(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport:

Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships

HELEN SPENCER-OATEY

Abstract
This paper takes rapport (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2002) as its central concern, since (im)politeness is typically associated in some way with harmonious/conflictual interpersonal relations. The paper discusses the factors that
influence peoples dynamic perceptions of rapport, and proposes that there
are three key elements: behavioral expectations, face sensitivities, and interactional wants. The paper explores the components of these three elements and uses authentic discourse data to illustrate how peoples judgments about rapport can be unpackaged in relation to these elements. The
approach enables us to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that
influence peoples dynamic judgments of rapport, which is essential if we
are to understand how and why problems of rapport occur.
Keywords: Face; politeness; rapport; values; identity; culture
1. Introduction
Linguists have been debating the nature of politeness for a very long
time and are still not agreed on exactly what it is. Some have explained it
in terms of face (e. g., Brown and Levinson 1987); others have proposed
politeness maxims to explain it (e. g., Leech 1983, Gu 1990); yet others
have taken a normative approach and argued either that it entails the
upholding of a conversational contract (e. g., Fraser 1990) or that it is
appropriate but marked behavior (e. g., Watts 2003, Locher 2004). Despite all of these differences, everyone seems to agree that it is associated
in some way with harmonious/conflictual interpersonal relations, which
Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2002) labels rapport management.
This paper takes rapport management as its central concern, and explores the factors that influence peoples dynamic perceptions of rapport.
It does not try to link linguistic structures with these perceptions, beJournal of Politeness Research 1 (2005), 95119

1612-5681/05/0010095
Walter de Gruyter

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

96

Helen Spencer-Oatey

cause as Fraser and Nolan (1981: 96) point out, no sentence is inherently polite or impolite. Nor does it describe how (im)politeness, face
and/or rapport are dynamically managed in interaction. Instead, it focuses on the bases of rapport management judgments, and proposes that
there are three key elements: behavioral expectations, face sensitivities,
and interactional wants. The paper unpackages the components of these
three elements, so that we can gain a deeper understanding of the factors
that influence peoples dynamic judgments. This is essential if we are to
understand how and why clashes or differing evaluations occur.
2. Rapport (Management)
Rapport refers to the relative harmony and smoothness of relations between people, and rapport management refers to the management (or
mismanagement) of relations between people.
As Spencer-Oatey (2000: 2930) points out, people can hold differing
types of rapport orientations towards each other. For example, they can
hold a rapport-enhancement orientation (a desire to strengthen or enhance harmonious relations between the interlocutors), a rapport-maintenance orientation (a desire to maintain or protect harmonious relations), a rapport-neglect orientation (a lack of concern or interest in the
quality of relations, perhaps because of a focus on self), or a rapportchallenge orientation (a desire to challenge or impair harmonious relations). Peoples motives for these various orientations can be various,
and of course, their orientations can change dynamically during the
course of an interaction or series of interactions.
I take the management of rapport, therefore, to include not only behavior that enhances or maintains smooth relations, but any kind of
behavior that has an impact on rapport, whether positive, negative, or
neutral.
As people interact with each other, they make dynamic judgments as
to whether their rapport has been enhanced, maintained or damaged.
These judgments (conscious or otherwise) are based to a large extent on
assessments of three key bases of rapport and their interrelationships:
behavioral expectations, face sensitivities and interactional wants. The
following sections unpackage these in turn.
3. Behavioral Expectations and (Im)Politeness
3.1 What is (Im)Politeness?
Brown and Levinson (1987), in their seminal work on politeness, propose that face is the key motivating force underlying it. They maintain

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

97

that certain illocutionary acts, such as requests, suggestions, offers and

compliments are inherently face-threatening, and that speakers must select appropriate linguistic strategies in order to mitigate this face-threat
and hence be polite. They thus take an absolute approach to politeness, by pre-identifying the types of communicative messages that require politeness and the linguistic strategies needed for conveying it.
Leech (1983) similarly takes an absolute approach to politeness. He
identifies a number of politeness maxims, such as the Tact Maxim (minimize cost to other, maximize benefit to other) and the Approbation
Maxim (minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other) and implies that the more a maxim is upheld, the more polite the person will be.
Numerous authors have challenged this perspective. For example,
many people (e. g., Gu 1990, Spencer-Oatey 2000) have pointed out that
the illocutionary acts identified by Brown and Levinson (1987) as facethreatening are not always so, and others (e. g., Spencer-Oatey and Jiang
2003) have claimed that the universal valences of Leechs politeness
maxims do not apply in all cultures or speech contexts. Moreover, many
people (e. g., Fraser and Nolan 1981, Holmes 1995, Watts 2003, and
Locher 2004) have argued convincingly that politeness is a contextual
judgment: that no linguistic structures can be identified as inherently
polite or impolite, and that we cannot (and should not) try to predict
when and how speakers of a language will produce linguistic politeness
(Watts 2003: 160).
In line with this perspective, I take (im)politeness to be the subjective
judgments that people make about the social appropriateness of verbal
and non-verbal behavior. In other words, it is not behavior per se that
is polite, politic (Watts 2003) or impolite; rather (im)politeness is an
evaluative label that people attach to behavior, as a result of their subjective judgments about social appropriateness. I take (im)politeness to
be an umbrella term that covers all kinds of evaluative meanings (e. g.,
warm, friendly, considerate, respectful, deferential, insolent, aggressive,
rude). These meanings can have positive, negative or neutral connotations, and the judgments can impact upon peoples perceptions of their
social relations and the rapport or (dis)harmony that exists between
them.
Peoples judgments about social appropriateness are based primarily
on their expectations, which in turn are derived from their beliefs about
behavior: what is prescribed, what is permitted and what is proscribed.
Prescribed behavior is behavior that is regarded as legally and/or socially
obligatory: people are obliged to produce it, and others expect (and believe they have the right) to experience it. Conversely, proscribed behavior is behavior that is legally and/or socially forbidden (e. g., racist remarks): people are obliged to avoid it, and others have the right NOT

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

98

Helen Spencer-Oatey

to experience it. Prescribed behavior that is omitted, and proscribed behavior that is not avoided, is typically experienced as negatively
eventful (Goffman, 1967: 7). Behavior that is perceived in this way has
been labelled non-politic or impolite by Watts (2003) and rude by
Kasper (1990).
Permitted behavior is behavior that is allowed, but neither technically
prescribed nor proscribed. Some permitted behavior is not socially expected, but if it is socially desirable, it is perceived as positively
eventful when it occurs (labeled polite by Watts 2003, and Kasper
1990). On the other hand, if it is not particularly socially salient, it may
simply pass unnoticed (labelled politic by Watts 2003 and non-polite
by Kasper 1990). However, some permitted behavior is so common and
expected that it comes to be regarded as obligatory, and so if it is omitted, it may be regarded as impolite or rude.
As Watts (2003: 160) maintains, a social model of politeness needs to
offer ways in which we as researchers can show when and perhaps why
individual users of language in socio-communicative verbal interaction
classify utterances as polite, politic or impolite, and it must allow us to
account for why individuals agree or disagree on what is and what is
not (im)polite language. In other words, the bases of (im)politeness
judgments need too be unpacked, and so the next section focuses on this.
3.2 The Bases of (Im)Politeness Judgments
Behavioral expectations, and the (im)politeness judgments that derive
from them, have several interconnected bases, as shown in Figure 1.
Some expectations are based on contractual/legal agreements and
requirements, such as the provision of equal opportunities of employment, and the avoidance of discriminatory behavior. Other expectations
are based on role specifications, which can sometimes be explicit (such
as the duties specified in a job contract), but typically involve a very
large amount of implicit specifications.

Cost-benefit
Equity Principle
Contractual/legal
Agreements & Requirements

Interactional
Principles

Fairness (incl. reciprocity)

Autonomy-Control
Involvement

Association Principle

Bases of Behavioural
Expectations
Explicit

Implicit

Empathy
Respectfulness

Role Specifications
Behavioural Conventions,
Norms & Protocols

Figure 1. The Bases of Behavioral Expectations.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

99

Very frequently, behavioral expectations are based on behavioral conventions, norms and protocols. For example, work groups develop conventions for handling team meetings, such as whether there is an agenda
and if so, how strictly it is adhered to, and whether people can sit where
they like or whether they sit according to status or role. These conventions are normative rather than black-letter duties (Moghaddam et al.
2000: 282), but nevertheless they can often develop prescriptive and
proscriptive overtones which then influence expectations about behavioral responsibilities, and trigger (im)politeness judgments. Closely related to communicative conventions are social protocols and rituals
formulaic and/or ritualistic behaviors that play, for example, a social
indexing function or show consideration for face. For instance, there
may be ritual phrases or behavior that are expected when people meet
each other, when people are about to start eating a meal, or when they
are celebrating a particular event.
Conventions and protocols are typically contextually based, and vary
according to a range of contextual variables such as the type of communicative activity, the nature of the communicative setting (macro and
micro), and the nature of the participant relations (e. g., hierarchical or
equal). Moreover, these conventions exist across a range of domains,
including the following identified by Spencer-Oatey (2000: 1920):
the illocutionary domain (the performance of speech acts such as apologies, requests, and compliments)
the discourse domain (the discourse content and structure of an interchange, including topic choice and the organisation and sequencing
of information)
the participation domain (the procedural aspects of an interchange,
such as turn-taking [overlaps and inter-turn pauses, turn-taking rights
and obligations], the inclusion/exclusion of people present, and the
use/non-use of listener responses [verbal and non-verbal])
the stylistic domain (the stylistic aspects of an interchange, such as
choice of tone (for example, serious or joking), choice of genre-appropriate lexis and syntax, and choice of genre-appropriate terms of address or use of honorifics)
the non-verbal domain (the non-verbal aspects of an interchange, such
as gestures and other body movements, eye contact, and proxemics)
Behavioral expectations can also result from interactional principles. Interactional principles are similar in many respects to conversational
maxims (Leech 1983, Gu 1990), except that they are more closely associated with values and/or beliefs, are scalar in nature and are very contextually dependent (cf. Spencer-Oatey and Jiang 2003). I propose that
there are two superordinate principles: the equity principle and the association principle. These two principles complement each other, and can

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

100

Helen Spencer-Oatey

be given different importance weightings, depending on the context and/

or personal preferences.
According to the equity principle, people 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 helps to uphold peoples independent construals of self (Markus and Kitayama 1991), and 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). The equity principle results in
behavioral expectations in each of these respects; for example, that a
costly request should be worded differently from a minor request, that
a favour should be reciprocated, and that a superior at work can only
make work-related demands on an employee. (Clearly, the exact nature these expectations will vary between cultural groups and individuals, and also depend on role specifications and behavioral conventions.)
According to the association principle, people 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
helps to uphold peoples interdependent construals of self, and seems to
have three components: involvement (the principle that people should
have appropriate amounts 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).
The association principle leads to behavioral expectations in each of
these respects; for example, that friends should visit or telephone each
other on a regular basis, that a teacher should show concern for his/
her students personal welfare, and that a young person should show
respectfulness towards elderly people. (Once again, the exact nature and
outworkings of these responsibilities, and the expectations that are associated with them, will vary between cultural groups and individuals, and
will also depend on role specifications and behavioral conventions.)
People develop expectations in respect to each of these elements, and
these then form the bases of their (im)politeness judgments.
4. Face
4.1 What is Face?
Brown and Levinson (1987: 61), in their seminal work on politeness,
define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

101

for himself, and propose that it consists of two related aspects, negative
face and positive face. In their model, negative face is a persons want
to be unimpeded by others, the desire to be free to act as s/he chooses
and not be imposed upon; and positive face is a persons want to be
appreciated and approved of by selected others, in terms of personality,
desires, behavior, values, and so on. In other words, negative face represents a desire for autonomy, and positive face represents a desire for approval.
Many linguists have challenged Brown and Levinsons (1987) conceptualization of face. For example, Matsumoto (1988), Ide (1989) and Mao
(1994) all refer to the importance of social identity as a concept in
Japanese and Chinese societies. Matsumoto (1988: 405), for instance,
argues as follows:
What is of paramount concern to a Japanese is not his/her own territory, but the position in relation to the others in the group and his/
her acceptance by those others. Loss of face is associated with the
perception by others that one has not comprehended and acknowledged the structure and hierarchy of the group. ... A Japanese generally must understand where s/he stands in relation to other members
of the group or society, and must acknowledge his/her dependence on
the others. Acknowledgement and maintenance of the relative position
of others, rather than preservation of an individuals proper territory,
governs all social interaction.
In other words, Matsumotos (1988) criticisms of Brown and Levinson
(1987) are twofold: that they have ignored the interpersonal or social
perspective on face, and that they have over-emphasized the notion of
individual freedom and autonomy.
In line with this, Mao (1994) suggests that two competing forces shape
our interactional behavior: the ideal social identity, and the ideal individual autonomy. The ideal social identity motivates members of a community to associate themselves with each other and to cultivate a sense
of homogeneity. The ideal individual autonomy, on the other hand, motivates members to preserve their freedom of action and to mark off
separate and almost inviolable space. Mao (1994) labels the preference
for one over the other relative face orientation, and points out that
his distinction corresponds to a large extent to that between independent
and interdependent construals of self (e. g., see Markus and Kitayama,
1991; Morisaki and Gudykunst, 1994; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998).
Similarly, Scollon and Scollon (1995: 36) distinguish between involvement face, which is concerned with the persons right and need to be
considered a normal, contributing, or supporting member of society,

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

102

Helen Spencer-Oatey

and independence face, which emphasises the persons right not to be

completely dominated by group or social values, and to be free from the
impositions of others (1995: 37). They explain that both aspects are
intrinsic to face, and that an appropriate balance needs to be maintained
between them: showing too much involvement threatens a persons independence, but granting them too much independence threatens his/her
sense of involvement.
In terms of autonomy and imposition, Gu (1998) denies that such
concerns are only Western concerns. He points out that they do exist in
Eastern cultures, but that they are not regarded as face concerns.
Ho (1994) identifies a further distinction: that whereas Goffmans
(1967) conception of face is situation specific, the Chinese conception of
face is not. For example, Goffman states:
The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact. the persons face clearly is something
that is not lodged in or on his body, but rather something that is
diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter.
Goffman (1967: 5 and 7) (emphases added)
Ho (1994) points out that the Chinese conception of face is not restricted
to situational encounters:
According to the Chinese conception, face may be defined in terms of
the more enduring, publicly perceived attributes that function to locate a persons position in his/her social network. Thus defined, a persons face is largely consistent over time and across situations, unless
there is a significant change in public perceptions of his/her conduct,
performance, or social status.
Ho (1994: 274)
It is important, therefore, to draw a distinction between two fundamental types of face: face that is situation-specific and face that is pan-situational. I propose labeling these respectability face and identity face
respectively.
Respectability face refers to the prestige, honor or good name that
a person or social group holds and claims within a (broader) community.
It incorporates the Chinese notions of mianzi and lian, and corresponds
quite closely to Hos (1976) definition of face:
the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim for himself [herself] from others, by virtue of the relative position he [she]

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

103

occupies in his [her] social network and the degree to which he [she]
is judged to have functioned adequately in that position as acceptably
in his [her] general conduct; the face extended to a person by others
is a function of the degree of congruence between judgments of his
[her] total condition in life, including his [her] actions as well as those
of people closely associated with him [her], and the social expectations
that others have placed upon him [her].
Ho (1976: 883) cited by Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994:50)
With respectability face, it makes sense to think of it in quantitative
terms, and ask how much [respectability] face does a person have? (Ho
1994: 275). This is because respectability face is a composite measure that
reflects the relative weights attributed to attributes such as the following:
biographical variables (e. g., age, sex), relational attributes (e. g., marriage ties), social status indicators (e. g., educational attainment, occupational status, wealth), formal title/position/rank, personal reputation
(moral or amoral) and integrity (Ho, 1994: 276). As Ho points out, different cultures attach varying degrees of importance to different attributes, so the bases of respectability face could be very different in different nations and social groups.
Identity face, on the other hand, is a situation-specific face sensitivity,
that is highly vulnerable. It corresponds fairly closely to Goffmans conception of face:
The term face may be defined as 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) (emphases added)
Key points in this definition of Goffmans are as follows:
Claims to (this type of) face reflect peoples social values
Claims to (this type of) face relate to specific social attributes
Claims to (this type of) face occur in specific social encounters/interactions
In addition, I take identity face to include claims to social group membership.
Since it is identity face rather than respectability face that is threatened
or enhanced in specific interactional encounters, the following section
focuses on identity face.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

104

Helen Spencer-Oatey

4.2 The Bases of Face Sensitivity

As with (im)politeness judgments, people subjectively experience potential or actual face-threats, and these are contextually based judgments
and reactions. It is very important, therefore, also to understand the
bases of face sensitivity. Work within social psychology on self-aspects
(Simon 2004) provides some insights here.
Borrowing from Linville (1985), Simons self-aspect model of identity
maintains that self-interpretation involves a varying number of self-aspects, which are defined as cognitive categories or concepts that serve to
process and organise information about oneself. He suggests that selfaspects can refer, inter alia, to generalized psychological characteristics
or traits (e. g., introverted), physical features (e. g., red hair), roles (e. g.,
father), abilities (e. g., bilingual), tastes (e. g., preference for red wines),
attitudes (e. g., against the death penalty), behaviours (e. g., I work a
lot) and explicit group or category membership (e. g., member of the
Communist Party) (Simon 2004: 45).
I propose that peoples claims to identity face are based on the positive
social values that they associate with their various self-aspects. Some of
their self-aspects are more important to their identity than others, and so
sensitivities develop around these self-aspects. Then, if these self-aspect
sensitivities are challenged or undermined, people may perceive a threat
to their face; conversely, if their sensitivities are ingratiated appropriately, people may perceive an enhancement of their identity face. These
sensitivities occur across a range of elements, including the following:
bodily features and control (e. g., skin blemishes, burping), possessions
and belongings (material and affiliative), performance/skills (e. g., musical performance), social behavior (e. g., gift giving, rude gestures), and
verbal behavior (e. g., wording of illocutionary acts, stylistic choice).
The psychologist Schwartzs work (e. g., Schwartz 1992, Schwartz et
al. 2001) on universal values provides some insights into the types of
positive social values that people may claim for themselves and hence be
sensitive to. In his individual-level analyses, he has identified ten value
constructs, with a structured relationship, that are common across a very
large number of cultures/nationalities. The structured relationship of
these constructs is shown in Figure 2. Table 1 explains the meanings of
the value constructs, and lists some face qualities that are associated
with each of them and that people may claim. Although the details may
need some adjustment, the principle of linking work in social psychology
with that in linguistics on identity, face and values is important.
In terms of Brown and Levinsons (1987) face model, the concerns
that they label as negative face (viz. a persons want to be unimpeded by
others, the desire to be free to act as s/he chooses and not be imposed

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

105

Figure 2. Schwartzs Value Constructs and their Structured Relationship (Based on

Schwartz 1992: 44).

upon) in fact are a reflection of the value construct self-direction. The

concerns they label as positive face (viz. a persons want to be appreciated and approved of by selected others, in terms of personality, desires,
behavior, and so on) are much broader in scope, and can reflect many
of the different value constructs, according to peoples personal and
contextually based value systems. For example, people may claim the
face quality of competence or intelligence, which is associated with the
value construct of achievement; they may claim the face quality of
helpfulness, which is associated with the benevolence value construct;
they may claim the face quality of humility, which is associated with the
tradition value construct, and so on.
People are likely to vary in the importance they attach to all of the
various qualities, both because of their personal value systems and also
because of the context. For example, a new lecturer may particularly
claim face for the self-aspects intelligence and competence in a university setting, and hence be especially sensitive to any student or peer
evaluations that could challenge that claim. With parents, however, s/he

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

106

Helen Spencer-Oatey

Table 1. Schwartzs Value Constructs and their associated Qualities.

Value
Construct

Explanation

Illustrative Associated
Qualities

Power

Social status and prestige, control or

dominance over people and resources

Wealthy, authoritative,
high social status, dominant
Capable, ambitious, intelligent, successful

Achievement

Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-direction
Universalism

Benevolence

Tradition

Conformity

Security

Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards

Pleasure and sensuous gratification for
oneself
Excitement, novelty and challenge in
life
Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring
Understanding, appreciation, tolerance
and protection for the welfare of all
people and for nature
Preservation and enhancement of the
welfare of people with whom one is in
frequent personal contact
Respect, commitment and acceptance
of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the
self
Restraint of actions, inclinations and
impulses likely to upset or harm others
and violate social expectations or
norms
Safety, harmony and stability of society, relationships, and of self

Fun-loving, sensuous
Adventurous, stimulating, daring, enterprising
Independent, free, selfsufficient, unrestrained
Understanding, tolerant, appreciative, peaceloving, considerate
Loyal, helpful, honest,
forgiving, responsible,
caring
Humble, conservative,
traditional

Obedient, restrained,
self-disciplined, polite

Protective, nationalistic

may claim greater face for the self-aspects self-sufficient and independent, or alternatively for the self-aspects respectful and humble.
Moreover, people may claim face for multiple self-aspects simultaneously, and the details of their face claims (and associated sensitivities)
will always be very dependent on the dynamics of the specific interactional context.
4.3 Individual and Group Face
Up to now, it may have seemed as though claims to face are individually
based and relate to a persons personal qualities. However, face can be
a group-based phenomenon, and apply to any group that a person is a
member of and is concerned about. This can include small groups like

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

107

ones family, and larger groups like ones ethnic group, religious group
or nationality group. Following Simon (2004: 49), I take group face
sensitivities to refer to the self-aspects of a persons identity that are
derived from membership in a collective or group, and not to refer to
the identity of a group as a sui generis entity.
As mentioned in section 4.1, psychologists (e. g., Markus and Kitayama 1991) distinguish between independent and interdependent self-construals. In terms of Schwartzs (1992) value constructs, independent selfconstruals are associated with the values self-direction, stimulation, hedonism and achievement, whilst interdependent self-construals are associated with universalism, benevolence, conformity and tradition.
Some people (e. g., Gudykunst et al. 1996) argue that different communicative situations lead to the salience of either an independent selfconstrual or an interdependent self-construal. However, the two can very
often be interconnected, as Anderson (2004: 208) explains when discussing adolescents use of mobile phones: They get a sense of affiliation
and belonging through using the same brand as their peer group and
shared knowledge about what the brand stands for, but at the same time
express individuality through choosing a particular model that is then
personally modified through ringtones, covers, glue-on jewellery or
logos. Similarly, when people participate in team sports such as football
or ice-hockey, they may want to display individual prowess through
scoring or saving a goal, and hence uphold or enhance their independent
self-construal; but at the same time, they may value a sense of belonging
and team camaraderie, which appeals to their interdependent self-construal.
5. Interactional Goals
Sometimes (but not always) people have specific interactional goals
when they interact with others, and when this is the case, these wants
can affect rapport management judgments. Peoples goals may be transactional and aim at achieving a concrete task, such as obtaining written approval for something, clinching a business deal, or finishing a
meeting on time. Alternatively, their goals may be relational, and aim
at effective relationship management, such as peace-making, promoting
friendship, currying favour or exerting control.
Very often, the two types of goals may be interconnected, because
achieving a transactional goal may depend on successfully managing the
relational goal. When this is the case, or when people want to achieve a
particular relational goal, then the management of rapport can be very
strategic (Kasper 1990). If this is noticed and judged to be too strategic,
such behavior is typically evaluated negatively. On the other hand, if a

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

108

Helen Spencer-Oatey

transactional goal is perceived to be urgent and important, then people

may make allowances for any behavior that would typically be judged
inappropriate in different circumstances.
6. Interconnections between Face, (Im)Politeness and Wants
Very often, there is a close inter-connection between (im)politeness, face
and wants, with each impacting upon our perceptions of rapport in a
coherent direction. For example, imagine the following scenario: I make
an appointment to see my senior manager in order to discuss a planning
idea for a project (a transactional want), and travel to the head office to
see her. When I arrive, I find that the meeting has been cancelled at
the last minute, with no clear explanation why. For many people, this
cancellation would be perceived as rude (a breach of behavioral expectations based on role specifications, behavioral norms, and cost-benefit
considerations), could be perceived as face-threatening (a threat to the
persons status, if it is taken as implying that the manager regards her
as unimportant and hence feels able to cancel the meeting at the last
minute and for no clear reason), and it would likely be perceived as very
frustrating (because the transactional want cannot be progressed). In
this instance, all three elements work together to have a negative effect
on the employees perception of rapport with her senior manager.
However, the three elements of (im)politeness, face and wants are conceptually distinct, and can work both independently and in different
directions. For example, if I am in a shop in Britain and the assistant is
indifferent and unhelpful, I may regard her as impolite, but I would
probably not find her behavior face-threatening (although I might do,
particularly if I interpreted her behavior as due to my social group membership such as ethnic or regional group). Conversely, peoples behavior
can be face-threatening, even though it does not breach social appropriateness. For example, I recently helped a Hungarian student, whose English was very weak, to get across London to catch the right train to one
of the London airports. He thanked me profusely, saying Youre a very
kind old lady. His expression of gratitude was socially appropriate, and
so could not be judged as impolite. However, it had a complex impact
on my face sensitivities. It upheld my claims to identity face that are
associated with the qualities of consideration and helpfulness (based on
the value constructs of universalism and benevolence). On the other
hand, it undermined my claim to membership of the social group middle-aged and hence challenged this aspect of my identity.
Sometimes a breach of expectations can actually be face-enhancing,
as the following overheard interaction in a supermarket illustrates. A

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

109

very attractive looking cashier went over to two of her cashier colleagues
and excitedly reported that a young man, who was a complete stranger,
had just been chatting with her at the check-out desk and had then
asked for her telephone number. All three verbally expressed shock at
the audacity of his request (which was a breach of social expectations
within that context). However, from the tone of their voices it was clear
that the girl was very flattered to be asked, and that the other two
plainer girls were disappointed that this had not happened to them.
In other words, the mans behavior breached social expectations and
hence could be judged as rude; on the other hand, it supported the cashiers desired claim to sexual attractiveness and thus enhanced her identity
face in this respect.
Often, though, peoples assessments of face-threat are partly based on
their behavioral expectations because this helps them evaluate whether
any face-threat is deliberate or not, and these can be quite personally
based. The following incident, which took place at a large linguistics
conference, illustrates this. A well-known applied linguist had given a
plenary talk, and afterwards a few people asked a few questions. Then
another well-known applied linguist stood up, and spoke for about five
minutes, stating in an authoritative tone why the plenary speakers talk
was completely flawed. There was some applause from the audience
when he sat down, and this was followed by an embarrassed silence. The
audience was clearly embarrassed on behalf of the plenary speaker, and
probably regarded the vehemence of the attack as inappropriate for that
context. However, after a moments pause, the plenary speaker simply
said, Dont worry. Im used to him behaving like this. From the challengers perspective, the primary interactional want in that context seems
to have been the frank critique of academic positions, and he may have
felt that this gave him the liberty to ignore face sensitivities and to push
the boundaries of behavioral expectations. Yet for most people, such an
attack, even in that context, would be highly face-threatening, undermining their claims to qualities such as competence and intelligence. For the
plenary speaker, it was probably also very face-threatening; however, his
sense of face-threat seems to have been ameliorated, at least partially,
by his knowledge of the individual concerned and the behavior he has
exhibited in the past.
7. Some Analyses
In this section, I use some more extended examples to illustrate how the
bases of rapport judgments can be unpackaged.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

110

Helen Spencer-Oatey

7.1 Invitation/Offer Exchanges in Chinese

Several authors (e. g., Gu 1990, Mao 1994, Chen 1996, Zhu et al. 2000)
have analyzed the discourse of inviting and offering in Chinese, and have
reported that the following kind of interaction is common:
A (Host):
B (Guest):
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:

Come and have dinner with us tomorrow evening.

Oh, thats too much trouble for you, Id better not come.
Its no trouble at all. It will just be a simple meal.
No, really. I know youre extremely busy.
Well, we have to eat anyway, so it wont cause us any extra
bother. Do come.
How about if I just come for a chat but not for dinner?
Youre always inviting me for dinner.
Thats nonsense. You must come. We havent seen you
for ages.
Well, OK then.

Although this example is not fully authentic and the language has been
glossed into somewhat more natural English, it illustrates the repeated
invite-decline pattern that Gu (1990), Mao (1994) and others report.
As Gu (1990) and Chen (1996) point out, to cultural outsiders the
hosts repeated invitations (which often get stronger) can sound very
imposing, and the guests repeated declining behavior can sound ungrateful and/or indicate a lack of willingness to accept. However, in Chinese the hosts behavior typically conveys generosity and warmth, whilst
the guests response shows humility and self-restraint.
What then are the bases for these judgments? The starting point in
this example is the conventions for handling invitations. In Chinese, it
is conventionally expected that the host exhibits insistence, by wording
the invitation strongly and by repeating it several times, and that the
guest displays reluctance by declining the invitation several times. Although this pattern is not formally prescribed (i. e., it is permitted rather
than prescribed behavior), the pattern has become so common and expected in many parts of China that it has come to be regarded as socially
obligatory (although as Chen (1996: 196) points out, this may not apply
in all regions of China).
This pattern may not have developed by chance, though. Rather, it
partly reflects the interactional principles that are important in Chinese
society. For example, the hosts insistence on the guest accepting the
invitation illustrates the interactional principle of association (involvement), and contrasts with common western concerns about imposition
(an aspect of the interactional principle of equity) when giving invi-

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

111

tations. Interestingly, though, the polite excuses used by the guest to

decline the invitation, show concern for equity issues for the host and
for their relationship. For instance, Thats too much trouble for you
illustrates concern for the cost to the host, and Youre always inviting
us shows concern for fairness and balance. The hosts response is to
downplay such concerns.
As Gu (1990), Mao (1994), Chen (1996) and Zhu et al. (2000) all point
out, face sensitivities also play a role. Mao (1994) explains that the host
and the guest each strive to maintain their own and the other persons
face, and that accepting an invitation or offer too quickly would be facethreatening to both the host and the guest. He further explains that this
face-threat would be a direct consequence of the breach of expectations.
Can we unpackage this any further then? It seems that an important
aspect of identity face that both host and guest are claiming in these
interactions is conformity and tradition. For people who attach great
importance to these value constructs, adherence to the traditional
pattern is very important, and any breach is thus likely to be particularly
face-threatening. On the other hand, among individuals or groups where
these value constructs are held less firmly, people will feel freer to interact in different ways, and the conventional pattern thus becomes less
obligatory. In fact, the upholding of the traditional pattern may come
to be interpreted as hypocritical and insincere, as Chen (1996: 154)
found, and then use of the traditional convention can have a negative
rather than positive impact on rapport.
7.2 Chinese-British Business Interactions
The second example draws on data obtained by Spencer-Oatey and Xing
during their study of rapport management in Chinese-British business
interactions, conducted at the University of Luton from 1996 to 2000.
The data analyzed here were collected in England, in the summer of
1997, at the headquarters of a British company, during a 10-day visit by
a Chinese engineering delegation. Three types of data were collected at
that time: video recordings of all the official meetings between the British
and Chinese business people; (2) field notes of supplementary aspects
of the visits; and (3) interview and playback comments made by the
participants. The British and Chinese participants were interviewed separately.
This British company designs, manufactures and sells an engineering
product that is used in industrial plants throughout the world. In every
contract signed in China, they agree to host a delegation of up to six
people who are involved in some way in the deal. The cost of the delegation visit is added to the contract price, and there is an unofficial under-

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

112

Helen Spencer-Oatey

standing that any balance remaining at the end of the visit is given to
the visitors as pocket money.
A number of problematic instances occurred during the visit (for further details see Spencer-Oatey and Xing 2003; 2004), and two of them
are selected for analysis here. All names have been changed; text in italics
is translated from Chinese.
7.2.1 A Problem of Roles
When the visitors arrived, the Sales Manager for China (Tim) was away
on an overseas trip. He was due to arrive back on the Thursday, and so
the Chinese expected to meet him the next day (Friday). When there was
no sign of him by lunchtime, they started asking for his telephone
number, and this continued all over the weekend. In the follow-up interview on the Friday evening, they commented as follows:
Extract 1 (Interview)
Xu:

Tim hasnt shown up yet, right? He should have already

come back yesterday.
Shen:
He should have been back yesterday, yesterday. Today today he didnt show up. This morning he should have taken
us out. We mentioned it to him [the interpreter].
Lin:
Does Tim live in London?
Researcher: I dont know where he lives.
Chen:
In London. London is very close to here, isnt it? Thirtyodd miles, in fact very close. Your old friends from China
are here, and as a matter of fact your major market, right?
So on this occasion cant you come and meet them?
Shen:
And he knew that Mr Xu, senior engineer, was coming.
Tim, however, explained it as follows:
Extract 2 (Interview)
Researcher: But you were not thinking of meeting them directly after
you came back, I mean before this meeting [held on the
Monday]?
Tim:
I was aware they were going to be here, and it was important for me to meet them when I returned, yeah, but
I think I got back on the Thursday night or the Friday
morning. Um, and it was too difficult for me to meet
them during the weekend, um, of course my wife had
expected to see me, my son, I was tired, so I wanted to
wait until Monday.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

113

The Chinese visitors believed that it was prescribed behavior for Tim,
the sales manager for China, to meet with them right after his return,
and were offended when he did not. They based their belief on their
interpretation of his role obligations towards them as old friends
that friends should put themselves out for each other. They also mentioned his task-based interactional wants (to do business successfully in
the Chinese market), and thought that this should have been an added
incentive.
Tim, on the other hand, did not feel it was socially or professionally
obligatory for him to meet them immediately after his return. In fact, he
had only met one of the delegation members once, and the others he
had never met. So to him, they were not old friends. He did not perceive, therefore, any role obligations towards them, and felt that his own
personal needs for rest and time with his family took priority. These
differing perceptions of role obligations are linked to the differing importance that Tim and the Chinese visitors attached to the interactional
principles of association and equity, and their interpretations of group
membership. Tim focused on his personal needs (benefits to himself) and
the needs of his family (involvement with a small social group); the Chinese visitors, on the other hand, focused on his obligations to old
friends (involvement with a larger, more diffuse social group) and believed that he should have sacrificed his personal needs for their sake
(i. e., downplayed the importance of personal benefit).
As a result of these differing interpretations, the Chinese visitors held
expectations of Tim that he was either unaware of or was not willing to
conform to. They became frustrated, annoyed and disappointed, and
made life very difficult for the British people accompanying them over
the weekend. Rapport between them had been damaged.
7.2.2 A Dispute over Money
On the last day of the delegation visit, a few hours before the Chinese
visitors were due to leave, the British company gave each of the visitors
an envelope containing pocket money the cash left over after the
costs of the visit had been deducted from the figure in the contract allocated to the visit. The visitors opened their envelopes, counted the
money, and then claimed that the amount was too little.
Extract 3 (Close-Out meeting)
Phil: Id just like to say its a great pleasure to have you come here.
Thank you very much for coming. Id just like to make a presentation to each of you for [company name].

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

114

Helen Spencer-Oatey

Int: [interprets into Chinese]

Phil: [Phil stands up and presents an envelope to Sun. Sun stands
up, takes it, and shakes hands with him. Phil hands one to Ma,
who also stands up. They shake hands.]
Chen: Take them all together.
Phil: [Phil gives an envelope to each of the others: Chen, Lin, Shen
and Xu.]
[Visitors open their envelopes and count the money inside. Sun
takes a pen and sheet of paper from Sajid, and prepares to sign
the receipt.]
Sun: How much?
Xu: [Counts the money carefully and openly.]
Xu: 570, 570, this doesnt seem enough.
[Heated discussion in Chinese among the visitors. They agree
to ask for a list of the costs.]
Xu: We must definitely have a list of the costs.
Int: How much money did you give them altogether?
Xu: US$ 4000. US$ 4000 per person.
Int: [interprets into English]
Sajid: The contract, the contract doesnt say we have to give them
money.
Int: [interprets into English]
Shen: It does, it does.
Int: [interprets into English]

Xu: How much is the airfare? Ask them to show us the list of costs
Int: [no interpretation]
Sajid: To get a rough idea (???) we (???) that we have to pay you (???)
Sun: All we want is a list.
Int: [no interpretation]
[Note: (???) unintelligible speech]
Shortly after this, the contract was brought in for them all to study, and
attempts were made to list the expenses. However, the argument over
the money continued for another 2 hours and 26 minutes. During this
time, they disagreed with each other over whether the sum identified in
the contract applied to one delegation visit or to two, and hence how
much was allocated for each person in this visit. In addition, the Chinese
claimed that the formal dinners (at which British staff were present)
should not have been counted as an expense, because that would mean
that they were paying for the British to enjoy themselves. At times, emotions ran high.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

115

Extract 4 (Close-out Meeting)

Shen: [speaking to the interpreter] You just tell him. Is it so easy to
bully us Chinese (.) so easy to make fools of us? This money is
what we have been saving out of our mouth. We have had instant
noodles every day just to save some money (.) and now they have
grabbed it. How mean of them to do such a thing.
Int: (5) [interprets into English]
Eventually, Sajid agreed to give them a further 1326, and this was
handed to them moments before they left for the airport.
During this final meeting, the Chinese visitors had a clear transactional goal to obtain the pocket money that they believed they were
due and were hence expecting. The basis of this expectation was the
contractual agreement between the British and Chinese companies. The
Chinese visitors expressed what they wanted bluntly, and argued their
position for a long time, in order to achieve this interactional want.
However, some of the delegation were simultaneously concerned about
the impression that they were leaving, and about the impact of the dispute on their overall reputation. This can be seen from the following remark:
Chen: One thing is that we do not leave people saying that we are stingy,
second, dont give the impression of being too weak, and we
should negotiate in a friendly way.
In other words, Chen was claiming, on behalf of his group (delegation
group and maybe national group), face for several self-aspects: power
(not appearing weak), benevolence (not appearing stingy), and conformity (negotiating in a friendly way the maintenance of harmony is
traditionally stressed in Chinese society; e. g., Gao et al. 1996). He argued that during their attempts to obtain the extra money, they should
simultaneously try to maintain their face in each of these aspects.
In this interaction, therefore, the management of rapport revolved
round all three elements: behavioral expectations, interactional wants,
and face sensitivities. The Chinese visitors believed they were entitled to
more pocket money because of the contractual agreement between the
companies, and they were thus expecting to receive it. When they did
not receive as much money as they were expecting, this triggered a transactional goal (to obtain this extra money) that they then pursued. However, some of the visitors felt that the ruthless pursuit of this goal could
be damaging to their face, and so they tried to balance their interactional
wants with their claims to face.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

116

Helen Spencer-Oatey

8. Dynamic Perceptions of Rapport

As people interact with each other, they make dynamic judgments as to
whether their rapport has been enhanced, maintained or damaged (see
Figure 3). These judgments (conscious or otherwise) are based to a large
extent on assessments of the three key bases of perceptions of rapport:
interactional wants, face sensitivities, and behavioral expectations.
When interlocutors have specific interactional wants, they make dynamic judgments as to whether these wants are being achieved, whether
they are being thwarted, or whether there has been no progress. Similarly, if they are paying attention to interpersonal relations, they make
dynamic judgments as to whether they have gained face, have maintained face (or are in face), have lost face or have had their face threatened. At the same time, they have expectancy reactions to the verbal and
non-verbal behavior that they experience, and perceive it as positively
eventful, negatively eventful, or (when the expected behavior is fulfilled)
simply do not notice it. These assessments can often result in significant
emotional reactions, which in turn can have a crucial impact on perceived rapport.
For effective rapport management, though, it is essential that people
not only assess their own conditions and reactions. Even more importantly, they need to consider their interlocutors face conditions, their
wants conditions, and whether their interactional expectancies are being fulfilled. They then need to find an appropriate balance between
meeting their own needs and the needs of their interlocutor(s). A number
of factors can affect the effectiveness with which people can do this,
including personality, personal preoccupations, and awareness of cultural differences.

Positively
eventful

Expectancy Reactions
(Own & Other)

Neutral (unnoticed)

Negatively
eventful

Achieving

No impact

Wants Condition
(Own & Other)

Hindering

Gained face

In face

Threatened face

Bases of
Dynamic Perceptions of Rapport
(Enhanced ----- Maintained ---- Damaged)
Face Condition
(Own & Other)

Joy

Contentment/pleasure

Pride

Surprise

Emotional
Reactions
(Own & Other)

Surprise/amazement

Irritation/annoyance
Anger

Frustration

Disgust/disapproval

Lost face

Sadness

Disappointment/
displeasure

Shame/guilt

Embarrassment/insult/humiliation

Figure 3. The Base of Dynamic Perceptions of Rapport.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

117

While these own and other assessments (which occur dynamically

on an ongoing basis) are made, and as these reactions occur, people have
to decide (also dynamically) how to manage them verbally and nonverbally. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this article to deal with
the management process here.
9. Concluding Comments
This paper has explored the bases of three key elements of rapport: interactional wants, behavioral expectations and face sensitivities. It has focused particularly on unpackaging the bases of behavioral expectations
and face sensitivities, and has drawn on work in social psychology to
help gain further insights. Further case study research is now needed to
determine the extent to which the rapport management issues that occur
in authentic interactions can be explained with reference to these elements, and whether they are adequate for analysing the similarities and
differences that occur across cultures, contexts and individuals.
References
Anderson, Nicholas (2004). Brands, identity and young people ongoing research.
Box inset in Are you what you have? Helga Dittmar, The Psychologist 17 (4):
206210.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Originally published as Universals in language
usage: Politeness phenomenon. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social
Interaction, Esther Goody (ed.) (1978). Cambridge: CUP.
Chen, Rong (1996) Food-plying and Chinese politeness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 7 (3 and 4): 143155.
Fraser, Bruce (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219236.
Fraser, Bruce and William, Nolan (1981). The association of deference with linguistic
form. In The Sociolinguistics of Deference and Politeness, Joel Walters (ed.), The
Hague: Mouton, 93111. Special issue (27) of the International Journal of the
Sociology of Language.
Gao, Ge, Stella Ting-Toomey, and William B. Gudykunst (1996) Chinese communication processes. In The Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Michael H. Bond (ed.),
280293. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New
York: Pantheon.
Gu, Yueguo (1990) Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics
14 (2): 237257.
Gu, Yueguo (1998). Politeness and Chinese Face. Lecture given in the Department of
Linguistics, University of Luton, Summer 1998.
Gudykunst, William, Yuko Matsumoto, Stella Ting-Toomey, Tsukasa Nishida,
Kwangsu Kim, and Sam Heyman (1996). The influence of cultural individualismcollectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across
cultures. Human Communication Research 22 (4): 510543.
Ho, David Yao-Fai. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81
(4): 867884.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

118

Helen Spencer-Oatey

Ho, David Yao-Fai. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement.

In The Challenge of Facework, Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), 269286. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Holmes, Janet (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Ide, Sachiko (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2/3): 223248.
Kasper, Gabrielle (1990). Linguistic politeness current research issues. Journal of
Pragmatics 14 (2): 193218.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Linville, Patricia W. (1985). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related
illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (4): 663
676.
Locher, Miriam A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mao, Luming Robert (1994). Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed.
Journal of Pragmatics 21: 451486.
Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2): 224253.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403426.
Moghaddam, Fathali M., Nikki R. Slocum, Norman Finkel, Tsili Mor and Rom Harre
(2000). Toward a cultural theory of duties. Culture and Psychology 6 (3): 275302.
Morisaki, Seiichi and William B. Gudykunst (1994). Face in Japan and the United
States. In The Challenge of Facework, Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), 4793. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol. 25), M. P. Zanna (ed.), 165. San Diego: Academic Press.
Schwartz, Shalom, Gila Melech, Arielle Lehmann, Steven Burgess, Mari Harris, and
Vicki Owens (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic
human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 32 (5): 519542.
Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon (1995). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Simon, Bernd (2004). Identity in Modern Society. A Social Psychological Perspective.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In
Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 1146. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2002) Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 529545.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Wenying Jiang (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic
findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics 35 (1011): 16331650.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Jianyu Xing (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings. Journal
of Intercultural Studies 24 (1): 3346.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Jianyu Xing (2004). Rapport management problems in Chinese-British business interactions: A case study. In Multilingual Communication,
Juliane House and Jochen Rehbein (eds), 197221. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19

(Im)Politeness, Face and Rapport

119

Ting-Toomey, Stella and Atsuko Kurogi (1998). Facework competence in intercultural

conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 22 (2): 187225.
Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.
Zhu, Hua, Wei Li and Yuan Qian, (2000). The sequential organisation of gift offering
and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (1): 81103.

Bereitgestellt von | Universittsbibliothek Potsdam

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 07.04.15 15:19