Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research

Abstract

Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research MICHAEL HAUGH AbstractThe papers in this special issue on Chinese 'face' and im/politeness collectively raise very real challenges for the ways in which the now well-known distinction between first order and second order approaches is conceptualized and operationalized by face and politeness researchers. They highlight the difficulties we inevitably encounter when analyzing face and im/politeness across languages and cultures, in particular, those arising from (1) the use of English as a scientific metalanguage to describe concepts and practices in other languages and cultures, (2) the inherent ambiguity and conservatism of folk concepts such as face and politeness, and (3) the difficulties in teasing out face and im/politeness as important phenomena in their own right. In this paper it is suggested that these issues arise as a consequence of the relative paucity of critical discussion of the first-second order distinction by analysts. It is argued that the first-second order distinction needs to be more carefully deconstructed in regards to both its epistemological and ontological loci. It is suggested that equating first order approaches with an "emic" perspective and second order approaches with a "scientific" perspective masks a number of important distinctions that are too often glossed over by those who make claims to being either first or second order researchers. It is concluded that rather than treating the first-second order distinction as a simplistic dichotomy, it is much more productive to deploy the multiple loci of the first-second order distinction in clarifying the various focal points for analysis and theorization in face and politeness research.

Journal of Politeness Research: Introduction

“…In the opening editorial of their first co-edited journal issue, they note that the first issue of the first volume of the Journal of Politeness Research featured research "discussing and (re)introducing issues and positions which were to presage many of the debates that we see in current issues of the journal" (Bousfield and Grainger 2010: 162 Grainger et al 2015), rapport management , politeness as identity work (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich et al 2013;Georgakopoulou 2013), politeness as facework (Al-Adaileh 2011;Kádár and Roe 2012;Hatfield and Hahn 2014), the interrelations between identity and face (Bucholtz and Hall 2013;Joseph 2013;Miller 2013) and fundamental epistemological questions such as the role of the analyst (Haugh 2012;Kádár and Mills 2013). An example is the special issue guestedited by Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2013) on identity and facework.…”

The gains and losses of face in ongoing intercultural interaction: A case study of Chinese participant perspectives

“…We believe that it is extremely important to take a participant perspective, and in fact our study aims at revealing first-order participant perspectives on face (Haugh, 2012). But we go a step further.…”

“…4 (cf. Haugh, 2012) 4 When translating verbatim notes from Chinese into English, we employed the approach of "formal equivalence" (Nida and Taber, 1969), which emphasizes strict adherence to the original text and is oriented towards the source language and culture, whereas "functional equivalence" (Nida and Taber, 1969), also known as "dynamic equivalence", stresses being natural in the target language and target culture, catering to the target audience. For example, functional equivalence encourages adjustments to the target culture by replacing a culture-specific message in the source text with an equivalent in the target culture.…”

Beyond sarcasm: The metalanguage and structures of mock politeness

“…However, operationalising a first-order approach is not without challenges: one difficulty is keeping these two orders separate (as noted in Eelen, 2001;Haugh, 2007Haugh, , 2012Terkourafi, 2011) and how, in practice, the first/second order distinction is operationalised in the analytic procedures. In this study, 'mock politeness' is a second-order concept which is investigated through a first-order metalanguage approach.…”