Individually and socially-based understandings in researching professional discourse
List of Authors
  • Arundale, Robert B.

Keyword
  • Professional discourse, individually-based account, socially-based account, face

Abstract
  • Scholars both in the West and in Asia have repeatedly observed that much theorizing on discourse phenomena by Western scholars has privileged explanations in terms of humans as individual beings, rather than in terms of humans as social beings. Key examples in the study of professional discourse are theories explaining face and politeness, with theories of human communication, leadership, and management similarly focused. Face, as one particular example, is a concept drawn from Asian discourse regarding how persons relate to one another, but which in the hands of Western scholars has been re-conceptualized as an attribute of a singular individual, rather than as a social property of persons-in-relationship-to-other-persons. Scholars both in the West and in Asia employ these Western theories in research on professional discourse (Bargiella-Chiappini et al., 2007), there being at present no prominent explanation that privileges explanations in terms of humans as social beings, or more productively, in terms of humans as dialectically both individual beings and social beings. Employing an individually-based account at the expense of a socially-based account is consequential in examining discourse because the way in which a scholar conceptualizes a phenomenon constrains the questions he or she addresses in research, the explanations he or she creates, and the applications of his or her findings.

Reference
  • 1. Arundale, R.B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119-153.
    2. Arundale, R.B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5, 231-260.
    3. Arundale, R.B. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction (pp. 33-54). London: Equinox.
    4. Arundale, R.B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078-2105.
    5. Arundale, R.B. (2012). On understandings of communication: A response to Wedgewood. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 137-159.
    6. Arundale, R.B. (in press a). Conceptualizing “interaction” in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009 .
    7. Arundale, R.B. (in press b). Is face the best metaphor? Sociocultural Pragmatics. doi: 10.1515.soprag-2013-0012.
    8. Arundale, R.B. & Good, D. (2002). Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In A. Fetzer & D. Meierkord (Eds.), Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics meets Conversation Interaction (pp. 120-150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    9. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453-1469.
    10. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Chakorn, O-O., Lay, G.C.C., Jung, Y., Kong, K.C.C., Nair-Venugopal, S., & Tanaka, H. (2007). Eastern voices: Enriching research on communication in a business forum. Discourse Studies, 1, 131-152.
    11. Baxter, L.A. & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & Dialectics. New York: Guilford.
    12. Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, Codes, and Control, Vol. 1. London: Routledge.
    13. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    14. Drew, P. (1995). Conversation analysis. In J.A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 64-79). London: Sage.
    15. Eelen, C. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
    16. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
    17. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.
    18. Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 67, 377-388.
    19. Ho, D. Y. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.
    20. Hoskin, K. (2004). Spacing, timing, and the invention of management. Organization, 11, 743-757.
    21. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of ‘face.’ American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64.
    22. Kelley, R.E. (1992). The Power of Followership. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
    23. Krippendorff, K. (1970). On generating data in communication research. Journal of Communication,20, 241-269.
    24. Locher, M.A. (2008). Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In G. Antos & E. Ventola (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 509-540). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    25. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomema in Japanese, Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
    26. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    27. Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    28. Rosenberger, N.R. (Ed.) (1992). Japanese Sense of Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    29. Sampson, E.E. (1993). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human nature. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    30. Schegloff, E.A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 44-70). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    31. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    32. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 639-656.
    33. Stewart, E.C. & Bennett, M.J. (1991). American Cultural Patterns (Rev. Ed). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.