“…It might appear, then, at first glance, that in placing an increased emphasis on interaction, we are advocating a shift towards an approach to face grounded in ethnomethodology or conversation analysis in this issue. Indeed, face or face-threats have been mentioned in passing by conversation analysts, including in the context of preference organisation (Heritage, 1984: 268;Heritage and Raymond, 2005: 16;Lerner, 1996: 303), turn-taking (Chevalier, 2009;Hutchby, 2008: 226-227), repair (Robinson, 2006: 155;Svennevig, 2008: 347), epistemic authority (Heritage and Raymond, 2005), and social actions such as "getting acquainted" (Svennevig, 1999). The fact that conversation analysts have invoked either Brown and Levinson's (1987) or Goffman's (1955) notions of face thus far, however, is in our view problematic, as on closer analysis it becomes apparent that the epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying both these conceptualisations of face are not consistent with those to which conversation analysts or ethnomethodologists are explicitly committed (Arundale, 2009;Schegloff, 1988).…”