Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness

387 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative (2007, methodology): “Yet it has been convincingly argued by Arundale (1999, 2004, 2006a) that an intention-based view of communication is inconsistent with a social constructionist or interactional perspective on communication as a joint and collaborative activity.”
Intention in pragmatics (2008, background): “It is important to note that interactional here does not simply refer to two or more peo- ple ‘‘talking,’’ but rather is used in the technical sense of ‘‘index[ing] the conjoint, nonsummative outcome of two or more factors’’ (Arundale 2006: 196).”
Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research (2012, methodology): “Approaches such as Rapport Management Theory (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005, 2007), Face Constituting Theory (Arundale 2006, 2010a), and the Relational Work framework (Locher 2004; Locher and Watts 2005, 2008) all represent attempts to do just that, although the question of how to untangle im/politeness…”