Affiliation:
1. Fachbereich Romanistik , Universität Salzburg, Unipark Nonntal , Salzburg , Austria
Abstract
Abstract
This paper examines the Italian folk concept of bella figura in the framework of politeness-theories and the various binary conceptions it provides for explaining the nature of human communication. BF is a culture-specific understanding of self-projection in everyday discourse: It is both, a cognitive concept concerning the “beautiful” embodiment of self, and a performative concept concerning the active “figuring out” of a bella figura in order to avoid its contrary, the brutta figura. Thus, the figura-concept represents a pragmatic principle for acting in line with socially accepted norms setting out a reference frame for judging social endeavours according to a culture-inherent value system. Accordingly, affinities can be assumed between the figura-concept and the sociopragmatic core notions ‘face’ and ‘politeness’. A comparison of the figura-concept with the respective first- and second-order conceptions of the two, reflects a cultural version of ‘impression management’ conceiving an image of self which coincides with Goffman’s, but not at all with Brown and Levinson’s face-concept. This makes it difficult to identify figura in relation to politeness. Connections and disconnections are discussed alongside the paradigmatic binary scales and the positive/negative value-attributes. Finally, the findings are verified by comparing the use of the respective expressions as evaluation tools.
Reference40 articles.
1. Arundale, Robert. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 1. 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru.
2. Arundale, Robert. 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.
3. Arundale, Robert. 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 & Oakville: Equinox.
4. Arundale, Robert. 2010. Relating. In Miriam Locher & Sage Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics. (Handbooks of pragmatics 6), 137–166. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Arundale, Robert. 2013. Is face the best metaphor? Es imagen social la mejor metàfora? Pragmàtica Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(2). 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2013-0012.