Book contents
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Im/politeness between the Analyst and Participant Perspectives: An Overview of the Field
- Part I Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Speech Acts
- Part II Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
- 7 Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America
- 8 The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English
- 9 A Metapragmatic Aspect of Politeness: With a Special Emphasis on Attentiveness in Japanese
- 10 Discussions on Swiss and German Politeness in Online Sources
- 11 Globalisation and Politeness: A Chinese Perspective
- 12 Emic Conceptualizations of Face (Imagen) in Peninsular Spanish
- Epilogue: Personal Encounters with Politeness Research
- Index
- References
12 - Emic Conceptualizations of Face (Imagen) in Peninsular Spanish
from Part II - Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 June 2019
Book contents
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Im/politeness between the Analyst and Participant Perspectives: An Overview of the Field
- Part I Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Speech Acts
- Part II Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
- 7 Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America
- 8 The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English
- 9 A Metapragmatic Aspect of Politeness: With a Special Emphasis on Attentiveness in Japanese
- 10 Discussions on Swiss and German Politeness in Online Sources
- 11 Globalisation and Politeness: A Chinese Perspective
- 12 Emic Conceptualizations of Face (Imagen) in Peninsular Spanish
- Epilogue: Personal Encounters with Politeness Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich and Bou-Franch’s chapter aims to throw light on emic understandings of face1 and imagen1 in Peninsular Spanish, and to compare such understandings with etic approaches to imagen and identity. A three-pronged methodology is used to tease out lay meanings of imagen from different first-order sources, and includes the examination of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, the analysis of a corpus of Spanish newspapers, and the analysis of data from focus groups discussing situated experiences of imagen1. The results show that imagen1 and face1 are not related in a straightforward manner. Whereas imagen2 draws on Goffman’s and Brown and Levinson’s seminal definitions of the construct, imagen1 does not always evoke imagen2; when it does, it is more closely related to Goffman’s than to Brown and Levinson’s conception.Microanalysis of naturally-occurring discourse focusing on experiences of imagen1 shows how uses of imagen1 pointed to the centrality of identity and its relationship with face1. The author’s findings thus give credence to that fact that face and identity co-constitute each other and are hard to separate theoretically and analytically.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of PolitenessMultilingual and Multicultural Perspectives, pp. 301 - 327Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds (2009). Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. and Caple, H. (2014). Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society 25(2), 135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernal, M. (2008). El test de hábitos sociales aplicado a la descortesía. In Briz, A., Hidalgo, A., Albelda, M., Contreras, J., and Hernández Flores, N., eds, Cortesía y Conversación: de lo Escrito a lo Oral. Valencia/Estocolmo: Universidad de Valencia, Programa EDICE, pp. 623–41.Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2001). ‘No diga chorradas …’ La descortesía en el debate político cara a cara. Una aproximación pragma-variacionista. Oralia 4, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolívar, A. (2008). Perceptions of (im)politeness in Venezuelan Spanish: the role of evaluation in interaction. Pragmatics 18(4), 605–33.Google Scholar
Boretti, S. (2003). Test de hábitos sociales y la investigación de la cortesía. In Bravo, D., ed., Actas del 1er Coloquio del Programa EDICE. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, pp. 198–202.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (1994). La presentación de la imagen en conversaciones entre hablantes nativas y no nativas de inglés. Pragmalingüística 2, 37–61.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (1998). ¿Reírse juntos?: Un estudio de las imágenes sociales de hablantes españoles. Mexicanos y suecos. In Haverkate, H., Mulder, G., and Fraile Maldonado, C., eds, La Pragmática Lingüística del Español: Recientes Desarrollos, Diálogos Hispánicos 22. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (1999). ¿Imagen ‘positiva’ vs. Imagen ‘negativa’? Pragmática sociocultural y componentes de face. Oralia 2, 155–84.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (2003). Actividades de cortesía, imagen social y contextos socioculturales: Una introducción. In Bravo, D., ed., La Perspectiva no Etnocentrista de la Cortesía: Identidad Sociocultural de las Comunidades Hispanohablantes. Actas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. Stockholm, CD-ROM, pp. 98–108.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (2004). Tensión entre universalidad y relatividad en las teorías de cortesía. In Bravo, D. and Briz, A., eds, Pragmática Sociocultural: Estudios del Discurso de Cortesía en Español. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 15–33.Google Scholar
Bravo, D. (2008). The implications of studying politeness in Spanish speaking contexts: a discussion. Pragmatics 18(4), 577–603.Google Scholar
Brenes Peña, E. (2009). La Agresividad Verbal y sus Mecanismos de Expresión en el Español Actual. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
Brenes Peña, E. (2014). La imagen del político en los medios de comunicación. Identificación y análisis de las estrategias (des)corteses utilizadas en la entrevista televisiva no acomodaticia. Revista de Filología 32, 63–80.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. and Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1), 83–93.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras Fernández, J. (2008). Test de hábitos sociales en un análisis contrastivo sobre el uso y la interpretación de la cortesía lingüística. In Briz, A., Hidalgo, A., Albelda, M., Contreras, J., and Hernández Flores, N., eds, Cortesía y Conversación: de lo Escrito a lo Oral. Valencia/Estocolmo: Universidad de Valencia, Programa EDICE, pp. 642–56.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds, Impoliteness and Power: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Curcó Cobos, C. (2014). Un comentario en torno a la noción de imagen. In Infante Bonfiglio, J. M. and Flores Treviño, M., eds, La (Des)Cortesía en el Discurso: Perspectivas Interdisciplinarias (Imagen, Actos de Habla y Atenuación). Monterrey: UANL-EDICE, pp. 19–51.Google Scholar
De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., and Bamberg, M., eds (2006). Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (2008). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 3rd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fant, L. (1989). Cultural mismatch in conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian communicative behaviour in negotiation settings. Hermes 2, 247–65.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2013). Identidad e imagen social. In Fuentes Rodríguez, C., ed., Imagen Social y Medios de Comunicación. Madrid: Arco/Libros, pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2014). Salvados por la cortesía estratégica. Revista de Filología 32, pp. 99–124.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos, P. (1993). La ira y la cortesía: codificación lingüística del cambio social en el teatro inglés de los años 60. Valencia: University of Valencia Press.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: the ‘Culture Wars’. Journal of Politeness Research 5(2), 273–303.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Face, identity, and im/politeness: looking backwards, moving forward – from Goffman to Practice Theory. Journal of Politeness Research 9(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P. and Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). Identity and impoliteness: the expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research 9(1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., and Bou-Franch, P. (2010). A genre approach to impoliteness in a Spanish television talk show: evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4), 689–723.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. and Sifianou, M. (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. Z., eds, The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3), 213–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013a). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1, 46–73.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013b). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics 58, 52–72.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Editorial. Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8), 2073–7.Google Scholar
Hernández Flores, N. (2002). La Cortesía en la Conversación Española de Familiares y Amigos; La Búsqueda del Equilibrio entre la Imagen del Hablante y la Imagen del Destinatario, Aalborg: Institut for Sprog Internationale Kulturstudier, Aalborg Universitet.Google Scholar
Hernández Flores, N. (2003). Cortesía y contextos socioculturales en la conversación de familiares y amigos. In Bravo, D., ed., La Perspectiva no Etnocentrista de la Cortesía: Identidad Sociocultural de las Comunidades Hispanohablantes. Actas del Primer Coloquio del Programa EDICE. Stockholm, CD-ROM, pp. 121–7.Google Scholar
Hernández Flores, N. (2008). Politeness and other types of facework: communicative and social meaning in a television panel discussion. Pragmatics 18(4), 577–603.Google Scholar
Hernández Flores, N. (2013). Actividad de imagen: caracterización y tipología en la interacción comunicativa. Pragmática Sociocultural: Revista Internacional sobre Lingüística del Español 1(2), 175–98.Google Scholar
Hernández Flores, N. and Gómez Sánchez, M. E. (2014). Actividades de imagen en la comunicación mediática de medidas políticas contra la crisis: el copago sanitario. Revista de Filología 32, 125–43.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., Ventola, E., and Weber, T., eds, Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 2: Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryweather, D. (2010). Using focus group research in exploring the relationships between youth, risk and social position. Sociological Research On-Line 15(1). Available at www.socresonline.org.uk/15/1/2.html.Google Scholar
Murillo Medrano, J. (2006). Significado de la cortesía lingüística a partir de la aplicación de un test de hábitos sociales en Costa Rica. In Murillo, J., ed., Actas del II Coloquio del Programa EDICE. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica, pp. 116–36.Google Scholar
Santaemilia, J. and Maruenda, S. (2014). The linguistics of gender violence in (written) media discourse: the term ‘woman’ in Spanish contemporary newspapers. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2(2), 249–73.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D. Z., eds, Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2013). On Culture, Face and Politeness. Again. Paper presented at the 1st Sosnowiec Symposium on ‘Communication across Cultures: Face and Interaction’ (CC2013FACE), 26–27 April 2013, Institute of English, University of Silesia, Poland.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1), pp. 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4), 639–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2008). Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds, Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–74.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2005), Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis? In Watts, R. J., Ide, S., and Ehlich, K., eds, Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd Edn, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. xi–xvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by