Face and cultural conceptualizations in German-Brazilian business exchanges
Following up on recent calls for studies dealing with first-order understandings of face (Arundale 2013; Haugh 2013), this paper presents arguments in favor of an empirical investigation of cultural conceptualizations (Sharifian 2011) underlying these first-order (or emic) models. The arguments are based on the findings of a study on business communication in international contexts (Mendes de Oliveira 2020). The study comprises the analysis of (a) interviews with business people from different sectors and (b) a compilation of e-mails exchanged by Brazilian and German employees of a healthcare company. I focus specifically on conceptualizations of ‘respect in business negotiations’ (Mendes de Oliveira 2017) as well as on their pragmatic instantiations in e-mails. For instance, the recurrent image schema vertical splitting in the Brazilian interview excerpts on the topic of respect in business negotiations is shown to be pragmatically instantiated in terms of how participants acknowledge ‘hierarchy’ in their construals of face in e-mail interactions. The image schema horizontal splitting is shown to be related to how German participants construe ‘face’ as a transactional phenomenon in the e-mail exchanges. I conclude that cultural conceptualizations play an important role in the Brazilian and German emic models of face. Future studies can take the reflections presented in this paper into consideration in order to strengthen the arguments that favor the inclusion of culturally-based views on face into an overarching theoretical model of face (Arundale 2013).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Face
- 3.E-mail sequences
- 4.Cultural conceptualizations
- 5.Methodological procedures
- 6.Cultural conceptualizations of respect in business negotiations for Brazilian and German business people
- 7.The interplay of cultural conceptualizations, sequence choice, and face strategies in business e-mails
- 8.Concluding remarks
- Endnotes
-
References
References (40)
Arundale, R.
(
2006)
Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness.
Journal of Politeness Research 2(2), 193–216.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arundale, R.
(
2010)
Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement.
Journal of Pragmatics 42(8), 2078–2105.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arundale, R. B.
(
2013)
Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives.
Journal of Pragmatics 581, 108–120.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baxter, L., & Montgomery, B.
(
1996)
Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford, New York.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatia, V. K.
(
1993)
Analysing genre–language use in professional settings. London: Longmann.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatia, V. K.
(
2001)
Analyzing genre: Some conceptual issues. In
M. Hewings (Ed.),
Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 79–92). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bou-Franch, P.
(
2006)
Solidarity and deference in Spanish computer-mediated communication: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of students’ emails to lecturers. In
P. Bou Franch (Ed.),
Ways into discourse (pp. 61–79). Granada: Comares.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(
1987 [1978])
Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chang, W., & Haugh, M.
(
2011)
Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics 43(12), 2948–2963.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chang, W.
(
2013)
Face and face practices in talk-in-interaction: An empirical analysis of Taiwanese business interactions, PhD thesis, Griffith University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dillon, R.
(
2015)
Respect. In
E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), available at
[URL] date of access April 2nd, 2016.
Dörnyei, Z.
(
2007)
Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, E.
(
1955)
On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
Psychiatry 18(3), 213–231.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, E.
(
1967)
Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grainger, K., Mills, S., & Sibanda, M.
(
2010)
“Just tell us what to do”: Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication.
Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2158–2171.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, J.
(
1999)
On interactional sociolinguistic method. In:
S. Sarangi; &
C. Robert (Eds.),
Talk, work and institutional order (pp. 453–472). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haugh, M.
(
2013)
Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness.
Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 46–73.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M.
(
1987)
The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskés, I.
(
2008)
Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.
Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskés, I.
(
2014)
Intercultural pragmatics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2002)
Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2005)
Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsumoto, Y.
(
1988)
Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese.
Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–426.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mendes de Oliveira
(
2020)
Business negotiations in ELF from a cultural linguistic perspective. [
Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 43]. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, G.
(
1996)
Toward a theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pearson, V., & Stephan, W.
(
1998)
Preferences for styles of negotiation: A comparison of Brazil and the US.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 67–83.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H-G.
Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H. G.
(
2010)
Investigating culture from a linguistic perspective: An exemplification with Hong Kong English.
Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 58(3), 281–303.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A.
(
1999)
Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis.
Discourse Studies, 1(4), 405–435.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schröder, U.
(
2014)
The interplay of (im)politeness, conflict styles, rapport management, and metacommunication in Brazilian–German interaction.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(1), 57–82.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schröder, U.; Mendes de Oliveira, M.; Nascimento, T.
manuscript).
The ‘Olympic spirit’ from a cross-cultural perspective: a cognitive-pragmatic analysis.
Sørensen, H. E.
(
2012)
Business development. In
D. Teece &
M. Augier (Eds.),
The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1–2). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J.
(
2004)
Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J., & Feak, C.
(
2003)
English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wenger, E.
(
1998)
Communities of practice: Learning as a social system.
Systems thinker, 9(5), 2–3.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wierzbicka, A.
(
2003)
The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolf, H.-G.
(
2015)
Language and culture in intercultural communication. In
F. Sharifian (Ed.),
The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 445–459). Oxford, New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
de Oliveira, Milene Mendes & Melisa Stevanovic
2024.
Interculturality and decision making: Pursuing jointness in online teams.
Intercultural Pragmatics 21:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.