Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement

Arundale, Robert B.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021

Cited by 286 publications

(205 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Arundale (2006;2010) argues, a discursive analysis needs to instead concentrate on finding the meaning that is negotiated and constructed in the social space between the participants and which is observable in the construction and sequencing of linguistic messages. This involves taking the essence of Austin's insight that we "do things with words" (Austin, 1962) and finding an analytic method that can demonstrate what the discourse (not the speaker or the hearer) is doing.…”

Section: Over-emphasis On Speaker Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Haugh (2007), in pointing out some of the weaknesses of the post-modern approach, advocates an empirically sound and primarily ethnomethodological approach to the analysis of politeness phenomena. Arundale's (1999;2010) 'Conjoint Co-constituting Model of Communication' regards interaction as a "minimum social system" (Arundale 2010(Arundale : 2086. Thus, it is in the interaction that we should look for the construction and reconstruction of meaning in terms of individual attiributes (such as identity), societal systems and social norms.…”

Section: Towards a Sociological/interactional Discursive Pragmaticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For some theorists it may simply be the use of interactional data, whereas for others it necessarily involves 'evaluations' of norm-oriented behaviour (Locher 2006). Still others assume that the discourse itself has a crucial role to play in the construction of meaning (for example, Kasper, 2006;Arundale, 1999Arundale, , 2004Arundale, , 2010). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, following Haugh (2007) I shall argue that a discursive approach does not necessarily answer the criticisms levelled at traditional pragmatics unless it incorporates the sociological and ethnomethodological perspectives that underpin the work of Goffman ([1983] 1997), Gumperz (1982) and, more recently, Arundale's (1999Arundale's ( , 2010 'Conjoint Co-constituting Model of Communication'. I shall argue that, in fact, rather than being the antithesis of postmodern thinking, Austin and Grice made many essential observations about language in use which still usefully, and crucially, apply to a discursive approach to pragmatics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics?

Grainger

2013

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Over-emphasis On Speaker Intentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Towards a Sociological/interactional Discursive Pragmaticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics?

Grainger

2013

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A key feature of this approach is to explore the ways in which evaluations of (im-)politeness are coconstituted in the interaction itself (cf. Arundale 2010;Haugh 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Courtroom data and politeness research: A case for neo-Peircean semiotics in interpersonal pragmatics

Wilson

Price

2018

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this article we take a neo-Peircean semiotic approach to analyzing an interaction in which a routine bail hearing between a defendant and a judge goes awry. Neo-Peircean semiotics is steadily gaining recognition within linguistics for providing a new perspective on meaning. One neo-Peircean approach, referred to as Relationship Thinking (Enfield 2009(Enfield , 2013, has the potential to be influential for politeness research and linguistic pragmatics generally. In this article, we explore how the concept of relationship can be used to explore meaning on two dimensions: residential and representational (Kockelman 2006a(Kockelman , 2006b. It is our contention that both of these dimensions are crucial to developing an understanding of what happens in the courtroom data on which this special issue focusses. We begin by providing a detailed overview of neoPeircean semiotics in order to demonstrate its utility for researchers from different disciplines. We then show how a neo-Peircean analytical approach can illuminate elements of data that may not be accounted for in other analyses. This is as a consequence of the neo-Peircean framework's scope and its capacity for coping with a range of interactionally significant phenomena, from individual linguistic tokens to institutional norms. In our analysis of the data at the heart of this special issue, the Penelope Soto case, we show that problems can arise when interactants have different understandings of what is a sign and what is an interpretant (Peirce 1955). We make the case that it is a misunderstanding at this level (specifically the interpretations of the word "value") that is ultimately what causes the interaction to conclude in the way that it does. Ultimately, we suggest that a neo-Peircean approach to the study of in/appropriate behaviour can facilitate links between the traditional (and sometimes disparate) methods of analysis used in politeness research.

show abstract

Face Constituting Theory

Arundale

2015

The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face Constituting Theory explains how human beings create relationships as they use language in social interaction. Relationships with others are fundamental to human existence, and people create them as they create what is known as “face.” Face Constituting Theory defines face as one's understanding of one's connection with and separation from other people, and it is constituted in everyday interaction as people work conjointly to constitute turns at talk, actions, and meanings. Connecting with and separating from others are the dialectical push and pull that lie at the core of relating to others, hence constituting face in using language lies at the heart of constituting human relationships.

show abstract

Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement

Cited by 286 publications

References 47 publications

Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics?

Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics?

Courtroom data and politeness research: A case for neo-Peircean semiotics in interpersonal pragmatics

Face Constituting Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About