Relating at work: Facets, dialectics and face

Abstract

This article examines 'relating at work'. Recent theorising in pragmatics has drawn attention to the importance of analysing relations, and yet the pragmatic study of relations is now intertwined so closely with the concept of face (e.g. Arundale, 2010a;Holmes et al., 2011; Watts 2005, 2008) that it might seem the two are synonymous. In this paper, I review this research from a multidisciplinary perspective, and then report a study on 'relating at work' in which leaders and interns were interviewed about their experiences of starting work in a culturally unfamiliar setting. I focus on one dialectic, connectedness-separateness, and report the challenges they described in 'making contact'. In the discussion section and on the basis of my findings, I argue the following points: (a) relating at work entails a complex web of interrelated facets and 'smooth relations' is just one of employees' relational concerns; (b) Relational Dialectic Theory offers much potential for interpersonal pragmatics; (c) dialectic tensions can occur at the individual as well as the interpersonal/relational levels and an interactional achievement analytic perspective needs to be complemented by an individual perspective; (d) Relational Dialect Theory and Face Theory are complementary to each other and should not be conflated. KeywordsRelations; Relational dialectics; Relating at work; Contact-Separation; Face. Highlights I review key issues and controversies re pragmatic approaches to 'the relational'.  I analyse metapragmatic emotion comments from workplace project partnerships.  I argue that such comments offer useful insights for evaluating conceptual frameworks.  I claim that discourse data alone is insufficient for studying 'the relational'.  I call for more pragmatics research on 'the relational' to seek applied relevance.

Disagreement practices in ELF academic group discussion: verbal, nonverbal and interactional strategies

“…Participants were invited to attend stimulated recall interviews within three to seven days following the group discussions. These interviews were designed to elicit participants' metapragmatic comments on their disagreement practices (Gass and Mackey, 2000;Spencer-Oatey, 2013). The time delay was necessary as it was important to develop first-draft transcriptions of the data, summarise the questionnaire responses and locate initial instances of disagreement in the data.…”

Im/politeness and interpreting

“…However, face is not exclusively a Goffmanian concept (Haugh 2013), nor is it the only motivator for politeness (Mills 2003, Spencer-Oatey 2008, Haugh 2013. Although face and im/politeness are related, and frequently co-exist, they can also occur independently of one another (Haugh 2013).…”

“…A dialectic, in contrast with a continuum, involves the constant presence and dynamic interplay between the two opposing elements. For example, the connectedness-separateness dialectic can be particularly problematic when managing rapport in workplace interactions (Spencer-Oatey 2013). One advantage of the dialectic approach is that it can helpfully account both for cross-cultural contrasts and the heterogeneity of intra-cultural behaviours (Arundale 2006).…”

“…The model suggests that greater use of indirectness occurs when the recipient has greater power, is socially more distant, and when the degree of imposition is higher. These three variables have come under scrutiny within the wider literature (for example Mills 2003, Spencer-Oatey 2008, Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010 with recognition that cultural factors and others such as a sense of urgency, rights, and obligations may all play a part. Mills (2003) also challenges the assumption that individuals' perception of social distance and imposition are shared, arguing that they are negotiated within each interaction.…”

“…Scollon and Scollon (2001) identify highly contrasting styles of cultural politeness systems depending on whether societal cultures prioritise group solidarity or individual independence. The universality of the Brown and Levinson model is therefore strongly contested (for example Gu 1990, Ide 1982, Mills 2003, Spencer-Oatey 2008, Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010. Further concern surrounds the theory's preoccupation with politeness as something that is produced by the speaker, rather than being rooted within interaction and evaluated by others.…”