THE RELATIONAL COMPONENT IN FACE-THREATENING ACTS: A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Silvia Emilia Plăcintar
Babeş-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania
This study starts from the classic face politeness model of Brown and Levinson (1987), with focus on face-threatening acts in isolation, and complements it with alternative paradigms that view face and facework from a relational and interactional perspective. Next, the paper introduces a framework of linguistic strategies for the expression of relational meaning to analyse the choices that language users make to convey an attitude of affective involvement in concrete instances of social interaction. These models are then applied in the interpretation of two corpora of business letters produced by Romanian and by Finnish students of business English in response to the same communicative situation that requires the formulation of these speech acts: giving bad news and providing reasons for it, making a request, and making a commitment. The analysis is guided by two questions: (1) What are the linguistic strategies engaged for the expression of affect? (2) Is culture a factor that influences how respondents view / use language? The findings of the comparative analysis point to marked differences in the primary function of language as employed by the two groups of respondents. While Finns view language predominantly for the transactional purpose with minimal expression of relational meaning, Romanians use it primarily as a means of building rapport by engaging frequently interpersonal markers of mitigation, politeness and solidarity.
Keywords: Face; Facework; Politeness; Relational meaning; Rapport management.
Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193-216. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for (old) concepts. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1453-1469. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341-350. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Chicago: Aldine.
Haugh, M. (2009). Face and interaction. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 1-30). London: Equinox.
Koester, A. (2006). Investigating workplace discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9-33. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6.
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals – Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8(2-3), 207-222. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.207.
How to cite this article: Plăcintar, S.E. (2024). The relational component in face-threatening acts: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 17(1), 93-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2024.1.6
For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en