Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
18
MariaSifianou
thisreputationhasbeenestablishedoveranumberofseasons.Interestingly,this
enduringaspectoffacehasbeennotedbyGoffman(1955;1972,p.320),who
saysthatinorderforsomeonetomaintainfaceinthecurrentsituation,he/she
musthaveabstainedfromcertainactsinthepastthatwouldbedifficulttoface
uptolater(cf.O’Driscoll,1996,p.6).Thisunderstandingdoesnotnecessarily
contradictthediscursiveco-constructionoffacebuthighlightstheargument
thatwhatisco-constructedonthespotalsodrawsfrompriorencountersand
socioculturalresourcesavailabletointerlocutors(see,e.g.,Mills,2003,p.83;
Arundale,2006;Haugh,2007).Inordertoactatanymoment,interlocutors
employthesocio-historicalknowledgetheypossess,andevaluatewhichaspects
oftheirmultifacetedfacearerelevanttothecurrentsituation.
Recentresearchonpolitenesshaswitnessedashifttowardsadiscursive,
evaluativeapproachinvolvingthecontesteddistinctionbetweenfirst-and
second-orderpoliteness(asalreadymentioned)-adistinctionthathasbeen
extendedtoface(O’Driscoll,1996;Terkourafi,2010).Thisbifurcationhasled
somescholarstosearchforauniversalconstruct,associatedwithpsychological
processesofidentityconstruction(André,2013,p.78)andotherstoarguethat
faceisnotgivenbutnegotiatedbetweeninterlocutorsastheyinteractinspecific
contexts,andshouldthusbeanalysedfromtheparticipants’perspectiverather
thanfromtheanalyst’s(Arundale,2010,p.8).2Eelen(2001,p.132)further
distinguishesbetweentwosidestofirst-ordernotionsofpoliteness:anaction-
relatedside(expressiveandclassificatorypoliteness1),andaconceptualside
(metapragmaticpoliteness1).Theformerrelatestothewaypolitenessmanifests
itselfininteractions,andthelattertolayassessments-howpeopletalkabout
politeness.Sincesuchviewshavebeenextendedtoface,itisimportanttonote
herethattherearedifferencesbetweenfaceandpoliteness.Verbalandnon-
verbalactionsmaybeevaluatedbytheirperformerorbyothersaspoliteor
impoliteinsituoratalaterpoint.Thepresenceofrelatedtokens(e.g.,rude,
(im)polite)inaninteractionmaypointtoevaluationthroughmetalinguistic
comments(Watts,2003,p.2).Ontheotherhand,themanydifferentmeta-
phoricalandmetonymicextensionsoffaceareusedindailyinteractionsfor
self-andother-evaluation,orinself-reflection,buttheyarenotnormallypart
ofmetalinguisticcomments(cf.Haugh,2010).Thusthediscursivestruggleover
thevalueoftermslikepolitenessdoesnotapplytofaceinanystraightforward
way.Unlikepoliteness,faceworkisnotbehaviourthatistypicallytalkedabout
andthusnotamenabletodiscursivestruggle.Thisobservationhasimportant
consequencesfortheobjectofourinvestigation.Moreover,althoughtheentries
ingooddictionariescanprovideinformationontheprecisemeaningsanduseof
2
EvenBrownandLevinson(1987,p.14)themselvesseeaneedfor“moreinthewayof
ethnographicdescriptionsofthewayinwhichpeoplearticulatefacenotions.”
