Facework Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact

Abstract

This study extended Brown and Levinson's model of politeness in order to explain more complicated forms of interaction and proposed three different types of f a m o r k : solidarity, approbation, and tact. The effects of three social factors-relational intimacy, power difference, and the right to perform a given act in a given situation-on the three types of facework were examined. Relational intimacy was the strongest positive predictor of facework. Its effect was consistent across different types of facework and across different levelsofpowerandright. 77w right toperforma certainactandspeaker'spowerdecreased facework, but these effects were mediated by relational intimacy, achieving significance mainly in distant relationships. The study also examined the relationships among different types offacework. Respondents used multiple types of facework when multiple face wants were threatened, and the use of one type of facework did not decrease the use of other types.esearch by a number of scholars (e.g.R 1987; Tracy, 1983) has attempted to explain people's selection of communicative strategies in terms of facework (Goffman, 1967). The model of politeness proposed by Levinson (1978,1987) has attracted particular attention from these researchers. However, communication studies based on Brown and Levinson generally found that the model could not adequately explain people's facework in communicative interaction. In this study, we extend Brown and Levinson's politeness model to explain various types of facework performed by communicators. In the process, we address several conceptual problems in Brown and Levinson's model includ-

More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures.

“…Third, there is evidence that the five types of superstrategies, as described by Brown and Levinson, are not as clearly differentiated as once assumed. For example, recent research (Craig, Tracy, & Spisak, 1986;Lim & Bowers, 1991;Scollon & Scollon, 1983 ) suggests that positive and negative strategies may not be mutually exclusive categories but that people often use a mix of both types of strategies. Furthermore, the typology and organization of strategies may be different for different social situations.…”

“…Recent research, however, has provided equivocal evidence supporting Brown and Levinson's (1987) hierarchy of superstrategies. For example, individuals do not necessarily use more negative strategies than positive strategies under situations in which theoretically more politeness is required (Craig et al, 1986;Field, 1991;Lee, 1993;Lim & Bowers, 1991;Scollon & Scollon, 1983). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that communicators simply use more elaborate strategies to indicate more politeness (R. Brown & Gilman, 1989;Lee, 1993).…”

Influence of situational factors on the codification and interpretation of impoliteness

“…The dependent relationships of politeness on the communicative situation have been discussed by Lakoff (1973), Lim and Bowers (1991), Carrasco (1999), Bravo (1993Bravo ( , 1996Bravo ( , 2002, Hernández-Flores (2002 and in this volume), Briz (2003) Albelda (2004, 2007 and Kaul de Marlangeon (see contribution to this volume) among others. These authors agree that the features of the communicative situation determine the presence of (im)politeness and the value it acquires.…”

How Chinese Face Perception Influences Consumer’s Implicit and Explicit Attitude towards Brand Country of Origin

“…Face is a social psychological construct rooted in culture, and is the social esteem obtained from others; or the public image allowed and permitted by others (Goffman, 1955;Lim andBower, 1991 Chen Zhizhao, 1982). "FACE" was firstly divided into two dimensions by Dr. Hu(1944), which was "LIAN" and "MIAN".…”