Affiliation:
1. University of Alaska Fairbanks , Fairbanks , AK , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Ever since Goffman examined “face” in social interaction in 1955, researchers in intercultural and sociocultural pragmatics have employed the concept in many ways, and have developed a number of different positions on what the concept entails and on how to study it. Following Goffman, face is uniformly conceptualized as a phenomenon apparent in everyday interacting, but in focusing on the characteristics of face, researchers have routinely overlooked their conceptualizations of everyday interaction. This article examines twelve current conceptualizations of face, focusing particularly on their conceptualizations of everyday interacting and their implications for examining face, and providing researchers with bases for choosing a conceptualization that will be productive in addressing their research questions regarding face in everyday interacting.
Reference74 articles.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.