The Individual Construction of Meaning Through the Perception

The individual construction of meaning through the perception of impoliteness the aspects of face most frequently endangered in Serbia Ivan Stamenkovi

The individual construction of meaning through the perception of impoliteness the aspects of face most frequently endangered in Serbia

Ivan StamenkoviDEFINITION[The role of the Politeness Principle is] "to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place." (Leech, 1983: 82)"... politeness, like formal diplomatic protocol (for which it must surely be the model), presupposes that potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and makes possible communication between potentially aggressive parties." (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 1)impoliteness, the use of strategies that are designed to have the opposite effect - that of social disruption. These strategies are oriented towards attacking face, an emotionally sensitive concept of the self (Culpeper 1996).GOALHow the meaning of impolite utterances is constructed by individuals through the perception of face attackThe aim of this paper is to ascertain how individuals attribute meaning to an impolite utterance by exploring which of the five aspects of face defined by Spencer-Oatey (2000) is primarily targeted by impoliteness in Serbia.Analytical framework used is Spencer-Oateys rapport management (e.g. 2000), which postulates various aspects of face (Quality face, Social identity face, Relational face, Equity rights and Association rights)A corpus of 100 entries containing impoliteness situations gathered via an online survey was analyzed FACE[] the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself. (Goffman 1967: 5) Positive face: desiretogaintheapprovalofothersorthepositiveconsistentself-imageor personality . . . claimed by interactantsNegative face: desire to be unimpeded by others in ones actions, the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction . . . freedom of action and freedom from imposition(Brown and Levinson 1987: 61)

Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and TurkeyCulpeper et al. Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness based on 500 impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey Quantitative analysis suggests that three of the five categories of Spencer-Oatey's framework are key ones, namely, quality face, equity rights and association rights England-based data has a preponderance of impoliteness events in which quality face is violated, whereas the China-based data has a preponderance where equity rights are violatedcomplementary distribution for the English and Turkish datasets, such that when quality face is high, sociality rights are low, and for the Chinese and German datasets, such that when sociality rights are high, quality face is low

ResultsQuality faceSocial identity faceRelational faceEquity rightsAssociation rightsChina33453424England541101416Finland40702422Germany37242333Turkey58831612ResultsResultsThe QuestionnairePlease describe a situation in which somebody said something to you that made you feel bad (e.g. hurt, offended, embarrassed, humiliated, threatened, put upon, obstructed, or ostracized). Narrate in your own words; perhaps write it as a play dialogue: we are not looking for a technical description.(1a) what was actually said, implied or done? (1b) how was it said, implied or done (e.g. was it something about the pronunciation?)? (2a) where was it said, implied or done (e.g. in class, on the bus)? (2b) by whom was it said, implied or done (e.g. what was your relationship with them?)? (2c) were there were others who heard it too? (3) what were your reactions (e.g. what did you say, imply or do)?(1) We know you felt "bad", but describe your feelings(2) Why did this particular behaviour make you feel bad?" Boxes allowing for a few lines of text were supplied for responses. How would you describe the behaviour of the person who made you feel bad (how would you label this kind of behaviour?)?

Respondents ageUnder 1818293059Over 60280162Under 1818293059Over 60China0100 00England09820Finland09910Germany09910Turkey010000Respondents genderFemaleMaleEngland7921China6733Finland8911Germany7327Turkey6436Serbia6040Quality faceWe have a fundamental desire for people to evaluate us positively in terms of our personal qualities; e.g. our competence, abilities, appearance etc. Quality face is concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of such personal qualities as these, and so is closely associated with our sense of personal self-esteem.The values pertain to the constellation of personal attributes that distinguish a person as a unique individual in their social worldDoes the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters positive values which a participant claims not only to have as a specific individual but to be assumed by other participant(s) as having?Quality faceIn high school, when my teacher told me in front of the whole class that I was stupid and that I was empty-headed. He wanted to make fun of me in front of everyone so as to inspire me to study, but his sentence had a completely opposite effect.His tone was quite serious, but he was smiling to the other students.I did not dare say anything, he was my teacher.I was hurt and angry, tears came rolling down my cheeks, but I managed to control my emotions so he would not notice. I was aggravated because he said that in front of everyone and because it's not nice to talk to students in this manner.Social identity faceWe have a fundamental desire for people to acknowledge and uphold our social identities or roles, e.g. as group leader, valued customer, close friend. Social identity face is concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of social or group roles, and is closely associated with our sense of public worthShift towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some social category and away from the perception of self as a unique personDoes the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters positive values which a participant claims not only to have in common with all other members in a particular group, but to be assumed by other participant(s) as having?Social identity faceI was traveling with my colleagues to school when I started a conversation with a colleague about the characteristics of our colleagues. The colleague teaches a subject related to economy. In the middle of the conversation, she called me cranky. She did not even make it sound like a joke. Then he began to generalize about all the people that share my profession (I teach mathematics) and said that we were all the same. It went so far that she finally asked me what has to be wrong with a person in order for him/her to decide to study mathematics, since she saw no point in that. She wanted to glorify her profession and to debase mine in order to hurt me indirectly.I tried to answer, but I was not in the mood for a lengthy discussion.All the other colleagues were silent and smiling because they found the debate interesting, so nobody stood up for me. The generalization was very insulting, how can one make such a conclusion based on your profession?Relational faceSometimes there can also be a relational application; for example, being a talented leader and/or a kind-hearted teacher entails a relational component that is intrinsic to the evaluation reflects who a person is in relation to his or her significant others Like relational selves, then, collective selves entail some degree of connection with others. However, whereas relational selves involve a connection with known, identifiable significant other or group of significant others, collective selves designate connections with individuals whose identities may not be knownDoes the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters positive values about the relations which a participant claims not only to have with a significant other or others but to be assumed by that/ those significant other(s) and/ or other participant(s) as having?Relational faceThe mother of a student of mine said that I was not able to cope with a group of children which included her son. Everybody had problems with this group of students due to their (lack of) discipline.She implicitly wanted to say that I was not capable. I said that I did not agree with her attitude because everybody had problems with this group, and everybody was complaining about them and their behavior. I was the only one trying to solve this problem. I did not agree with her attitude and I do not want to be talked about as an incapable teacher while the mother herself did not see her own fault in raising her child which caused him to have a lot of problems in school.Equity rightsPeople have a fundamental belief that they are entitled to personal consideration from others and to be treated fairly; in other words, that they are not unduly imposed upon, that they are not unfairly ordered about, and that they are not taken advantage of or exploited. This principle [] seems to have three components: cost-benefit considerations (the principle that people should not be exploited or disadvantaged), fairness and reciprocity (the belief that costs and benefits should be "fair" and kept roughly in balance), and autonomy-control (the belief that people should not be unduly controlled or imposed upon)Does the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters a state of affairs in which a participant considers that they are not unduly exploited, disadvantaged, unfairly dealt with, controlled or imposed upon?Equity rightsI was paying for the goods I purchased in a store.I was paying with my debit card and I gave it to the cashier.Her: Tell me your PIN code.Me: What do you mean?I can not tell you that.I'll type it myself.Her: (impertinently) Well, we have a short cable.Me: I'll stretch my arm, then.I stretch out my hand and I type in the PIN.She: (sarcastically) Ha!I can see the PIN all the same.I really do not know what she wanted.She was probably hoping to look smart and make it seem she's right, and she turned out to be rude.It was very insolent, arrogant and spiteful.The problem wasthat I did not respond.I was speechless.I was so stunned by her rude behaviour and vulgarity that I couldn't speak a word.If I had said something, it probably you wouldn't have affected me so much :) If I'd told her that she was rude because she was looking, I probably would not have remembered this event for so long.Association rightsPeople have a fundamental belief that they are entitled to an association with others that is in keeping with the type of relationship that they have with them. This principle [...] seems to have three components: involvement (the principle that people should have appropriate amount and types of "activity" involvement with others), empathy (the belief that people should share appropriate concerns,feelings and interests with others), and respect (the belief that people should show appropriate amounts of respectfulness for others)Does the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters a state of affairs in which a participant considers that they have an appropriate level of behavioural involvement and sharing of concerns, feelings and interests with others, and are accorded an appropriate level of respect? Association rightsI was in the hospital for some examinations during my pregnancy because there was a risk of diabetes.I spent the whole night and an entire day in the hospital, and a friend, who had not called for months and who I considered to be one of my best buddies, contacted me asking if I would soon be going on a shopping tour that we mentioned ages ago.When I told him that I had a problem and that I was in the hospital, he just told me that it's probably not a big deal and continued to talk about the trip.He did not care about my health condition.He spoke to me in an indifferent tone, as if he did not care how I feel.I think my health is more important than he that stupid trip, I was under a lot of stress about these views examinations and I needed the support of friends, which was lacking.I thought that friends should take care of each other.Survey resultsQuality faceSocial identity faceRelational faceEquity rightsAssociation rights3610142812Survey resultsComparative resultsQuality faceSocial identity faceRelational faceEquity rightsAssociation rightsChina33453424England541101416Finland40702422Germany37242333Turkey58831612Serbia3610142812Comparative resultsComparative resultsConclusionsWestern vs. EasternSerbia diverges from the patternSocial roles are very important in SerbiaMany informal associations of a friendly character vs. Germany, where activities are limited to a small group of long-standing friends Reciprocity is important, just like China

ReferencesSpencer-Oatey, H. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 529545. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport : unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.Journal of Politeness Research1(1): 95 119. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349367. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M. and Schauer, G. 2010. Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: a study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4): 597624. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.