1. Read Interpersonal Politeness and Power.
2. Respond to the blog question below:
Blog Question: What is something you found interesting in the reading? What is something you found difficult?
3. Bring in two excerpts from two different interactions. This can be from a personal email correspondence, a transcription of a conversation you had (as best you can from memory), a transcription from talk show/documentary/other live event, or a script from a commercial, movie or TV show.
We will use these to analyze authentic language use. Because we are aiming for authentic use, your own interactions are ideal, but not necessary. If using your own makes you feel uncomfortable, using another source is perfectly acceptable.
Please see my example below from a recent email exchange with a former STG student. Each of your excerpts may be shorter but try not to have them be much longer than my example.
Adam:
Hi XXXX,
I hope your semester is off to a good start. Do you feel a newfound sense of freedom without the reading/lesson planning/writing demands of STG?
How is your family? I know you had some stress about that, but I hope it is all settled now. How about your PhD and research? Any big news?
Anyway, I'd be happy to hear a bit from you. The STG started two week ago, so I've been thinking of last semester's students. And if you ever want to grab a beer, I'd be up for it.
Good luck and talk to you soon.
Student:
Hey, good to hear from you. Sorry I'm late getting back to you. I've got a lot going on right now.
Beer sounds good. When are you free this semester? I remember that you are busy on weekends but have free days during the week. You wouldn't be up to coming up to the Hongik area, would you?
Adam:
Monday nights are probably the best for me. How about you? I don't mind coming to Hongdae.
Student:
I might be able to swing that. Let me get back to you. If I can't, I don't suppose lunch on a Tuesday or Thursday would be possible?
Adam:
Monday nights would be ideal, but if it doesn't work, Tuesdays and Thursdays are good for lunch. It doesn't have to be next week or even this month. It seems like you're pretty busy. Just keep me posted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis reading had a high duh factor, for while I thoroughly enjoyed the topic, I also thought the information was already well-known. The most difficult thing for me about interpersonal politeness and power is the unspoken language or face saving language. Coming from a culture of low contextual communication, I am a very direct person, and only in the last few years have I become more adept at deciphering subtle clues. In the past, I had some problems because I took what someone said at face value. I remember one time, my boss kept telling me he would tell me the vacation dates when it was time to know. I was trying to buy a plane ticket and needed the specific dates. What I did not know was that my boss was trying to save face because he also did not know the timeframe. He led me to believe he was in control of the vacation, when I would have been content with the honest answer.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the reading that I found most interesting was the language and diagrams used to illustrate these concepts. While reading, I found myself thinking back to different relationships, and analyzing what power or distance relationships were present. I liked this reading because I feel like it gives me the ability to use more professional sounding language for a simple concept. Also, it helps motivate me to actually use the correct Korean honorifics because it could have a great effect on my relationships.
This was a very interesting reading in the sense that by the time I got to the end I was utterly amazed by the fact that without receiving any formal teaching about all these components and changes in them in different speech situations, we know just what to say in different contexts most of the time.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I found very interesting was that solidarity politeness (involvement) and deference politeness (independence) are expressed simultaneously in all acts of communication. It is just a matter of which aspect of face is expressed more and, hence, which is projected less in any given situation. I can think of numerous occasions where I got misunderstood or hurt someone’s feelings (not just in Korea but also back home) with what I have said in egalitarian systems (-P). I believe that I can make use of this knowledge to help me to formulate the right thing to say with the right “dose” of involvement and independence. It was also interesting to be able to explain why it is that Asian students have a hard time addressing their teachers with their first names even after their teachers had personally pointed out they preferred this way or that it was ok for them to do so. After this reading, I am able to realize that what such teachers are doing is in fact trying to increase the degree of involvement while decreasing independence face. In a way, such teachers are threatening these students’ independence. I believe that such teachers should learn to respect Asian students’ “face rights and claims” as the author puts it.
If I may be completely honest until I first moved to Asia (to Singapore in 2006), I have not heard of the word “face” used in this context. I have always treated it as someone’s personality. So, if I had said something that made my friend upset, I sort of swept it under the carpet and regarded it as one of those bad days for her or that she was being too sensitive in -P, -D politeness systems. When such misunderstandings arose in -P, +D systems, I apologized sooner or later, regarded it as a lesson and tried to be extremely careful moving forward. Though I had heard of the concept of face more than once since I have been living in Asia, I have never read about formally until last night. To find out that this concept of face is fundamentally based on the concept of honor took me some time to really digest. I had a hard time wrapping my head around this section of the reading particularly this sentence I have directly quoted from page 45: “Participants make certain unmarked assumptions about their relationships and about the face they want to claim for themselves and are willing to give to the other participants in any communicative situation.” How profound!!
Having learned Japanese Karate as a kid, growing up in a type of sub-culture within Canada, I've always been somewhat aware of "face". Japanese instructors would visit my dad's "dojo", and we would all have to grovel to them. Sensei is the term for teacher, but higher than that is Shihan, and even higher is Kancho. I would over-hear things about "saving face", and had an understanding about how those who were +P could not be allowed to be lose honor. What I didn't know was that my dad and all his students were taking part in this face system by discoursing from an independence point.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see my interactions with my football players in light of this article. This is now my 3rd season, my first 2 seasons I was an assistant, and this year is my first as the head coach. Those players who were around 2 years ago interact with me with a greater degree of involvement, whereas players who have joined this season, and only know me as the head coach, defer to me using a high level of independence, calling me "sir". Furthermore, we have 2 American-Korean players, who call me "Lawrence", which I allow, indicating a close (-D) relationship.
Initially the terms involvement and independence were difficult to grasp how that played out. But after reading it again, it's pretty straight-forward.
I found this whole article very interesting, but the part that stood out the most to me was the Three Politeness System. I liked how the author broke it down into Deference, Solidarity, and Hierarchy. (Like a math equation) To me this is a very relevant aspect for living in Korea. Since this Politeness System is actually imbedded in the Korean language and I struggle with choosing the right register or communicative style for the proper moment. At first when I started learning Korean, I always used formal speech when involved in discourse with others. I didn’t know of this until one of my Korean friends told me that I speak too proper and sound strange to native Korean speakers. Not until I learned “friend talk” did this become a problem and I started speaking disrespectful to everybody that wasn’t my friend. I completely related with the author’s friend that was learning Spanish, except that it has never amounted to the same consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis article has led me to now believe that in any social discourse, we “size up” the other individual. Where we put them on that scale and our relative position to them, affects which style of discourse we will take. Maybe due to this, the saying, “benefit of the doubt” was coined.
The Paradox of Face: Involvement and Independence was a little hard for me. At points I felt that the listener, if offended by the speaker, was being too sensitive. Like having an a super needy partner, that always tells you that you need to listen more or you never ask me how I feel. I guess this is why it’s a paradox… They both need to exist but knowing the right balance between them differs from individual to individual.
I found much of the article very interesting until they attempted to use mathematical formulas to explain their theories. Please do not follow the economists.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading about the paradox of face - involvement and independence.
I am a very sociable person and I like to talk in person to person settings. I would agree with the reading that I like to be considered a contributing member to society. This is involvement.
In addition I follow some of the discourse strategies such as: showing interest in my students and others; pointing out things we have in common and I like students/people older than eighteen to call me Kevan.
On the other hand I also like "me" time sometimes and I do not like to be told how to think by society. I am a very open minded person and I do not tend to follow trends. This is independence.
In addition, I do follow some of the discourse strategies such as not putting words into other mouths, and allowing very different opinions to be expressed.
Though I think you can do both things when speaking with others (involvement and independence). You would just use them at different times.
For example: I can ask the students as they walk into my room how they are. Also, I tend to remember if they have a sick dad, etc. and I will ask how their dad is doing. As we are adults I refer to them in the first name.
Later on in the class during partner or group discussion I always allow them to freely express themselves and I never say that someone is wrong. My follow-up questions are usually "why?" and/or please give me an example. I allow students to be devil's advocates.
I did also found the three politeness systems interesting: deference, solidarity and hierarchy. However, it looks like John covered that a little :)
What was the most difficult?
Yes, what you say plays a huge role in politeness, but they do not address body language and other areas such as slang. In my opinion body language can completely change what we perceive a person is saying.
Examples: someone can use polite language, but if they are too close to the receiver of the words it can be seen as not polite as they are intruding onto someone's space.
Therefore, different forms of body language can be polite in one culture and rude in another. This can change the context of the conversation.
I found this article very interesting as well, it seemed to put a mathematical perspective on what we already "knew" in our day to day actions.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of it I found extremely eye opening was that most Korean speakers who speak to me use a language of independence. I am not sure why they are using such a language, because in Korean society they should be using a more involvement based language because they are higher than me.
It could be because I am always polite to them and they always want to be polite to me, but I don't know the ins and outs of Korean culture just yet.
I also noticed, as with the Spanish speaker, that sometimes I make short cuts in Korean language. This happened when I was complementing something and the hearer was much older than me. I was immediately corrected in my speech and I was happy that they took it to just be a gap in my language and not a power grab.
One concept I understood, but couldn't pin down in the reading was the weight of imposition. I understand when it happens, but I can't really grasp what the reading was trying to tell me about it.
I can think of examples of it, but I can't tell you what it is.
I found this article interesting to read as well, but at times a bit challenging. It was interesting to think about politeness and power, which I have never done before. As a kyopo, I was born in Canada but I was raised with Korean values. I understood from a young age about the “politeness system” and I feel I have followed that very closely, even when interacting with non-Korean people. Most of the time, I feel I am in the solidarity politeness system or the hierarchical politeness system. If someone is older than me or I know is +P, I find it difficult, or rather, it takes me a long time to find myself equal or see that person as –P. When I interact with Korean people, I try to respect more of the hierarchical politeness system but in Canadian or non-Korean culture, I want to try to learn more of the deference politeness system.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the Miscommunication section, there were many times where I wouldn’t use correct formal words or expressions, but because Korean people know that I am a kyopo, they tend to let it slide or they are more understanding. However, I admit that there were many times where I knew the correct form, but I used the incorrect form (non-formal Korean).
At first, I found it difficult to follow the terms, but after reading it over several times, I feel I understand it a little more. I found the weight of imposition section difficult to understand. But overall, it was interesting to think about this topic and reflect on this topic.
I definitely found the article interesting, in that someone actually set out to "map" these types of interactions. The idea of "Face" is one that I have only begun to understand and appreciate, at least when it comes to the Korean cultural context. There is a hierarchy and one should always be aware of it, lest misunderstandings occur. I second the fascination with how these relationships just seem to "fall into place" and it isn't conscious at all. Such is the multifaceted nature of human interaction. It's complexity never ceases to amaze me, and I find that I still have to navigate all of those little things in my dealings with co-workers and people out in town. It can be easy to forget that I am not in America and slip back into an incompatible discourse pattern...leading to all sorts of issues. Being married to a Korean and having Korean in-laws has made me very aware of this dynamic, and this paper puts the finger on it.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, It was a bit thick to follow at times, and I found the "mathematical" approach to be offputting, because it reduces human interaction to the humdrum, the mechanical.
Such studies are useful if at times a heady read.
Sorry, I'm a little late to the party.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I tried reading this article several times, but didn't get "hooked" until today. I think the idea of 'face' is very interesting, and one that I didn't know much about until I came to Korea. The reading really helped to highlight how important face is, and how it can affect relationships between people, many of whom may not be aware of its existence or importance.
I found the ideas of involvement and independence to be really interesting. Especially, it is amazing to think that both aspects are present during communication, and that we negotiate and navigate through communications almost unaware of the dimensions we are creating. When reading some of the examples of "Independent Strategies" I realized that I often use these (e.g. giving options not to act, minimizing threat, apologizing, making minimal assumptions about others' wants), even when I'm speaking with people who I consider my close friends. I found this strange, considering that initially, I would have thought myself to be 'more involvement' oriented, especially with friends.
The reading also reminded me of how I make assumptions about my relationships with people, and how they are not always ... accurate, or in line with their
assumptions of the relationship. For example, I have a colleague at work, who theoretically is in a higher position than I am, however when we speak to each other, in English, we use very casual language, and I would have said we were friends. However, when I speak to her in Korean, she often corrects me and reminds me to use honorific endings (she does it in a light way...but she still does it). I suppose I assumed we had a (+P -D) relationship, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have a more (+P +D) relationship.
One part of the reading I found confusing was the Weight of Imposition. I feel as though I understand the definition - but I don't feel confident about how the independence and involvement strategies are affected as a result. When I read the examples (a few times), they didn't seem to make sense to me.