All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Identity Implications of Influence Goals: A Causal Model of Perception and Management of Face Threats
Unformatted Document Text:  Identity Implications 3 Wilson and colleagues’ revised analysis (Cai & Wilson, 2000, Wilson et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 1999; Wilson et al., 1991/1992; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000) makes assumptions about: (a) the origins of face threats during compliance-gaining episodes and (b) how participants manage face threats. Assumptions About the Origin of Face Threats Drawing from politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), it is presumed that individuals in all cultures desire to maintain "face," which can be subdivided into two wants. Positive face is the desire to have one's attributes and actions approved of by significant others. Negative face is the desire to maintain one's autonomy and be free from unnecessary constraint. Face wants are interdependent; hence, persons have motives to support their interaction partner's face while maintaining their own. It is also presumed that many speech acts "intrinsically" threaten face, or by definition run contrary to the face wants of the speaker or hearer. Speech act theory, with its analysis of the constitutive rules that define speech acts, contains part of the answer to how face threats arise from seeking compliance. Directives (Searle, 1976), or speech acts designed to get a hearer to perform an action that s/he otherwise would not have performed (e.g., requests, recommendations), are defined by a set of constitutive rules, including that: (a) there is a need for the desired action to be performed; (b) there is a need for a directive (i.e., the target already was not planning to perform the action); (c) the target plausibly might be willing or obligated, as well as able, to perform the desired action; (d) the source has the right to issue this directive; and (e) the source sincerely wants the desired action performed (Labov & Fanshel, 1977, pp. 77-82; Searle, 1969, pp. 64-71). Seeking compliance presumes that the message target plausibly may be willing to perform a desired action (or else there is no sense in asking) and that the target was not

Authors: Morgan, Wendy., Wilson, Steven., Aleman, Carlos., Anastasiou, Lefki., Kim, Min-Sun. and Oetzel, John.
first   previous   Page 3 of 37   next   last



background image
Identity Implications 3
Wilson and colleagues’ revised analysis (Cai & Wilson, 2000, Wilson et al., 1998;
Wilson et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 1999; Wilson et al., 1991/1992; Wilson & Kunkel, 2000)
makes assumptions about: (a) the origins of face threats during compliance-gaining episodes and
(b) how participants manage face threats.
Assumptions About the Origin of Face Threats
Drawing from politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), it is presumed that
individuals in all cultures desire to maintain "face," which can be subdivided into two wants.
Positive face is the desire to have one's attributes and actions approved of by significant others.
Negative face is the desire to maintain one's autonomy and be free from unnecessary constraint.
Face wants are interdependent; hence, persons have motives to support their interaction partner's
face while maintaining their own.
It is also presumed that many speech acts "intrinsically" threaten face, or by definition
run contrary to the face wants of the speaker or hearer. Speech act theory, with its analysis of the
constitutive rules that define speech acts, contains part of the answer to how face threats arise
from seeking compliance. Directives (Searle, 1976), or speech acts designed to get a hearer to
perform an action that s/he otherwise would not have performed (e.g., requests,
recommendations), are defined by a set of constitutive rules, including that: (a) there is a need for
the desired action to be performed; (b) there is a need for a directive (i.e., the target already was
not planning to perform the action); (c) the target plausibly might be willing or obligated, as well
as able, to perform the desired action; (d) the source has the right to issue this directive; and (e)
the source sincerely wants the desired action performed (Labov & Fanshel, 1977, pp. 77-82;
Searle, 1969, pp. 64-71). Seeking compliance presumes that the message target plausibly may be
willing to perform a desired action (or else there is no sense in asking) and that the target was not


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 37   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.