2.7.1 Individual Face vs. Group Face
This section discusses how the individualism vs. collectivism dichotomy is
insufficient as a description of linguistic politeness. Politeness is not a matter of
language (Pizziconi 2006:683), but includes culture-specific levels including conscious,
mental, psychological and value-oriented factors. Although Locher has recently proposed
the task of analyzing the interactional nature of politeness, her pragmatic approach to
politeness still needs to acknowledge that the interactional nature of politeness focuses
on variability derived from cultural values. Politeness utilizing culture-specific thinking
(Confucianism in the current study) can control variability due to its having
universally/culturally shared thinking. The variability of Korean politeness is thus based
on culturally known ways of thinking in which individual variability cannot be
understood without referring to socio- cultural knowledge.
In order to explore socio-cultural values of individual variability, I basically follow
in the construction of social behavior. This is because social norms are built into an
individual’s mind and are acquired over time through social practice. And because each
individual experiences social norms differently, he/she has different concepts of
individual norms. Due to the abstractness of social norms they cannot be seen at the
individual level (2001: 217). Rather they must be read through the behavioral patterns of
social practice (linguistic forms). Typical social norms function as the link from an
individual to a social group through language use. In this way, social norms impose a
socializing effect on the individual (2001: 217). On the other hand the varieties of
individual norms function to produce individual variability in the production of linguistic
politeness.
Because of this, an individualism/collectivism dichotomy should not be made.
Rather this dichotomy should be integrated wholly so as to capture the variability of
politeness forms. According to one definition, ‘individualism’ underlines the
subordination of a group’s goals to a person’s own goals, while ‘collectivism’
emphasizes individuals subordinating their personal goals to goals of some collectives.
The former is concerned with individual norm-governed behavior; whereas the latter is
concerned with satisfying the expectations of the society (Brislin, Hui, and Triandis
1980: 269).
However, the various forms of polite behavior that focus on rights and duties cannot
be properly explained by using either of these two poles. Since a functional description
of politeness requires an acknowledgement of the variability that emerges from the
complexity of interactional contexts, the binary distinction9 between ‘individualism’ and
9
The individualism-collectivism dimension of cultural variation is often used as an explanation for politeness, and provides a normative explanation for it (Bargiela 2003: 35).
‘collectivism’ is not helpful in analyzing the complex reality of politeness. For this
reason, a wholly normative version of politeness cannot capture its variability (Bargiela
2003: 35-36).
Eelen regards politeness as not emerging from fixed social norms but largely
determined by interactive dynamics. According to Eelen, the notion of ‘appropriate
politeness’ should be comprehensive so as to encompass the possible deviant nature of
any individual’s behavior in a specific context. It is the speaker’s strategic intention that
extends the appropriate politeness to various other options. The division between the two
dimensions is therefore flawed. The traditional social norm view cannot explain how in
the current study a higher-ranking speaker appeals to notions of magnanimity toward
his/her subordinate nor can it explain the lower-ranking person’s acknowledging
dependence/reliance toward his/her super-ordinate in the combination of both aspects of
politeness forms (negative or positive politeness strategies) (see Chapters 5 and 6).
For example, in my data set, a university professor’s use of a highly redressive form
towards a secretary goes beyond the normal expectation of politeness. It is clearly a
subjective and strategic device emanating from the individual’s own judgment and
values. It must be said that politeness constrained by a ‘socially regulative force’ cannot
capture the specific nature of negative and positive strategies. As variability is mainly
caused by the discursive nature of politeness in real-life situational contexts, any analysis
needs to employ particular elicitation procedures in which the notion of social reality can
be better analyzed from argumentative, evaluative and discursive positions (Eelen 2001:
255; Harris 2003: 2). From this point of view, it is not useful to classify ‘individualism’
and ‘collectivism’ as mutually exclusive. In order to examine the variability of politeness,
researchers must go beyond these traditional categories and reconsider their
appropriateness and validity in conjunction with situation-specific features, since the
various forms of polite behavior exist beyond intra-cultural and situational settings. The
particular variability of Korean face in the following section will show why this is the
case.
2.7.2 Variability of Korean Face
Korean ‘chemyen10’ is a socio-culturally given that is based on cultural values. The
Korean conception of ‘face11’ shows concern for both aspects of face (i.e. ‘negative’ vs.
‘positive’ face). It is notable that Korean face can be characterized as both positive and
negative in nature. Additionally, Korean ‘face’ (‘chemyen’) has volitional features and
can be individually negotiated with regard to power and distance. ‘Chemyen’ is also
sensitive to emotional elements (e.g. intimacy and warmth) in the construction of
politeness and power (Lim and Choi 1996: 124).
My spoken data often demonstrates how Korean ‘face’ functions multi-functionally
and transactionally, according to the speaker’s pragmatic goals. Korean politeness
radically deviates from traditional conceptions of the ‘collective self’ in that the
speaker’s standpoint takes precedence over the hearer’s expectations. It is because of
these multi-functional elements that Korean face seems to exhibit more diversity than its
Western counterparts. Furthermore, the certain cultural traits have strong positive
implications and are often used as a means of controlling the weightiness of an FTA.
10
Chemyen, like face, is the image of self. However, while the Western concept of face is mostly the image of personal or psychological self, chemyen is the image of sociological self more than that of personal self (Lim and Choi 1996: 123).
11
Koreans often prefer positive implications and overlook negative face in consideration of hearer’s face (see Lim and Choi 1996: 124).
Speakers can disguise FTAs in the cloak of ‘deference’, which can then be combined
with culture-specific knowledge. For instance, a strategically motivated individual may
employ value-laden kinship terms in order to maintain institutional as well as discursive
face. The variability of Korean ‘face’ therefore cannot be viewed from a single side
(either ‘negative’ or ‘positive face’). Individualism and collectivism are not bipolar: both
cut across situational settings. For instance, in her research, Wierzbicka (1992: 19)
argues “The use of unique and yet comparable cultural scripts allows us to develop a
typology of communication patterns which does not necessitate trying to fit cultures into
the strait jackets of binary categories such as “collectivist/individualist” or “high-
context/low-context”. Any specific occurrence of politeness in my data transcends any