Intercultural Communication

Lecture 6

Culture and Face Systems

Topic and Face

Face Strategies and Systems

Language is ambiguous One way we reduce ambiguity is to make

assumptions about the people we are talking to and our relationship with them

‘Face’ The paradox of face Face strategies Face systems

Politeness and Face

Popular Meanings Face: mian zi, min ji, mentsu, chae myon Concept of honour Politeness: Being ‘nice’, following certain

‘rules’ of social conduct (‘li’_ Popular ideas of politeness and face are

usually governed by expectations about ‘scripts’ and adjacency pairs

Face and Politeness

Linguistic meaning Face the negotiated public image mutually granted

each other by participants in communication Politeness How we signal our relationship with and

feelings towards those we are communicating with in our language use

Is this polite?

‘Ms. Cheung, I wonder if you could please get back to me on this matter at your earliest convenience…’

Is this polite?

Is this polite?

A: Hello. B: Hi Rodney. Can you guess who this

is?

Is this ‘polite’

‘Wow, you look awful today! Is there anything wrong?

To you best friend? To your boss?

My Mother in England

The Paradox of Face

The Paradox of Face

We want people to like us We want people to respect us Respect and intimacy are expressed in

different ways Different groups may have different

ways of expressing intimacy and respect

Two kinds of face Negative face (desire for autonomy,

personal space,freedom from imposition, freedom of action) THE SHIELD

Positive face (desire for self-image to be acknowledged and approved of) THE SPEAR

Each are addressed with specific formsof ‘facework’

Two kinds of face

Negative face (desire for autonomy, personal space,freedom from imposition, freedom of action)

Positive face (desire for self-image to be acknowledged and approved of)

Each are addressed with specific formsof face work

Two Kinds of Face Strategies

Involvement ‘Solidarity’

Showing ‘closeness’ or solidarity using first name, expressing interest,

claiming common point of view, using informal language

Two Kinds of Face Strategy

Independence

Showing ‘respect’ using titles, not making assumptions,

apologizing, using formal language

Independence and Involvement

In any interaction we usually use both independence and involvement strategies

The problem is deciding how and when to use these strategies

Based on who we are talking to why we are talking to them

Face Systems

Face systems are based on three different aspects of the situation

Power (+P power difference, -P no power difference)

Distance (+D distant, -D close) Weight of Imposition (how important topic is

for speakers, +W important, -W not very important)

Values exist on a scale (not absolute)

Deference Face System

-P, +D symmetrical (equal) participants see themselves as at

same social level distant both would use mostly independence

strategies

Solidarity Face System

-P, -D symmetrical close both participants likely to use more

involvement strategies

Hierarchical Face System

+P, +/-D asymmetrical (unequal) asymmetrical face strategies

higher uses more involvement lower uses more independence

Deference

Speaker<-----------------Independence--------------->Speaker

Solidarity

Speaker<--Involvement-->Speaker

HierarchicalSpeaker(involvement)

Speaker (independence)

Communication problems

The calculation of the appropriate face strategies is usually based on a calculation of power

‘When two participants differ in their assessment of face strategies it will tend to be perceived as a difference in power’

Conflicting Strategies/Mixed up systems

Two businessmen meeting for the first time Mr R: (reading Mr. Wong’s business card which

says Wong Hon Fai) Hi, Hon Fai. I’m Bill Richardson. My friends call me Bill.

Mr W: How do you do Mr. Richardson. Mr. Wong thinks: That guy is acting too familiar,

who does he think he is? expects deference system, hears hierarchical system Mr. R. thinks: This guy doesn’t want to be my

friend. He’s not very nice. expects solidarity system, hears deference system

Face and Cluture

Kinship Concept of ‘self’ In-group/Out-group relationships Gemeinshaft and Gesellschaft

Kinship

Hierarchy Collectivistic relationships Love and duty Honesty and harmony

‘Face’ and ‘Self’

differences in assumptions about the ‘self’

Individualism and collectivism

Body-Self-Person

Ingroup-Outgroup Relationships

‘Nei’ and ‘Wai’ How strong are group boundaries How permanent are groups Group identification

Gemeinshaft and Gesellshaft

Community and society Gemeinshaft

Traditional, organic, based on kinship bonds, shared history, common traditions

Gesellshaft Contractual, rational, instrumental, based

on rules and laws

Rhetorical Patterns

Inductive Topic delayed Because…so (yinwei…suoyi)

Deductive Topic first So…because

‘Inscrutable’ Asians?

And ‘Rude’ Americans? Young (1995) Crosstalk and Culture

in Sino-American Communication

Influenced by…

Adjacency, sequence, turn-taking and timing Call-answer-topic Call-answer-facework-topic

Exceptions (eg. Close friends/ service encounters) ‘nei’ and ‘wai’ encounters

Face relationships Differences in cultural structuring of

situations and participant roles

Confucianism and face-relationships

Consciousness of power (‘rank’) differences

Person of higher position has right to introduce topic

Situations

Deductive When it is clear that speakers have the

right to express their opinions in a free and unencumbered way

Inductive When it is not clear the speakers have the

right to express opinions in a free an unencumbered way (eg. When listeners are likely to resist these opinions)

Face Strategies

Inductive Independence

Deductive involvement

Topic and Face Systems

Deference Inductive

Solidarity Deductive

Heirarchial Higher-deductive Lower-inductive

Inferences How do we interpret these rhetorical strategies?

Chinese conceptions of face

Face not seen to belong to self alone, but also to group (family)

Politeness strategies characterized by self-denigration and respect (negative politeness (li)

Heavily encoded in the language

Two kinds of Chinese Face (Mao 1994)

Mianzi (prestige, reputation, either earned or ascribed)

Lian (respect for a person’s underlying moral character)

Morality defined as subordinating one’s own face wants to those of the group

Mianzi vs. Lian Losing mianzi

loss of one’s reputation because of failure or misfortune

Losing lian loss of one’s moral standing in the community

Lian more important than mianzi Mianzi can have negative connotations

(being overly concerned with self-image) to gain mianzi at the expense of lian in the

end will cost one both (Mao 1994)

Mianzi vs. Lian Possible to lose Mianzi

but gain lian Example: J.J. Chan Courageous Disc-Jockey Give AIDS

Campaign a Friendly Spin A 25-year old local disc-jockey suffering

from AIDS is sharing his story to help educate the public about the disease.

J J Chan’s family is proof that AIDS is no hindrance to a happy home life, even after its youngest member got the killer virus four years ago.

"I told my family, thinking that they might throw me out. But on the contrary, my sister and brother encouraged me. They told me I had not committed a crime and it was just a kind of illness."

Isn’t he worried that his television appearance could cause people to stare at him in the streets?

"No. Just let them stare. I want to educate the next generation. Today’s youngsters are very promiscuous," he says, adding that promoting sex education is not enough.

Culture and Written Discourse

Kaplan (1966) linearity vs. circularity Directness vs. indirectness and digression

Kirkpatrick (1991, 1993) Main>Subordinate vs. Subordinate>Main

Ulijn and St Amant (2000) High vs. Low Context > Directness

Chinese Honorifics (Formality, Hierarchy, Modesty)

Task

Look at the two examples of sales letters Pay attention to the order of information and

other strategies of rhetoric that are used What differences can you see? Can you relate any of these differences to

the concepts we have been discussing?

Zhu 2000

Chinese Sales Letters

Greeting Introduction ‘We’ approach Indirect requests

English Sales Letters

Headline P.S. ‘You’ approach Direct requests