Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face
Insights from argumentative talk in Iranian dissertation defenses
Ahmad Izadi | Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University
In theorizing face as relational and interactional, Arundale (2010) argues that face
encompasses a dialectic of relational connection and separation, which is culture-general, but can be voiced differently in
different cultures. This paper examines how Arundale’s Face Constituting Theory (FCT) relates to the culture-specific emic
understanding of face in Persian culture in talk in dissertation defense sessions. The data are two argumentative excerpts of
natural interaction from a corpus of 12 PhD defense sessions in Iran. It is first argued that relational connection and separation
is voiced as bonding and differentiation. Second, it is shown how the Persian emic concept of aberu can be
accommodated in FCT. The analyses, grounded in CA and FCT, show how the dialectic of bonding and differentiation is
interactionally achieved in the practices of aberu.
Arundale, Robert B.2006. Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 21: 193–216.
Arundale, Robert B.2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: an alternative to Goffman. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 33–54. London: Equinox.
Arundale, Robert B.2010. Constituting face in conversation: face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2078–2105.
Arundale, Robert B.2013. Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics 581: 108–120.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2003. Face and politeness: new (insights) for (old) concepts. Journal of Pragmatics 351: 1453–1469.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Don, Zuraidah M. & Ahmad Izadi. 2011. Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defences. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3782–3792.
Don, Zuraidah M. & Ahmad Izadi. 2013. Interactionally achieving face in criticism criticism-response exchanges. Language and Communication 331: 221–231.
Drew, Paul & John Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, Zohreh. 2005. Invitations in Persian: Ostensible or genuine. Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (4): 453–480.
Geyer, Naomi, 2008. Discourse and politeness: ambivalent face in Japanese. London: Continuum.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Haugh, Michael. 2005. The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses, Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (1): 41–68.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 31: 295–317.
Haugh, Michael. 2012. Epilogue: The first order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 81: 111–134.
Haugh, Michael & Francisca Bargiela-Chiappini. 2010. Face in interaction, Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2073–2077.
Heritage, John. 2005. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L Fitch & R. Sanders, (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, 103–148. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 181: 349–382.
Izadi, Ahmad. 2012. Talk, Face and Politeness in Dissertation Defenses. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Malaya.
Izadi, Ahmad. 2015. Persian honorifics and [im]politeness as social practice. Journal of Pragmatics 851: 81–91.
Izadi, Ahmad. 2016. Over-politeness in Persion professional interactons. Journal of Pragmatics 1021: 13–23.
Koshik, Irene. 2002. A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1851–1877.
Koutlaki, Sofia. 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tae’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (12): 1733–1756.
Locher, Miriam. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 681: 939–967.
Ruhi, Sükriye. 2010. Face as an indexical category in interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8): 2131–2146.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work, 101–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barabadi, Elyas, Kay Brauer, René T. Proyer & Mohsen Rahmani Tabar
2023. Examining the role of gelotophobia for willingness to communicate and second language achievement using self- and teacher ratings. Current Psychology 42:6 ► pp. 5095 ff.
2023.
Referral for re-submission: Scholarly Expectations of EFL Applied Linguistics Doctoral Defense Sessions. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 11:1 ► pp. 160 ff.
2024. The in-group ritual of self-denigration in Iranian doctoral defense sessions: applied linguists’ attitudes, functions and perceptions in focus. Journal of Politeness Research 20:2 ► pp. 397 ff.
Rodziewicz (مجدلينا رودزييفيتش), Magdalena
2022. The Status of Ābirū in Contemporary Iranian Shīʿī Narratives. Journal of Islamic Ethics 6:2 ► pp. 257 ff.
Lantsoght, Eva O. L.
2021. Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Defense in Relation to Sociodemographic Characteristics. Education Sciences 11:9 ► pp. 463 ff.
Lantsoght, Eva O. L.
2023. Doctoral defence formats. Studies in Higher Education 48:2 ► pp. 343 ff.
Sadeghi, Karim & Zahra Jalilzadeh Mohammadi
2021. Compliment Response (CR) patterns among English vs. Persian teachers: Cultural transmission of CR behavior?. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 17:1-2 ► pp. 153 ff.
Izadi, Ahmad
2018. The epistemic grounds of face in institutional argumentative talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 134 ► pp. 45 ff.
Izadi, Ahmad
2023. On the moral grounds of professional argumentative talk: English-mediated talk in Iranian PhD dissertation defences. Discourse Studies 25:3 ► pp. 342 ff.
Izadi, Ahmad
2023. On Face and Face-Work in Iran: From Etic Theories to Emic Practices. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 24:3 ► pp. 199 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.