvan Kecskes & Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 13–344. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198843.3.313Search in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2009. Finding face between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: Greek perceptions of the in-group. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social interaction, 269–288. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella (ed.). 1994. The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. Albany: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella & Atsuko Kurogi. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(2). 187–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(98)00004-2.Search in Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella & Beth-Ann Cocroft. 1994. Face and facework: Theoretical and research issues. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 307–340. Albany: State University of New York.Search in Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 1990. The many faces of facework. In W. Peter Robinson & Howard Giles (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology, 209–226. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Tsui, Amy B. M. 1991. The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text 11(4). 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607.Search in Google Scholar
Ukosakul, Margaret. 2009. The significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social interaction, 289–305. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Vaid, Jyotsna, Hyun Choi, Hsin-Chin Chen & Michael Friedman. 2008. Perceiving and responding to embarrassing predicaments across languages: Cultural influences on the emotion lexicon. The Mental Lexicon 3(1). 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.1.08vai.Search in Google Scholar
Weinberg, Martin S. 1968. Embarrassment: Its variable and invariable aspects. Social Forces 46(3). 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/2574886.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Steven R., Min-Sun Kim & Hendrika Meischke. 1991. Evaluating Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interaction 25(1–4). 215–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819109389363.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “Can I have a cup of tea please?” Politeness markers in the Spoken BNC2014
- Two phenomena behind the terminology of face
- Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests
- Conceptualization of first-order politeness in Russia: an exploratory study
- Grand strategy of politeness in new social networks: revisiting Leech’s politeness theory among Iranian EFL learners using Telegram
- When the Norwegian ‘politeness marker’ vennligst becomes impolite
- Native observers’ evaluations of ritual frame indicating expressions in Chinese
- “You can f*** get lost already”: (Responding to) impoliteness in the (in-)authentic discourse of comedy and crime TV series and movies
- Impoliteness among multilingual Facebook users in Congo Brazzaville
- Book Review
- Grundtvig, A. 2021. English is context: Practical pragmatics for clear communication. Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing, Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH, 144 pp., ISBN 978-3-125-01742-9. Price: € 28,50.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “Can I have a cup of tea please?” Politeness markers in the Spoken BNC2014
- Two phenomena behind the terminology of face
- Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests
- Conceptualization of first-order politeness in Russia: an exploratory study
- Grand strategy of politeness in new social networks: revisiting Leech’s politeness theory among Iranian EFL learners using Telegram
- When the Norwegian ‘politeness marker’ vennligst becomes impolite
- Native observers’ evaluations of ritual frame indicating expressions in Chinese
- “You can f*** get lost already”: (Responding to) impoliteness in the (in-)authentic discourse of comedy and crime TV series and movies
- Impoliteness among multilingual Facebook users in Congo Brazzaville
- Book Review
- Grundtvig, A. 2021. English is context: Practical pragmatics for clear communication. Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing, Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH, 144 pp., ISBN 978-3-125-01742-9. Price: € 28,50.
