In Struggle for Identity: A Study on the Chinese Traditional Concepts of Face in the Globalised World

Paper Presented at the 5^th CESA Biennial Conference held at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi Malaysia, 30-31 May 2005

By E. Aminudin Aziz

Abstract

The study reported here is based on an ethnographic investigation on the Chinese perceptions about the traditional concepts mianzi/lian “face” as they are currently confronted with the so-called universal values as a result of globalisation. Data were collected from 100 Shanghainese through direct observations and semi-structured interviews and were then analysed by using the Chinese cultural notions underlying the concepts of face. These include relational, communal, hierarchical, and moral. Analyses show that the respondents often avoid conflicts with their interlocutors, even if they were put in very unfortunate circumstances. These face-favouring acts are indicative of their closed observance of the norms and hence the concepts of face, by which they could gain, maintain, and enhance their own face. In return, they would be regarded as members of the society with polite behaviours and with other good moral characters. The study concludes that although China is changing, the conceptions and practices of the traditional concepts mianzi/lian “face” among Chinese have remained constant. This is because into these concepts are attached the most basic concepts of humanity; the absence of the concepts of face in the mind of human beings can mean the loss of humanity as a whole.

 

1.0.Introduction

 This paper reports the findings of an ethnographic study in some community groups in the city ofShanghaiand its neighbouring areas. The investigation was aimed to closely observe the effects of globalisation onto the traditional values in the Chinese community. To a certain extent, globalisation brings with it the idea of “commonisation” of “local” values and has consequently resulted in the transformations of the so-called traditional values into ones that are then accepted as new universal norms.

 

With regard to Chinese, many of their traditional values have inspired the views of both scholars and common people in many parts of the world. This is evident in the practices of Chinese cultural norms by the latter groups of people and vice versa. Though this cannot be said as the direct result of globalisation, such practices suggest a strong influence of globalisation on the life of people.

 

Chinese have often been believed as a community adopting conflict-avoidance principles. This adoption requires that Chinese maintain personal and more importantly social harmony, which has become the ultimate goal of their social life. This follows that their communication behaviours seem to have always been inspired and hence guided by such a common belief among participants to save each other’s dignity and the sacred social attribute. This common belief is known as mianzi or lian “face”, a concept derived from the teachings of the most prominent and respected Chinese philosopher Confucius. Cheng (1986: 337) believes that “Confucianism, with its theory and practice, no doubt, is the unequivocal ideological background and foundation of the concept of face and face-work in the Chinese language”.

 

Concepts of face require that all parties involved in a communication transaction be obliged to save each other’s face as the “positive social value” they will effectively claim for themselves and this is “an image of self delineated in terms of social attributes” (Goffman, 1967: 5). As a social attribute, face is gained on loan from society. This common belief harmonises their interactions, because facework among Chinese people is “conceptualised as a typical Chinese conflict preventive mechanism and a primary means to cultivate harmonious human relations in Chinese social life” (Jia, 1997). Therefore, to understand the philosophical values of face would be of crucial necessity for every member of the society by which they can maintain the harmony of their life.

 

It is believed that the values of the concept of face in Chinese culture have been extracted from the most basic value of ren, a concept related to ‘humanness’ and its associated meanings such as ‘humanity’, ‘benevolence’, ‘goodness’, and ‘virtue’. Contained in this ren are all warm human feelings that qualify and constitute an ideal person, who will always be considerate about others. In other words, understanding of and then practicing ren implies an acceptance of the principle of shu ‘reciprocity’, in which a person will feel and as if experiencing to be the other person by putting him/herself in the other’s shoes, so that his/her empathy toward others will spring accordingly.

 

According to Confucianism, as noted by Cheng (1986), a perfect ideal human being, reached through self-cultivation, can only be accomplished when the following five relationships are completely understood and then achieved: 1) the relation of closeness (like the father and son); 2) the relation of righteousness (as found in the emperor-subject relation); 3) the relation of distinction (as in husband and wife relation); 4) the relation of hierarchy  (as evident in elder-younger relation); and 5) the relation of faithfulness (such as in friend-friend relation). Self-cultivation itself is determined by the norms and values of xiao (filial piety), di (brotherliness), li (propriety), and de (moral integrity). It is into de that the concepts of lian and mianzi are attached.

 

In interpersonal communication, the principles of ren bind all participants to believe that their interest may conflict with others, and it therefore has to be compromised. When taken up appropriately according to the principles, both parties will be felicitous, i.e. ‘feeling good and satisfied’ for their interest is respected and attended to by the other. In most cases, though not always, this feeling is achieved through politeness or limao. Into this are included a set of guidelines, sometimes not-negotiable, that the people have to follow.

 

As a concept, limao might be perceived reasonably similar in the minds of the Chinese, although its realisations might vary because these will depend on individuals’ understanding, which might have been influenced by some other external factors such as age, education, life experience, intensity of interactions with other members, social status, and so on. The present study was aimed to investigate the influence of those external factors on the realisations of limao in various speech acts. In particular, this study was oriented to portray and explain the on-going changes experienced by the Chinese in the way they view mianzi ‘face’ as a traditional concept in relation to limao ‘politeness’ in the new order of the world that is changing. If we believe that the development of information technology has made the world become smaller and borderless, then we will have to admit that there will no single element of the world which remains static. Needless to say, this will also affect the values and norms adopted in our life. This natural process will therefore have to be viewed not as a threat to the traditional values but rather as a complementary that necessitates it to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

2.0.The Significance of Face in Chinese Society

 

Jia (1997) identifies four characteristics attached to the concept of face in Chinese: relational, communal/social, hierarchical, and moral. Relational concept of face is fixedly understood by Chinese as the principal means and mechanism that governs and prescribes all their social conducts so that it guarantees the harmony of their human relations. This relational conception is considerably contradictory with that of Western understanding of face concept which is of highly rational model in nature (Brown&Levinson, 1987), transactional (Scollon&Scollon, 1994) and emphasises individualism on its prime perspective (Chang&Holt, 1994; Gu 1990; Matsumoto, 1988). Ho (1976: 882) further noted that “the Western mentality, deeply ingrained with the values of individuality, is not one which is favourably disposed to the idea of face, for face is never a purely individual thing” (cf. Mao, 1994). Face, according to Jia, is “both the goal and the means for strengthening and expressing harmonisation of human relationships among men in society” (1997) and the central emphasis is on “the human relationship instead of impression management” (Chang&Holt, 1994: 127).

 

Face is also said to have a communal/social characteristic. The value is rooted on the idea that face is a “public censure” (Hu, 1944:47), the loss of which will severely negatively affect the status of the loser in the community. Therefore, when someone has a feeling of fear of losing face, that strongly indicates that he/she is aware of “the force of social sanction” (1944:50). To keep face means that the normal functioning of the community will prevail, and “the member of who retains it is accepted as a full member of the community” (Jia, 1997).

 

The Chinese concept of face is grounded upon a hierarchical perspective (Chang&Holt, 1994; Scollon&Scollon, 1994) into which age and blood bonds, relational hierarchy within the family and the hierarchical nature of the family are attributed. This is for example evident in the naming practices that prevail in the Chinese communities. According to Scollon&Scollon (1994), the concept of hierarchy is obviously noted in the concept of face, and not taking this characteristic into account might lead to a misunderstanding of the concept.

 

Morality is inherently attached to the concept of face in Chinese culture. In Hu’s observation, face finds its place as the sign of “respect of the group [of people in the society] for a man with a good moral reputation” and the loss of it could mean “a condemnation by the group for immoral and socially disagreeable behaviour” (1944: 45-46). Seen from this perspective, the loss of face can be equated with the loss of morality of the loser.

 

Lian and mianzi have appeared to become a real concern for Chinese for centuries, and many terms have been derived to indicate their importance. For example, people are said to lose lian when they perform such an immoral or socially disagreeable behaviour as breaking promise, telling lies for one’s own profit, exposing crimes, and so on, so that it invites criticism of society. The example is, echoing Hu (1944), a girl student who was pregnant hanged herself in her intimate’s dormitory after getting desperate because he denied his promise to marry her. The girl’s suicide made him lose lian.  Another example is when a new instructor in certain universities was unable to answer students’ questions at the first sight, he had lost lian. As much of the activity of Chinese life is operated on the basis of trust, losing lian is a real dread for Chinese. The higher the social standing of a person, the more dignity he has to maintain, and the more vulnerable this lian becomes (Hu 1944:47). Meanwhile, “to lose mianzi” is to suffer a loss of one’s reputation or prestige because of a certain failure or misfortune. “To lose lian” is a far more serious act than “to lose mianzi”. It should be noted, however, that once lian is lost, it will be hard to maintain mianzi. In addition, the sudden loss of mianzi might be too much a shock for personality.

 

The expressions “not to want lian” (being indifferent on what society thinks of one’s bad character) and “have no lian” are stronger than “to lose lian”. The expressions “to have no lian” and “to have no mianzi” are different in meaning. The former means the most severe insult to people’s moral character while the latter signifies merely the failure of ego to achieve a reputation through success in life.  A person with a thin skin on the lian, i.e. highly sensitive to public opinion, is more favoured by the society than those with thick skin because he/she conforms more readily to society.

 

The importance of face in creating harmony in communication is clearly shown in the research done by Yang (1945). Yang found that in a Chinese village life, hurting other’s “face” turns to be the source of conflict. Generally, this is due to the villagers’ high need of face. In other words, conflict is a face war. Some factors that contribute to the loss or gain of face are among others the equal or unequal social status between the persons involved. For example, one of two equally popular professors is refused by the other in some request; the former will lose face. Meanwhile, students will not suffer loss of face if they are similarly treated by a professor. The presence of a witness or a third person may increase the risk of losing face before other people. However, the more intimate the person with the third person the lesser the risk of losing face.

 

The current conception of politeness in Modern China is derived and largely developed from its concept of face. Limao, which morphemically means ‘polite appearance’, turns out to become the code of conduct for Chinese in their attempt to establish and maintain harmonious and successful communication. To be polite in a Chinese discourse is, in many respects, to know how to attend to each other’s lian and mianzi and to enact speech acts appropriate to and worthy to such an image (Mao 1994:463). Like Japanese conception of politeness (wakimae), the Chinese concept of limao requires speakers to express deference by humbling themselves and placing themselves in a lower position (Matsumoto 1988). Gu (1990: 239) held that within the Chinese conception of limào comprise four basic notions: ‘respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement’. Respectfulness refers to the observance of a speaker to positively appreciate or show admiration for a hearer’s face, social status, and so on. Modesty is seen as another way of saying ‘self-denigration’ which may derive from a speaker’s timidity. Attitudinal warmth requires a speaker to demonstrate kindness, consideration, and hospitality to others, and refinement obligates a speaker to behave to another within certain standards.

 

In a communicative interaction, the four notions above may be implicitly expressed in the forms of maxims as analysed by Gu, who follows Leech’s account of politeness principle. According to Gu (1990), the social norm approach proposed by Leech (1983) is more appropriate because its emphasis to the normative aspect of politeness is comparable to that of Chinese concept of face. Besides, analysing politeness in terms of maxims is believed to be more appropriate considering the fact that the Chinese conception of politeness is to some extent moralised. Although Gu (1990: 242) claims that the “failure to observe politeness will incur social sanctions”, this claim cannot be applied only to the Chinese culture, because this is also true and does exist in other cultures but varied in terms of conditions and sanctions imposed.

 

The first maxim, i.e. the self-denigration maxim, contains two sub-maxims, “denigrate self” and “elevate other”. If both are breached, people will be perceived respectively as being impolite or rude and being arrogant or boasting. The phenomenon is clearly demonstrated in the introducing-each-other interaction in which Chinese people take the first chance to elevate other, i.e. ask for H’s name. The second maxim, i.e. the address maxim, deals with addressing the interlocutor with an appropriate address term. A failure to use an appropriate address term is a sign of rudeness. Thus, the choice of it should consider such factors as kin or non-kin, politically superior or inferior, professionally prestigious or non-prestigious, interpersonally familiar or unfamiliar, male or female, old or young, on a formal or informal occasion, family members or relatives, and in public or at home. Unlike English address systems, Chinese proper name is arranged in the order of surname + (middle name) + given name. The Chinese surname is a non-kin public address term and can be used alone by people outside the family, but the middle + given names and the given name are kin familial address terms.  Some Chinese kinship terms like yeye (grandpa), nainai (grandma), shushu (uncle), and  a’yi (aunt), can be used to address people who have no whatever familial relationship with the addresser. Similarly, occupational titles can be used as address terms in Chinese. In unequal encounters, it is usually the inferior who initiates talk exchanges by addressing the superior first.

 

The third and the last maxims are respectively the Generosity and Tact maxims, which act in a complementary manner. In performing an impositive act, for instance, speaker S observes the Tact maxim, while hearer H observes the Generosity maxim. On the other hand, in a commissive act, speaker S observes the Generosity maxim, whereas hearer H observes the Tact maxim.  Gu provides an example of an act of inviting. The general pattern of inviting in the Chinese culture is speaker S invites hearer H, and hearer H responds to it by declining (giving reasons for doing so). This will be followed by speaker S to invite again (refuting hearer H’s reasons, minimising linguistically cost to self, etc.), and hearer H responds to it by declining again (defending his/her reasons, etc.). However, speaker S will insist on hearer H’s presence (refuting, persuading, minimizing linguistically cost to self), by which hearer H will accept it finally (conditionally or unconditionally).

 

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the implementation of the maxims explained above is, to a certain extent, influenced by some social factors like age differences, setting, level of intimacy and familiarity, and relative power. Scollon&Scollon (1995) point out that Chinese politeness behaviour is hierarchical in nature; that is, the strategies used by the interlocutors are not symmetrical. Besides, Chinese people tend to be situation-centered in that emphasis is placed upon an individual’s appropriate place and behaviour among his fellowman (Hsu 1981).

 

 

3.0. Research Methodology

3.0.1. Selection of respondents

 

Sampled purposively, 100 Shanghainese were involved in this study— they consisted of 50 city dwellers and 50 rural residents. The latter group was comprised of 28 respondents residing in Songjiang district, a city to the south ofShanghai, and the other 22 people were selected from Jiading district, a city to the north ofShanghai. Of the 100 respondents, 56 were males and 44 females, aged between 17 and 75 years old. Their occupations varied; they include students, marketing officers, security officers, drivers, coaches, consultants, accountants, art designer, etc. There were also respondents who had already retired and those who were unemployed.

 

Selection of such diverse characteristics of respondents was purposeful, aimed primarily at obtaining various views from the respondents regarding the issue being sought by the study. This judgement sampling, however, should not be seen as being contradictory with Sankoff’s view which states that while it is not necessary for a speech community sample to have a large number of members, the sample must be well selected and “representative of all social subsegments about which one wishes to generalize” (1980: 52). This is apparently because, unlike many other kinds of behavioural surveys, linguistic behaviour is comparatively homogenous (cf. Labov 1972). Therefore, the idea of homogeneity will be strengthened, because the study views that homogeneity is not only evident in the language behaviour as realised through acts of speech but it also, and more importantly, relates to the mind of the speakers. In other words, the sample size of 100 respondents was satisfactory, because, as Sankoff pointed out, that “… even for quite complex speech communities, samples of more than about 150 individuals tend to be redundant, bringing increasing data handling problems with diminishing analytical returns” (1980: 51-52). That is because of the homogeneity of peer group speech behaviour.

 

 

3.0.2. Data collection procedures and the instruments

 

Data were collected through direct semi-structured interviews with the respondents, guided by a set of questions regarding the situations they might hypothetically face themselves. This instrument looked like the discourse completion task (DCT) developed and used firstly by Blum-Kulka (1982) when investigating the realisation of requestive speech acts among Israelis. However, the present instrument differed in its form, because it did not contain the hearer response part as found in Blum-Kulka’s. Instead, it provided respondents with some options they could choose from. The options were believed to represent respondents’ views about the issues being asked in the situations. Apart from containing statements which represented respondents’ opinions, the options also required respondents to exemplify their utterances in the spaces provided. This modified form is closer to and reflects the development of the DCT used in my previous research (Aziz 2000) when searching for the forms and strategies used by speakers of Indonesian in giving refusals. Below is an example of a situation asked to the respondents:

 

Situation #10

 

You and some friends are inviting a guest from overseas to have dinner in an expensive restaurant in town. When it turns to pay the bill, you ask everyone to pay, because according to your culture, anyone coming to the dinner will have to pay for themselves, which makes him/her so surprised. On the other hand, in your guest’s culture, if somebody is invited, he/she will be treated/paid for the food and drinks. Therefore, your guest did not expect paying anything. What are you going to do/say?

 

a)        You pay for him, although you know that you are running out of cash, because ……

 

b)       You explain to your guest that everybody will have to contribute, and so will your guest. You say to him/her ……..

 

This modified version of DCT is believed to be capable of disclosing at least two aspects of interpersonal communication at the same time. Firstly, the format gives respondents enough freedom to express what they believe to be the most appropriate action to be taken when confronted with the situations described in the format. Secondly, the format requires that after a decision is made, exemplifications are to be provided. Human relations are by nature characterised by the use of spoken language. Requiring the respondents to supply what they are most likely to say when facing their interlocutors enables us to know and then understand how they will verbally regard and then treat their interlocutors. Not only does it concern the how we express our opinion but it is also to do with the what it is inside our utterances. The format we develop here allows us to make inferences whether what a respondent exemplifies actually represents his/her belief.

 

 

4.0. Results and Discussions

4.0.1. Types of Data Obtained and Frameworks of Data Analysis

 

Two types of data were collected through this investigation. The first type is in the forms of expressions of respondents’ attitudes towards the issues being asked in the questionnaire, in which reasons were provided by the respondents. This type of data was obtained from the respondents’ choice of options provided in the questionnaire. The second type is in the forms of exemplifications of utterances that the respondents would presumably use when confronted with the situations described in the questionnaire. It is believed that the first type of data is capable of disclosing the respondents’ concepts of face and the second type is more to do with the realisations of the concepts to which (im)polite acts will be manifested.

 

Respondents’ concepts about face, which are stored in their mind and appear to be so philosophical in nature, have to do with their beliefs and understandings of the concepts by which they will act upon in a situation. These beliefs remained untouched, and we will not be able to disclose them until we leave the respondents to “speak out” their mind. Therefore, analysis of the concepts was based on these confessions. It is believed that to a great extent, politeness realisations are influenced by such beliefs accordingly.

 

 

4.0.2. Findings and Discussions

 

(Im)polite behaviour shown by a person is believed to have been influenced by his/her perceptions and beliefs about how to behave within his/her society from which he/she would gain prestige, status, and respect or otherwise from other members of the society. These beliefs, in Chinese culture, are associated with the understanding of the concepts of mianzi/lian “face”. This mianzi/lian operates and affects all aspects of interactions between members of the society. Therefore, face and politeness are two inseparable concepts.

 

As far as our data have indicated, the interrelationships between the understanding of the concepts of face and politeness realizations have pointed to strengthening the ideas formulated recently by Gu (1990), Mao (1994), and Jia (1997). These researchers emphasise the need to relate the discussions of the Chinese concepts of face and politeness with the norms and values that prevail in the society, without which all accounts of the concepts are susceptible to invalidation, as they have seen in the theory developed by Brown&Levinson (1987). These society’s norms are rooted in the philosophical values of Confucianism. In the following section, we will examine our data based on the four notions found in Confucianism in relation to the concept of face: relational, communal, hierarchical, and moral. All these concepts will be discussed within the context of politeness realisations.

 

Relational. This is the principal concept of face in the Chinese culture, and it concerns the affective and emotional human feelings owned by the members of the community in their attempt to promote a harmonious human relationship. The behaviours of the members of the Chinese community are governed by this principle so that they can avoid or at least minimise conflicts that may occur among themselves. Inability to prevent them from happening may result in the loss of face.

 

Our data show that, as far as they could do it, the respondents seemed to try hard to observe this principle in all their interactions with their interlocutors within the situational contexts described in the questionnaire. This is indicated in their avoidance of having conflicts with their interlocutors although they found themselves in unfortunate circumstances. Take for instance situations #1, #6, and #10 in the questionnaire. All these situations placed the respondents in the risky circumstances that would possibly endanger their health (situation #1), threat their prestige (situation #6), or even their financial conditions (situation #10). However, due to their closed observance of the relational principle, they put others’ interests over their own. Even if they could not bear smoke or might suffer financially, they would leave their guests smoking or paying the bill respectively, only because they wanted to respect their guests. Likewise, they did not get upset when their spouses were assumed as if they were their parents, which to a greater extent could suggest monstrosity or humiliation. It may be true that their behaviours were not sincere (cf. Gu 1990) or honest, but for the sake of politeness, face-gaining and face-saving, they came up with such actions. In their view, a sincerity principle cannot override or even ignore the need of maintaining social harmony, which is far more important.

 

Communal. This social principle functions more as a “public censure” that substitutes the law usually used to regulate and punish the wrong-doers. This principle will prevent the members of the society from behaving against the ideal society’s values (cf. Mao’s (1994) ideal social identity) which have been agreed as collective standard norms. Looking at the examples of the responses to the incidents described in the questionnaire, we found that the respondents appeared to view communal principle as central to their interactional behaviours. This was so because they strongly believed that the force of the sanctions that might be enacted by other members of the society for their wrong behaviours would be so severe that they might not be able to control it. They therefore preferably chose to comply with the demand from the society’s norms that require them to do so rather than thought and behaved more for their own interests. Gu (1990) was right when saying that in Chinese society, politeness, a derivate of the understanding of the concepts of face, functions not only instrumentally but also normatively, i.e. it requires the fulfilment of society’s wants.

 

The incidents described in situations #4, #6, #11, and #14, followed by their respective speech events allowed the respondents to react to the mistreatments by others to the extent they liked. They could blame, scolded, or even fired their interlocutors, if they wanted to do so, as in the case of situations #12 and #13. However, looking at the reactions indicated in their responses, we noted that they were inclined to accept their interlocutors’ “indulgence” and refrained themselves from making a revenge. If they did so, they were likely to lose lian. Further consequences may take place, namely other members of society cannot accept the revenge and would in turn regard them as the people with no prestige. In addition to having lost their lian, the people of such kind are also vulnerable to exclusion from their society.

 

Accepting apologies from the people who had accidentally done a wrong doing might lead to the enhancement of face of a person. Other than that, the person will also be regarded as a man of honour, because he/she has observed the interests of both the people and the society. This polite behaviour, Gu called this as “attitudinal warmth” (1990: 239), demonstrates kindness, consideration, and hospitality, which he believes as one of the basic constituents of the notion of limao “politeness” in the Chinese culture.

 

Hierarchical. Confucianism dictates that the relation of order (hierarchy) be operative in Chinese human interactions. This relation, described in elder-younger brothers’ relation, suggests the need to respect seniority, which particularly concerns age differences. However, other sources of hierarchy can be identified, and these can include blood bonds and origins, wealth, positions, education, and so on. The most salient evidence and common practices of this societal value can be found in the naming practices among Chinese, which are intended as a sign to show different deference and relationship. This relationship in many cases is often built on a hierarchical foundation. In Scollon&Scollon’s observation, for example, “Chinese have a rather complex structure of names which depends upon situations and relationships, which includes school names, intimate and family baby names, and even western names, each of which is used just by the people with whom a person has a certain relationship” (1995: 123).

 

The relative social status attached to a person calls for a different treatment to be given to the person by others. The incidents that caused a person of higher social status to an unfortunate circumstance such as described in our situational contexts in the questionnaire, according to Confucianism, require that the person be more considerate, and vice versa. The person has to take it as less serious and as not harmful to his/her prestige. If he/she tries to do otherwise, he/she may experience losing lian. In Hu’s view (1944: 47), “a person of high status … has to be more circumspect in dealing with people of lower status”, because even if the person eventually gets the respect from the inferior, “this respect would be impaired if ego lost dignity by behaviour very contrary to the expectation of society” (cf. Gu’s (1990) notion on refinement).

 

Let’s have a close look at the choice made by our respondents to situations #12 and #13, where being in a rush, a subordinate bumped into his/her boss. Pretending not to recognise the boss (situation #13), the subordinate just left the place without saying anything. The questionnaire asked what the respondents would have done as if they had been the boss. Surprisingly, majority responded that they would act as if there had been nothing happening and they would greet their subordinate as usual. When asked for the reasons, they generally said that they were afraid of the social sanctions they would have to face if they scolded the person, let alone in a public place. This noble attitude, we can be sure of, does not instantaneously come into existence without the person having achieved a state of being fully aware of the values of maintaining his lian. On the part of the subordinate, on the other hand, the decent behaviour shown by his/her boss, to some extent, may be taken as a serious “attack” to his/her face, which could result in the lost altogether. Therefore, he/she would have to try to regain it from at least his/her boss, and this would not be a simple endeavour.

 

Moral. Morality is another basic constituent of the Chinese concepts of face, the loss of which is equated with the loss of morality. Seen from this perspective, moral integrity de, I therefore believe, serves as the most basic element that constitutes the Chinese concepts of face. From this morality will all other good human characteristics spring. On the other hand, good morality occurs at the farthest end of a human character continuum and it becomes the utmost goal that all rational human beings will strive to achieve.

 

With reference to our data, we noted that the respondents seemed to always try avoiding making offence to others, attend more to others’ interests than to their own, and highly respect others because of their good reputations. This “self-denigration” (Gu, 1990) reflects the respondents’ adherence to the values that prevail in their society that demand them to do so, which in turn implies their closed observance to the need of achieving high moral integrity.

 

Letting a guest smoke while one’s self does not (situation #1), forgiving others for the wrong assumption about self’s spouse (situation #6) or for a careless act that results in a bump (situations #11, #12, and #13) while the self has the full power to take revenge represent the examples of acts of a human with high morality. This type of person never thinks of returning others’ wrong doing or thinking about him/her, because, if he/she does so, that clearly reflects the low moral standard of him/herself. This will in turn result in the loss of lian of the person.

 

 

5.0. Summary and Conclusions

 

We witness that the order of the world is changing and the one in Chinais not an exception. Our primary aim in this study was to look at the effects of the changes that the world is experiencing on the conceptions and the practices of such traditional concepts as mianzi or lian “face” found in the Chinese society. Based on the data we have collected we found the following. Firstly, from our interview data we noted that many of our respondents did not really realise of the existence of the philosophical concepts of mianzi or lian, although they could find the words in their vocabulary. This was indicated in their inability to explain fully the philosophical concepts. Therefore, their understanding of these two words was only limited to the understanding of common people. Yet, that does not mean that they do not practise the concepts in their daily life.

 

Secondly, there was a different view of the respondents with regard to their perception on how to interact and treat other people. Among villagers, for example, it was found that their feeling of togetherness was quite high, so that a more harmonious community would be more easily achieved. City dwellers, on the other hand, viewed that harmony could not always be examined being cooperative with others, but it also had to be seen from the ability to be more independent. In other words, trying to minimise intrusions and impositions to others is one way of creating and maintaining harmony among members of their society. Consequently, there were many instances of their communication transactions which were more driven by instrumental forces than by relational and normative forces, i.e. taking future benefits or the nurturing effects of their communication into their consideration. Therefore, politeness realisations of the groups of these two opposing views were different.

 

Thirdly, it appeared that age becomes a crucial factor that distinguished the respondents’ perceptions about the traditional concepts mianzi and lian, which in turn resulted in the different politeness realisations. Compared to the middle-aged and the older groups, the younger respondents were found to be more straightforward in expressing their illocutionary acts. By contrast, the two former groups appeared to be more careful and hence less direct. Gender was not found as a distinctive variable with regard to the respondents’ perceptions about either face concepts or politeness realisations. Fourthly, types of occupations contributed to the differences in the respondents’ views about the concepts of face as well as their politeness realisations. Professional workers and students seemed to be less hierarchical in their forms of talks, although they showed high deference to their interlocutors. Finally, we found that politeness shown by speakers was mainly intended to maintain harmony among participants and their good image/prestige in the eyes of their interlocutors, particularly when dealing with their closed friends, neighbours, and foreign guests.

 

Using the parameters of ideal person contained in Confucianism in relation to face, we found that the principles of moral integrity de attached to the concepts of face mianzi and lian appeared to be the most basic aspect that all human beings have to attend to. This is because good morality touches the deepest side of humanity ren. The loss of moral integrity means the loss of humanity, and no more face can be found in such a type of person. Because the Chinese we observed through the present study were found to adhere to this concept, we can conclude that although China is changing, the conceptions and practices of the concepts of face mianzi and lian have remained constant.

 

 

8.0. References

 

Aziz, E. A. 2000. Refusing in Indonesian: strategies and politeness implications. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Linguistics,MonashUniversity.

 

Blum-Kulka, Soshana. 1982. Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: a study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 131-146.

 

Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP.

 

Chang, H. & R. Holt. 1994. A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (ed.). The challenge of facework. Albany: SUNY. Pp 133-158.

 

Cheng, Chung-ying. 1986. The concept of face and its Confucius roots. Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 13, 329-348.

 

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

 

_________. 1967. Interaction ritual:  Essays in face-to-face behavior.New York: Pantheon Books.

 

Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14:237-257.

 

Ho, D.Y. 1976. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociologist, 81, 867-884.

 

Hsu, F.L.K. 1981. American and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu:University ofHawaii Press.

 

Hu, Hsien Chin. 1944. The Chinese Concept of “Face”. American Anthropologist 46(1): 45-64.

 

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal form and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8/2-3:223-248.

 

Jia, Wenshan. 1997. Facework as a Chinese conflict-preventive mechanism—a cultural/discourse analysis. Intercultural Communication Studies VII: 1. Available online: http://www.trinity.edu/org/ics/ICS%20VII/ICS-VII-1-JIA.pdf

 

Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvania Press.

 

Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman

 

Mao, Robert LuMing. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21:451-486.

 

Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face:  Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4):403-426.

 

_________. 1989. Questions on politeness and conversational universals:  Observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8-2/3:207-221.

 

Pan, Yuling. 1995. Power Behind Linguistic Behavior Analysis of Politeness Phenomena in Chinese Official Settings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(4):462-481.

 

Sankoff, G. 1980. The social life of language. Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvania Press.

 

Scollon, R. & S. Scollon. 1994. The parameters in East-West discourse. In S. Ting-Toomey (ed.). The challenge of facework. Albany: SUNY. Pp. 133-158.

 

_________. 1995. Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Yang, Martin C. 1945. A Chinese Village. NY:ColumbiaUniversity Press.

 

Zhao, G., & Gao, W. (Eds.). 1990. Minzu yu wenhua [Nationality and culture]. Nannin,China: Guangxi People’s Publishing House.