PAC Facework from the Perspectives of Interactions between Members: A Case Study of a Japanese Language Classroom by PAC analysis YOKOMIZO Tamaki The purpose of this study is to investigate how facework is related to interactions between members. The participants were international students in a Japanese language classroom. To clarify the group structure of the class members, MDS (multi-dimensional scaling) was employed. Moreover, the PAC (Personal Attitude Construct) method was used in order to examine participants interpretations of themselves, their classmates and the class to which they belonged. From this study the following three findings became evident: 1) The formation of the group structure is related to the symbols created by the interaction between members. 2) The formation of the group structure and the symbols are related to members interpretations of themselves, their classmates and the class to which they belonged. 3) Interpretations of the symbols depend on each of the members, and are related to facework. More research should be conducted to explore how the symbols are created by the interaction between members, and are related to facework. : PAC 29
19 (2007 ) 1. 2. 2 1. 4 (Hu 1944) (Ting- Toomey 1988) (2002 5 ) Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 62) Ting-Toomey (1988, p. 215) (1998 103 ) (Brown and Levinson 1987) Brown and Levinson (1987) positive face ( ) negative face ( ) 2 30
Lim and Bowers (1991) positive face fellowship face ( ) competence face ( ) 2 negative face autonomy face Oetzel (2001) (Markus and Kitayama 1991) (Triandis 2001) (Hofstede 1991) self-face other-face mutual-face 1) ( ) 2) 3) 31
19 (2007 ) 2 2. ( 1995 3 ) (1991 2 ) ( 1991 5 ) ( 2 ) (self-interaction) ( 1995) ( 1991) 32
( ) ( ) 2. 2 1. 4) 7 ( 19 25 ) ( 1 ) 1 5) ( ) A (1 ) T ( ) Y B (1 ) U ( ) Y C (1 ) V ( ) Y D (1 ) V ( ) E ( ) W ( ) Z F ( ) X ( ) Z G ( ) X ( ) Z 33
19 (2007 ) 2 2. PAC (Personal Attitude Construct: ) 6) 7) PAC PAC ( 1997) ( 1997) ( ) ( ) ( 2005) PAC 8) PAC A B C 9)?? 34
3 4 ( ) 10) (5 ) 11) 12) 3. 13) 3 1. ( ) 14) ( ) PAC ( 1991 13 ) ( ) 1 (+) ( ) 2 (+) ( ) (1991) 35
19 (2007 ) (1) ( 1) ( 1 ) B G F ( ) C ( ) A E D ( ) A E F C B G D B E G F D G F A E F A: F E D B E G D: B E (C G ) 36
1.0 B A 2 0.5 0.0 G F C 0.5 1.0 E D 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 15) B D C B (C ) D C ( ) (2) ( 2) ( ( ) ) ( 2 ) 2 X 3 A B G B G (B ) (G ) G 37
19 (2007 ) 1.0 B A 0.5 G X 2 0.0 F C 0.5 1.0 E Y D 2 1 0 1 2 1 X 2 A 16) A A: F E ( ) 38
A: ( ) A G G: ( ) ( ) B B: ( ) A G competence face B fellowship face 4 (C D E F) A B G Y D B E B F G F B G X D E G A G 39
19 (2007 ) 3 2. (1) D PAC ( ) 17) PAC D 3 D 40
( 3 ) CL1 fellowship face D ( ) D E (competence face fellowship face ) fellowship face D D fellowship autonomy D + 0 D CL2 D B E 41
19 (2007 ) CL4 ( ) CL2 D B E competence CL2 D D CL1 ( ) ( ) D CL3 A D A competence CL2 18) CL4 C G fellowship face competence face 42
D D ( 4 ) CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 D D ( ) (fellowship face competence face ) (fellowship face autonomy face ) CL1 D CL2 ( ) CL4 ( ) (CL2 CL4) D (CL1) CL3 D ( ) CL2 CL3 D CL1 CL4 4 ( D ) 43
19 (2007 ) (2) A competence face ( 1997 129 ) 19) PAC B fellowship face C C competence face fellowship-face B G ( 20) 21) ) D (B E) fellowship competence autonomy E PAC 44
4 E F G A competence face ( ) 0 G ( ) 4. PAC PAC ( ) 45
19 (2007 ) 22) D PAC PAC D D B E G C A D D D A G A G competence face B fellowship face 46
( : ) ( ) 23) 1) self-face other-face mutual-face (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi 1998) 2) ( / / Mertens (1998) 3) ( 47
19 (2007 ) 2003) 1 ( 1997) 4) ( 2 ) 5) 6) PAC (1997) 7) 8) 9) A B C 10) 11) (2003) 12) SPSS Halwin (2002) 13) ( ) 14) (A B C D) (E F G) 15) 16) A B G B G G A B 17) D D 48
( ) 1 CL1 2 CL2 3 CL3 4 CL4 18)? CL2 19) (Wills 1981) 20) Tesser (1988) ( ) C B G 21) 2 ( 2004 124 ) 22) 23) (2003) (1997) IV : (246 ) E. ( ) (2002) (1988) 13 2 103 111 (2003) (2004) (1997) PAC (2003) 67 211 (1995) (3 13 ) U. ( ) (2003) H. ( ) (1991) 49
19 (2007 ) (2002) SPSS, M. ( ) (1997) (2005) PAC (71 82 ) Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGrw-Hiss. Hu, D. H. (1944). The Chinese concepts of face. American Anthropologist, 46, 45 64. Lim, T., and J. W. Bowers (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 451 450. Marks, H. R., and S. Kitayama (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 253. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research Methods in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Oetzel, J., S. Ting-Toomey, T. Masumoto, Y. Yokochi, X. Pan, Takai, J., and Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235 258. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181 227. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. IN: Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 213 235). Sage Publications. and A. Kurogi (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation Theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187 225. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and Collectivism: Past, Present, and Future. IN: D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 35 50). NY: Oxford University Press. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245 271. 50