Content uploaded by Yongping Ran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yongping Ran on Sep 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Politeness Research 2019; 15(2): 257–291
Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran*
Impoliteness Revisited: Evidence from
Qingmian Threats in Chinese Interpersonal
Conflicts
https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0027
Submitted July 24, 2017; Accepted January 29, 2018
Abstract: There is a growing consensus that (im)politeness is associated with
participants’ situated evaluations vis-à-vis the moral order (Haugh 2013a, 2015b;
Kádár and Haugh 2013). This paper focuses on impoliteness as evaluative prac-
tices underpinned by the moral order of qingmian (lit., affection-based face).
Drawing on data from Chinese interpersonal conflicts, the study reveals that
unmet renqing (favor) expectations and unmet mianzi/lian (face) expectations are
often evaluated as qingmian threats by participants, and thereby cause conflicts
and disharmony. Our analysis investigates three key issues: (1) qingmian threat as
the cause of interpersonal conflicts, (2) cultural factors influencing expectations
associated with ‘taking offence’ in Chinese and (3) the implications of qingmian
threat for (im)politeness theory at the etic level.
Keywords: impoliteness, taking offence, qingmian threat, expectations, interper-
sonal conflicts
1 Introduction
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in participants’ emic under-
standing of (im)politeness in situated interactional contexts. Previous studies
of impoliteness have mainly focused on speaker-oriented strategies that cause
offence and interpersonal conflicts (Culpeper 1996, 2005, 2011; Bousfield 2008,
2013). Little research is, however, conducted on taking offence from the per-
spective of the recipient. It is rare to find studies that focus on the association
between expectations and taking offence (cf. Haugh 2015a; Tayebi 2016). This
article explores the role of qingmian (情面, affection-based face) as an important
*Corresponding author: Yongping Ran, Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guang-
dong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, P.R. China, E-Mail: ranyongping@hotmail.com
Linsen Zhao, School of English and Education, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,
Guangzhou, P.R. China, E-Mail: elinsen770@126.com
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
258 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
cultural value underlying Chinese people’s evaluation of whether (non-)verbal
behavior as offensive or not. This study attempts to address what constitutes a
qingmian threat and how violations of qingmian would influence evaluations of
offences and lead to interpersonal conflict.
It is widely acknowledged that the analysis of (im)politeness evaluation or
taking offence is underpinned by the notion of ‘expectation’ (see Mills 2003;
Spencer-Oatey 2005, 2008; Locher and Watts 2008; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2010;
Culpeper 2011; Terkourafi 2011; Haugh 2013a, 2015a; Kádár and Haugh 2013; Eelen
2014 [2001]; Izadi 2015; Tayebi 2016). For instance, Culpeper (2011: 23) defines
impoliteness as clashes of ‘expectations’ when a situated behavior “conflicts with
how one expects them to be, how one wants them to be and/or how one thinks
things ought to be”. Spencer-Oatey (2002, 2005, 2008) proposes that face sensitiv-
ities, sociality rights and obligations, as well as interactional goals are three basic
elements underpinning people’s (im)politeness or rapport judgments. Adopting
a genre approach, Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2010: 63) views impoliteness as the
disregard for “(pre)genre-sanctioned, norms and interactional parameters regu-
lating the rights and obligations associated therein with a given individual/social
identity”. Haugh (2015b) delineates “moral expectancies” or “moral order” (Gar-
finkel 1964) associated with (im)politeness evaluations, including the deontic
order, the benefactive order, the epistemic order and the emotional order. Most
of these scholars analyze the ‘expectation’ or ‘moral order’ from general perspec-
tives; the focus is less on cultural variations or emic perspectives (see Culpeper et
al. 2010; Fukushima and Haugh 2014; Izadi 2015; Tayebi 2016). As Spencer-Oatey
and Kádár (2016) point out, people’s (im)politeness evaluations might be affected
by culturally-based expectations. It is therefore a need to explore deep-seated
cultural perspectives associated with moral foundations and (im)politeness.
Over the past few decades there have been numerous studies on Chinese folk
or emic notions such as mianzi, lian and renqing (人情, favor). Comparatively little
work has been done on qingmian threat and its relationship to (im)politeness.
Some scholars acknowledge the central role Chinese ‘face’ (including mianzi and
lian) plays in (im)politeness research (e.g., Mao 1994, Yu 2003), whereas others
argue that Chinese ‘face’ is not necessarily linked to (im)politeness and that face
should be studied as a research area in its own right (e.g., Hinze 2012; Kádár and
Pan 2012; Haugh 2013b). More recently, some scholars have highlighted the impor-
tance of renqing in (im)politeness studies. Renqing is a reciprocity-based practice
whereby insiders maintain and strengthen their affective relationship over the
long term (Fei 1947; Hwang 1987; Yang 1994; Yan 1996). Based on a cross-cultural
study on perceptions of impoliteness, Culpeper (2011) argues that Chinese people
are more sensitive to equity-rights violations (Spencer-Oatey 2008). This is due
to the reciprocity principle in Chinese culture, reflected in Chinese idioms such
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 259
as li shang wang lai (礼尚往来, where propriety suggests reciprocity, Shisanjing
zhushu, Explanations of the Thirteen Lections: 1231c). Kádár and Pan (2011) assert
that genuineness is a basic feature of Chinese politeness, while lack of warmth
(wenqing 温情) or ‘insincere’ often presupposes the lack of politeness. Fukushima
and Haugh (2014) analyze attentiveness (titie/zhoudao, 体贴/周到) as the moral
order underpinning (im)politeness evaluations among Chinese-Taiwanese partic-
ipants. For example, when there is excessive or unwanted attentiveness perceived
as ‘calculating’; that is, “disguising a self-interested agenda on the part of the one
ostensibly showing empathy”, it would occasion impoliteness evaluations (Fuk-
ushima and Haugh 2014: 177).
Drawing on data from interpersonal conflict mediation, this paper aims to
fill in the gap by investigating qingmian threat and its association with ‘taking
offence’. Here qingmian refers to the emotional ties between at least two acquaint-
ances based on long-term renqing and mianzi practices. The essential distinction
between qingmian and mianzi lies in that the former foregrounds interaction at
the intersubjective, affective and relational levels, while the latter means “per-
sonal dignity, honor, respect, or simply public identity and personal reputa-
tion” (Huang 2011: 38). Qingmian is used as a superordinate term to cover both
renqing and mianzi practices, while reciprocal mianzi-saving/giving in front of
others can be a means of achieving qingmian and strengthening the bonds of
affection between two parties. Consequently, what is meant by offence is that the
talk or conduct involves a threat to two acquaintances’ qingmian, rather than the
over-emphasis of the target person’s individual face or identity (cf. Goffman 1967;
Brown and Levinson 1987; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Bousfield 2008, 2013; Culpeper
2011). This approach is based on (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013a,
2015b; Kádár and Haugh 2013). Specifically, this paper aims to address three
questions: (1) How are interpersonal conflicts initiated and driven by qingmian
threat? (2) What are the cultural expectations associated with qingmian threat
and taking offence in Chinese? (3) What are the implications of qingmian threat
in Chinese for (im)politeness theory at the etic level?
The organization of the paper is as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodol-
ogy of the present study. Section 3 provides a discussion of renqing, mianzi, qing-
mian and impoliteness in Chinese culture. Section 4 illustrates qingmian threats
and offences through a detailed analysis of the data. Finally, Section 5 discusses
and summarizes the main findings of the research.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
260 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
2 Methodology
2.1 Data, participants and setting
The data come from actual interpersonal exchanges in a television dispute medi-
ation program (a documentary series) in China, shown on the TV channel Fei
Chang Bang Zhu in Hebei. Different from other TV mediation shows that feature
exaggerated or even fabricated life stories, this program takes place in real-life
settings aiming to promote a harmonious society by resolving interpersonal con-
flicts. TV mediation shows have an influential power in shaping the perception of
the public by promoting Chinese traditional moral values (Deng et al., 2013). This
mediation program highlights the ideology of qingmian among acquaintances.
The norm of qingmian requires that renqing and mianzi should be reciprocated
among friends and acquaintances. The participants involved in this program
include two conflicting parities (A and B) and a mediator (M). For the purpose of
this study, the relationships between the disputants are confined to offender-of-
fendee relationships, in which the parties are acquainted with each other for a
long time, for example, close family, more distant relatives, friends or neighbors.
It is worth noting that even if the two conflicting parties represent two families
(e.g., A’s husband and B’s wife), the argumentation process is associated primar-
ily with two persons. Sometimes there are also bystanders or third parties in a
mediation setting. They are relevant to this study only when the mediator seeks
alignment from a side participant (C). This participation structure is diagrammed
in Figure 1.
As Figure 1 shows, the participants in a mediation session may include two
conflicting parties (A and B) and a mediator (M). The mediator’s main task is
to resolve the two parties’ disagreement over a specific issue and improve their
relationship through qingmian management. The qingmian threats emerging
prior to mediation need to be identified by the mediators. Behind the disputant’s
superficial demands lie interests, deeper needs or concerns that are ultimately
more important to the parties (Kraybill et al., 2001: 59). Although the two parties
appear to be squabbling over a resource, the real conflict is about the unrealized
renqing or mianzi.
A total of 40 conflict mediation episodes involving interpersonal conflicts
caused by unmet mianzi/lian-saving and unmet renqing (Yan 1996; Zhai 2007,
1Relationships between parents and children, couples or strangers are excluded from the data
resource in that they do not fit in with qingmian.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 261
2014) were selected. According to the related notions of renqing (e.g., Hwang 1987;
Jin 1988; Zhai 2007, 2014; Yan 1996; Chang and Holt 1994a; Fukushima and Haugh
2014), unfulfilled renqing is further divided into two dimensions; namely, neglect-
ing attentiveness and disregarding reciprocity. They are termed qingmian threat-
ening behaviors in this study, since the offender performs an act that hurts his/
her significant other’s feelings. (Im)politeness can be examined through partic-
ipants’ metapragmatic comments associated with face or (im)politeness-related
terms (Haugh 2007, 2009; Kádár and Haugh 2013; Chang 2013; Wang and Spen-
cer-Oatey 2015). Furthermore, qingmian threats can be reflected by the offendees’
emotional reactions via complaints. Specifically, complaints are usually accom-
panied by negative emotions, such as self-conscious emotions (e.g., embarrass-
ment, sadness and shame), and other-condemning emotions (e.g., anger, disgust
and contempt) (Culpepper 2011: 62). This study defines qingmian threats as “ante-
cedent events” (see Eisenberg and Garvey 1981; Maynard 1985; Brennis 1988; Ran
2010) initiating interpersonal conflicts. The analysis focuses on the offended
parties’ actions of ‘taking offence’, which are evidenced by their complaints
as well as the third-party mediators’ metapragmatic comments. The mediation
context therefore is a fruitful area for the exploration of how (im)politeness eval-
uations emerge in a situated practice with regard to the moral order to which they
appeal. This study will demonstrate that impoliteness evaluations vis-à-vis the
moral order of qingmian are contested, negotiated and co-constructed among the
participants in talk-in-interaction (Haugh 2013a).
Figure 1: The participation structure of
mediation (M=mediator, A=offendee,
B=offender)
Issue
A B qingmian
M
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
262 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
2.2 Framework
This study applies the theory of (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013a,
2015b; Kádár and Haugh 2013) to the analysis of impoliteness evaluations or
‘taking offence’. Haugh’s (2013a, 2015b; Kádár and Haugh 2013) model of (im)
politeness as interactional social practice offers a rich perspective on partici-
pants’ understandings and interpretations of (im)politeness. For this reason, this
theory is incorporated as the analytical framework for illuminating how viola-
tions of qingmian are related to impoliteness evaluations as social practice.
Building on important insights offered in Eelen’s (2001) critiques of first-wave
approaches to politeness, and drawing from methods and research in discursive
psychology and ethnomethodology, Haugh (2013a, 2015b) and Kádár and Haugh
(2013) propose a theory of (im)politeness as interactional social practice. While
in some respects echoing previous approaches that have appealed to the notion
of social practice in theorizing (im)politeness (e.g., Mills 2003; Watts 2003; Eelen
2014 [2001]), Haugh (2013a: 53) asserts that “the notion of evaluation has itself
remained remarkably under-theorised”. (Im)politeness is conceptualized as eval-
uations that not only arise in ongoing social practice, but are also a form of social
practice in and of themselves. The focus is thus put on “what participants are
doing through evaluations of (im)politeness, and how such evaluations are inter-
dependently interlinked with the interactional achievement of social actions and
meanings” (Haugh 2013a: 56). It is assumed that (im)politeness evaluations are
underpinned by the ‘moral order’ of the society and that they should be situated
vis-à-vis the ‘participation order’ in situated interaction. Participation order refers
to various positions the participants adopt in relation to producing, interpreting
and evaluating conduct or talk. Moral order is what grounds people’s evaluations
of social actions and meanings as good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate,
polite or impolite, and so on.
Haugh (2007) argues that the analyst’s interpretation of meaning/action
as well as (im)politeness evaluations must be consistent with the participants’
emic interpretations. The analysts could look for evidence of (im)politeness eval-
uations through “explicit comments made by participants in the course of the
interaction” (Haugh 2007: 312). For instance, one can examine how participants
hold others and themselves accountable to the moral order. More recently, Haugh
(2015a) regards taking offence as a pragmatic act with two sub-types; namely,
registering offence and sanctioning offence. The former encompasses an affective
stance, indicating a negative emotive state of “feeling bad”, which includes dis-
pleasure, annoyance, hurt, anger and so on, whereas the latter involves a moral
stance; that is, a moral claim of a prior transgression, affront, misdeed, etc. on
the part of another participant (Haugh 2015a: 37).
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 263
Following Arundale (2010b: 138), this study regards relationship as the
“establishing and maintaining of connection between two otherwise separate
individuals”. It is assumed that evaluations of relational connection and inter-
personal harmony are occasioned by qingmian enhancing behaviors (i.e., doing
renqing and/or giving mianzi), while relational separation and interpersonal con-
flict are occasioned by qingmian threatening behaviors (i.e., not doing renqing
and/or giving mianzi). This study argues that the moral order in relation to impo-
liteness evaluations and “taking offence” can be analyzed vis-à-vis the moral
order of qingmian. In order to interpret the offender’s problematic behavior, both
the offendee and the mediator may reflexively activate a normative framework
and imbue his/her conduct with moral meanings. It will illustrate how qingmian
threats are linked to impoliteness as a form of social practice in Chinese interper-
sonal conflict mediation.
3 Renqing, mianzi, qingmian and impoliteness in
Chinese
3.1 Accomplishing qingmian through renqing and/or mianzi
practice
Renqing is a widely studied phenomenon in Chinese sociology. “What is so-called
renqing? It consists of happiness, anger, sadness, fear, love, hate, and desire; all
of them are acquired at birth.” (Hwang 1987: 953). Nowadays, renqing constitutes
a core characteristic of guanxi (关系, relationship)-practice in Chinese. Fei (1947),
a famous anthropologist, has examined renqing as a principle regulating social
relationships based on his fieldwork in a region of the Yunnan Province of China.
He finds that renqing functions as an interpersonal ritual among insiders who live
in the same village community. Renqing ritual is based on reciprocity whereby
people maintain and strengthen their mutual relationship over the long term (Fei
1947). Similarly, Hwang (1987) argues that renqing involves exchanges of favors
following reciprocity norms. Favor may contain both affection and tangible bene-
2In Chinese society, the demarcation between the ingroup and outgroup is a significant ide-
ology. Fei (1947) depicts Chinese social networks as chaxugeju (差序格局, differential mode of
association), resembling a circle of water ripples, with the ‘self’ and the family at the center,
while the innermost ripples can be extended to embrace different circles of relationships based
on intimacy and obligation.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
264 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
fits such as money, goods, or services. Reciprocal participants “have to remember
the principle that ‘etiquette requires reciprocity’ (礼尚往来) and follow the rule
that ‘if one gives you a peach, you should requite his favor with a plum’ (投桃
报李)” (Hwang 1987: 957, 2012: 94). There is a difference between Chinese and
Western perceptions regarding both reciprocity and the time when favor should
be repaid. Western societies emphasize short-term, symmetrical reciprocation in
a balanced exchange relationship, whereas the Chinese recognize that renqing
can be paid back far into the future, implying that the relationship will last indef-
initely (Zhou et al. 2015: 158; see also Yang 1957; Yum 1988). Renqing is difficult to
calculate and one is never able to pay off ‘emotional debts’ (renqingzhai, 人情债)
to others (Hwang 1987).
Renqing is interconnected with mianzi in building and maintaining guanxi
(Hwang 1987; Huang 2011). Mianzi refers to an individual’s public image (Hu,
1944), or the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim for himself
from others, by virtue of his relative position in the social network (Ho, 1976).
Renqing and mianzi are interchangeable during social practice. To show one’s
renqing for the other is to respect the others’ mianzi, while giving or saving the
other’s mianzi makes it easy to gain renqing for oneself (Chang and Holt 1994a:
109). Therefore, participants within reciprocal guanxi maintain mutual face by
displaying, acknowledging or reciprocating renqing and/or mianzi (Chang and
Holt 1994a, 1994b; Chang 2008; Chang 2013). This mutual face is termed qingmian
(affection-based face) in this study. Qingmian is a superordinate concept includ-
ing various renqing and mianzi practices in Chinese interpersonal pragmatics.
3.2 Qingmian threat accounting for impoliteness and interper-
sonal conflicts
Many researchers have focused on renqing as a factor causing relational tension
or conflict (Fei 1947; Hwang 1987; Jin 1988; Chang and Holt 1994b; Yang 1994;
Yan 1996; Zhai 2007, 2014; Chang 2008; Chang 2010). For instance, interpersonal
disputes may arise due to mismanagement of renqing among insiders pertain-
ing to “settle accounts/算账” (Fei 1947; Zhai 2014), over-management of renqing
(Jin 1988) or incessant requests for mianzi and renqing (Chang 2008). Zhai (2007)
points out that unmet reciprocity is a potential cause of interpersonal conflict.
Participant’s mismatched interpretations of reciprocity can lead to negative eval-
uations and mutual complaints, such as bushihaodai (不识好歹, ‘mistaking good
for bad’), haoxin meihaobao (好心没好报, ‘good intentions are repaid by evil’),
wangenfuyi (忘恩负义, ‘devoid of gratitude’), and enjiang choubao (恩将仇报,
‘returning kindness with enmity’). In a similar line of thought, Chang and Holt
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 265
(1994b: 363) argue that there is a tension engendered by activation of emotional
debt (renqingzhai, 人情债): One can see the ‘warm and emotional side’ of inter-
personal relationships when renqing serves to lessen the distance between inter-
actants by providing mutual help. One can also, however, feel the ‘cold and prac-
tical side’ of human relations as emotional debt increase the distance between
interactants by emphasizing the obligation to return. Moreover, disregarding the
norm of reciprocity can seriously damage one’s social reputation, leading to a
humiliating loss of face (Hwang 1987). With the loss of face, the possibility of any
future exchange within the guanxi network is threatened (Standifird and Mar-
shall 2000).
Following Haugh (2013a), Kádár and Márquez-Reiter (2016) and Kádár (2017),
this study regards qingmian as a moral order invoked by mediators during the
conflict resolution process. According to Haugh (2013a, 2015b), the moral order
underpins everyday evaluations of (im)politeness, namely, it grounds people’s
evaluations of social actions and meanings as good or bad, appropriate or inap-
propriate, polite or impolite, and so on. Specifically, qingmian is a moral expec-
tancy requiring that people within a guanxi network should cultivate and maintain
emotive relationships through long-term renqing and mianzi practices. Violations
of qingmian (encompass unmet renqing and unmet mianzi expectations) are open
to be evaluated as impolite– threatening or damaging qingmian (termed here
as qingmian-threat, QT). In this study, the mediator performs the role of a moral
authority, analyzing the aggressive conflict situations, foregrounding the areas
where the norms of qingmian have been violated, and instructing the disputants
how to resolve the dispute based on qingmian.
The following analysis will focus on the association between qingmian threats
and impoliteness evaluations. Two basic assumptions are made:
(1) The moral order of qingmian requires that people within a guanxi network should cul-
tivate and maintain emotive relationship through long-term renqing and mianzi prac-
tices;
(2) Violations of qingmian encompass unmet renqing and unmet mianzi/lian expectations,
which may be evaluated as ‘qingmian threat’ (QT) and impoliteness. QT often projects
separation and leads to conflicts.
As Figure 2 shows, interpersonal conflict is caused by violation of the moral order of qing-
mian (i.e., not doing renqing or mianzi), which may be interpreted as qingmian threats and
impoliteness, projecting relational separation. Also, adhering to the moral order of qing-
mian (i.e., doing renqing or mianzi) functions to (re-)construct qingmian and restore rela-
tional connections as well as interpersonal harmony.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
266 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
4 Analysis
4.1 Unmet mianzi/lian-saving expectations
Mianzi/lian-saving expectations refer to the belief that people are entitled to
receive respect or deference from their significant others. In Chinese society, face
can be divided into two types: moral face (lian, 脸) and social face (mianzi, 面子)
(e.g., Hu 1944; Ho 1976, 1994; Mao 1994; Hwang 2006, 2012). Moral face refers
to the integrity of a person’s moral character and is often internalized, whereas
social face is more variable and externalized, representing an individual’s pres-
tige or reputation. Mianzi/lian is similar to Spencer-Oatey’s (2005: 102) notion of
“respectability face”, which denotes “the prestige, honor or ‘good name’ that a
person or social group holds and claims within a (broader) community”. The pos-
sibility of losing face can arise not only from the individual’s failure to meet his
obligations, but also from the failure to act in accordance with his expectations
of them (Ho 1976: 873).
When these expectations have not been met, this could be evaluated as threat-
ening to the offendee’s person-centered mianzi/lian. This is also consequently
evaluated as threatening to the qingmian or relational connection between the
two parties (Arundale 2010a).
3This moral-amoral distinction is reflected at the conceptual level, rather than based on the
linguistic division between lian and mian, since these two terms are used interchangeably in
some contexts (Ho, 1994: 278). For instance, a repeated and permanent attack on mianzi can be
thought of as threatening the other party’s lian (cf. Mao, 1994: 462).
doing
Co
nflict and
impolitenes
s
Harmony an
d
politeness
Separation
Qingmian-threat
Connection
Qingmian-support
Moral order of
qingmian
Renqing/mianzi
practice
not doing
adherence to
violate
Figure 2: A conflict-harmony scale vis-à-vis qingmian
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 267
4.1.1 Aggressive request
Aggressive requests consist of “asking license of a potentially offended person
to engage in what could be considered a violation of his rights” (Goffman 1971:
114; Brown and Levinson 1987). By making an aggressive request, the speaker is
oriented to threatening both the hearer’s mianzi and their mutual qingmian. The
following is an example:
(1) A conflict between neighbors: [A grew vegetables on the road, which impeded
B to drive her truck. B then aggressively requested A to stop doing this. In what
follows, A complains to the mediator M about B’s rudeness. AH is A’s husband
and AS is A’s son.]
01 → A: 那你们走了，赔礼道歉这点儿事没有了，我这面子还是挽不回
来。
02 M: 我不可能天天住到你家这儿。
03 AH: 她不道歉这个协议咱不给她写！
04 AS: 那不行，今儿个要不一下子弄清，弄不成。
05 M: 那就清了。
06 AS: 弄不成不行，她儿媳妇今儿个不过来说这句话来就是不行！
07 A: 争的就是这口气。
08 M: 我知道，现在咱不是说了，说清让她把这点事叫她给你立下。
09 → A: 你要是起初我一种菜，你要说，“你看我们经常走车呢，你
少吃点儿菜，让我们方便方便”，我嘛也不说，帮大哥，我
让六米也可以给她让。现在她弄成这样，你说我这面子在哪
儿呢？
01 → A: If you go away, she will never apologize to me. My mianzi cannot be
restored yet.
02 M: It is impossible for me to stay at your home every day.
03 AH: If she does not apologize, we won’t sign the agreement.
04 AS: Of course not! If the issue is not settled, we won’t agree.
05 M: That’s it.
06 AS: No way! If her daughter-in-law does not come to apologize, there’s
no way!
07 A: No one can get a word in.
08 M: I know. We discussed it, let her apologize and then sign the agree-
ment.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
268 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
09 → A: If you had said before I grew the vegetables, “You see, we often
drive trucks on this road. Could you eat less vegetables and do us
a favor?” I would say nothing. Brother Bang, I can give her no less
than six meters. Now that she has embarrassed me, you see, where
is my mianzi?
In this extract, an unmet mianzi-saving expectation seems to be the underlying
cause of the interpersonal dispute, rather than material interests such as land use
rights. A takes offence because B’s aggressive request conflicts with the expecta-
tion that A’s mianzi should be saved, which is reflected in A’s complaints (lines 1
and 9). A complaint is often occasioned by an evaluation of some event as “impro-
priety” that is attributed to the action of an individual (Drew 1998; Haugh 2013a).
It is worth noting that both A and her family members register the offence (Haugh
2015a), claiming that B should extend an apology to A (lines 3–7). Moreover, B’s
aggressive request simultaneously threatens his qingmian and relational connec-
tion with A. This can be evidenced by A’s assertion that the conflict would not
have occurred if B had saved her mianzi through an appropriate request (line 9).
In other words, A signals that his qingmian with B would have been maintained
if B had requested politely. In the mediation context, giving mianzi is an impor-
tant means of repairing the two parties’ qingmian and maintaining their good
neighborly relations. This example demonstrates that the evaluation of damage
on qingmian and its repair are predominant.
4.1.2 Exposing shortcomings
One party may hurt the other party’s feelings by exposing his/her shortcomings.
A person’s shortcomings include physical defects, incompetence, faults, weak
points, certain secrets, etc. Qingmian would be severely damaged if one’s weak-
ness or negative personal information was exposed by his/her friends in public or
in the presence of other people.
(2) A conflict between neighbors: [A is B’s neighbor. A complains that B insulted
her during a past quarrel. BH is B’s husband.]
01 → A: 赌誓，说我是，“你没有小子，我有俩小子，你没小子！”，说
我呢。我说，“是，我没小子，我俩闺女，你有小子，你也会
死，是不？”
02 M: 是不是说你们骂人家了？
03 B: 不是。
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 269
04 A: 是那么回事！说了也不承认！
05 M: (对B) 你听我给你说，如果是那么说话，还真是有问题，咱说
“打人不打脸，揭人不揭短”，是不是？为什么说这个啊？在过
去啊，就是我们这一辈人吧，我们这一代人，还挺在乎是绝户
不绝户这个事。
01 → A: She swore at me, “You have no sons. I have two sons. You have
no sons.” She cursed me, so I said, “Yes, I have no sons. I have
two daughters; you have two sons. You will also be dead one day,
right?”
02 M: Did you curse her?
03 B: No.
04 A: She did! She is lying!
05 M: (To B) Listen to me. If you say it in such a way, you are wrong. We
often say, ‘Do not punch him on the face when you hit somebody;
do not expose his shortcomings when you curse somebody’. Why
do I mention this? Because in the old days, our generation was
really afraid of being sonless.
In line 1, A is registering the past offence (i.e., B insulted her by saying that she
has no sons) thus displaying an affective and evaluative condemnatory stance
towards B. Reports of rudeness can be “designed to encourage the recipient’s
recognition of the rudeness and possible affiliation with the reporter” (Hutchby
2008: 239). However, when A reports an offending event that M has not witnessed,
it is necessary for M to confirm the trustworthiness of the report or on the contrary
to treat the report as a false accusation. So after an ‘interrogation’ practice (line
2), M sanctions this as an offence on the part of B at line 5 (Haugh 2015a). M’s
intervention signals his affiliation with A, wherein he invokes the moral order of
“打人不打脸，揭人不揭短” (‘Do not punch him on the face when you hit some-
body; do not expose his shortcomings when you curse somebody’). The mediator
indicates that B should maintain their qingmian and good relations by attending
to A’s face-saving expectation. In doing so, by exposing the shortcoming of A, B
hurts A’s feelings and occasions evaluations of qingmian threat by both A and M.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
270 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
4.1.3 Damage to moral face
Moral face (lian, 脸) is the “minimum, irreducible and inviolate face that one
must maintain for adequate functioning as a social being” (Ho 1994: 279; see also,
Hu 1944). Once lian has been lost, a person cannot function as usual in a group,
and he is likely to experience social exclusion or ostracism. Therefore, the loss of
lian is far more serious than the loss of mianzi. The former can create a long-term
and psychological effect (Gao 2009: 182). The offending events associated with
moral face may include: accusing a married woman of being in love with another
man, accusing a person of stealing, making explicit reference to shame by using
expressions such as buyaolian (not to want lian, 不要脸) or diuren (shame on
you, 丢人), etc. The following example is a good illustration:
(3) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s brother. B’s wife shamed A with ‘buyao-
lian’ and insulted him by saying that he could not build a house. A complains to
the mediator M about B’s rudeness. AW is A’s wife. BW is B’s wife.]
01 → A: (对M) 说俺不要脸了。(对BW) 俺一分钱不要你的啊，弟妹。俺
不要脸，俺一分钱不要你的了啊，俺一分钱不要，你看我这房
子盖得起来吗！
02 AW: (对M) 俺一分钱不要你的，也盖得起房。
03 A: (对AW) 好了，你也别说了。 (A起身走)
04 A: (对M) 人家说俺不要脸，说俺盖房子盖不起。
05 AW: (对M) 对，跟她要钱呢。
06 A: 跟她要钱呢。这俺一分钱不要了，你看我这房子，盖起来盖不
起来。好了。
07 M: 等一下，等一下，你等一下，你不要走呢，你看，你走了怎么
着？我给你说说。听我说啊，你过来。 (拉回A)
08 A: 我这么大，我四十多了，叫她骂我，叫她说我？
09 M: 没事，没事，我说她去。
10 → A: 叫她说我啊，我四十多岁的人了，叫她说我不要脸，我怎么不
要脸了？
11 M: 走走，行行，你听我讲啊。 (拉A回屋子)
12 A: 她凭嘛说我不要脸？
4This follows Hu’s (1944: 45) distinction between mianzi and lian: the former refers to social
face that represents an individual’s reputation “achieved through getting on in life, through suc-
cess and ostentation”, whereas the latter means moral face that “represents the confidence of
society in the integrity of ego’s moral character”.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 271
13 AW: (对M) 俺盖房子，她给俺弄这个。
14 A: (对AW) 你凭嘛说我不要脸？
15 M: (对BW) 你干嘛就说起你哥哥这种话来了？
16 BW: (对A) 对不起了，哥哥。我说我自己呢。 (哭)
17 M: (对BW) 你像这么说对吗？
18 B: (对A) 她说差了，她就不该说这句话！
19 A: (对BW) 我不要脸？
20 BW: (对A) 俺不要这个脸了。 (拍打自己的脸)
01 → A: (To M) She cursed me, saying that I am buyaolian. (To BW) I don’t
want one cent of your money, sister-in-law. I am buyaolian, I don’t
want a single cent. You’ll see how I build my house!
02 AW: (To M) I don’t need a single cent, and I can still build a house.
03 A: (To AW) OK, you stop speaking. (A turns around.)
04 A: (To M) She said that I was buyaolian and I could not build a house.
05 AW: (To M) Yeah, asking for money from her.
06 A: I didn’t ask for money from her. I don’t want a single cent. I will
show you how I build my house.
07 M: Wait, wait, wait a moment. Do not leave. You see, what if you go
away? I will speak for you. Listen to me. Come here. (Pulls back A.)
08 A I am more than 40 years old. How dare she curse me? How dare
she curse me?
09 M: Don’t worry, don’t worry. I will chastise her.
10 → A: How can she curse me? I am more than 40 years old. How dare she
curse me that I am buyaolian? Why am I buyaolian?
11 M: Go, go. Ok. Ok. Listen to me. (Pulls A back home.)
12 A: How dare she curse me that I am buyaolian?
13 AW: (To M) I was building my house, but she brought me into this.
14 A: (To AW) How dare you curse me that I am buyaolian?
15 M: (To BW) Why did you curse your elder brother in such a way?
16 BW: (To A) Sorry, brother. I am cursing myself. (Cries)
17 M: (To BW) Is it right for you to curse him?
18 B: (To A) She is wrong. She should not say such a words!
19 A: (To BW) Am I buyaolian?
20 BW: (To A) I don’t want my lian. (Clasps her face.)
As in extract 3, the conflict and impoliteness episode recounted here concerns
an insult in which BW does not show emotional concern towards A by accusing
him of ‘buyaolian’. The damage to lian is extremely severe because the loss of
this basic face would “seriously threaten the integrity of one’s social being or,
worse, one’s acceptability as a member of human society” (Ho 1994: 279). This
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
272 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
is reflected in the negative emotional stance with which A expresses his concern
about loss of lian. A displays his uncooperativeness by indignantly rushing out
of the room (lines 3 and 6) and refuses to engage in the mediation. He also shows
irritation with BW by repeatedly shouting that he did not expect BW to curse him
(lines 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 19). M criticizes BW for her rude behavior (line 15),
implying that BW should not have done this if she had valued qingmian and their
brother-sister relationship. Both M and A challenge BW by accusing her of being
impolite, as BW’s conduct not only threatens A’s lian, but also damages their
qingmian. In this way, M and A are constructing the complaint together, and thus
a collected complaint is formed, and “the norms of behavior are unanimously
shared” (Laforest 2009: 2459).
Moral face also functions at the collective level. In Chinese morality one must
take revenge if one’s parents/older relatives/family/group are hurt by someone
else, and it is a complete loss of lian if no revenge attempt is made (cf. Spen-
cer-Oatey and Kádár 2016). The two conflicting parties’ qingmian would be threat-
ened at the same time.
(4) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s younger brother. B and his wife BW beat
A’s wife AW during a past quarrel. A complains to the mediator M about their
aggressive behavior.]
01 → A: 我感觉最严重的是什么，她 (AW) 过去了，他们有我的电话，你
给我打个电话，不跟我说，两口子摁着她打一仗，你说搁谁谁
能过去？在我这，打狗还看主人呢！最开始说，最轻的一个办
法，掏医药费，她就不掏，你搁谁能过得去？
02 M: 花了多少医药费？
[…]
01 → A: I think the most serious thing is that when she (AW) went there,
although they had my phone number, they didn’t call, but knocked
her flat instead. How can someone bear such a shame? To me, even
‘beating the dog depends on the host’. At first, the easiest solution
was to compensate the medical fee. But she disagreed. How can
someone bear such a shame?
02 M: How much did you spend on the medical fee?
[…]
In line 1, A explicitly mentions that his lian would not have been lost if B had
given him a call rather than beating his wife. By invoking the moral expectation of
“打狗看主人” (‘beating the dog depends on the host’), A implies that B’s action
does not attend to their qingmian. When A requests that B should compensate for
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 273
the medical fees and the damaged reputation, his relational connection (Arun-
dale 2010a) with B is further decreased.
Thus far, it has been demonstrated that when someone’s mianzi or lian
expectation is not fulfilled, it would occasion evaluations of qingmian threats
and impoliteness and lead to conflict. Qingmian is a ‘deep level’ concept that
underpins impoliteness evaluations and ‘taking offence’. In what follows, this
study will analyze another dimension of qingmian threat; namely, unmet renqing
expectations.
4.2 Unmet renqing expectations
Renqing practice entails two basic properties; namely displaying attentiveness as
the benefactor and reciprocating renqing as the beneficiary (Hwang 1987; Yang
1994; Zhai 2014). Breach of these renqing expectations would cause evaluations
of qingmian threat and interpersonal conflicts. Specifically, unmet renqing expec-
tations are further divided into two sub-categories; namely, unmet attentiveness
expectations and unmet reciprocity expectations.
4.2.1 Unmet attentiveness expectations
Attentiveness (e.g., guanxin/zhaogu/titie/zhoudao, 关心/照顾/体贴/周到) refers
to a demonstrator’s preemptive response to a beneficiary’s verbal/nonverbal cues,
or situations surrounding a beneficiary and a demonstrator, which takes the form
of offering (Fukushima 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015). In this study, unmet attentiveness
expectations can be further divided into two subtypes; namely, inattentiveness to
other’s needs and ruthless pursuit of self-interest.
During the negotiation process, the disputants often disregard renqing
through ruthless pursuit of self-interest, which would threaten their qingmian
and relational connection. Family relatives and acquaintances fear talking about
money, since it may hurt others’ feelings and cast him/her as an outsider (Zhai
2014: 322).
(5) A conflict between neighbors: [A is B’s neighbor. They have a homestead
dispute over the land use rights. A aims to build a house on it and wants to give
some compensation to B. The following argumentation is concerned with how
much money A should pay to B. B wants to maximize her self-interest, which
generates the mediator’s criticism. C is B’s brother-in-law.]
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
274 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
01 → B: 少了五千不行！
02 M: 少多少？
03 B: 五千。她这会给钱了，依着我不给她。
04 M: 你听我跟你说，我这个人没有偏向，我是很公道的。如果你
要坚持要这么多，这个就是说跟消费者索赔一样，过了这个限
度，是吧？这叫无理取闹，你知道吧？
[…]
05 M: (对A) 他现在说要5000块钱，你们同意不同意？
06 A: 不同意，我也不同意。
07 C: (对B) 咱说那个，不能。
08 M: (对B) 伤和气，是吧？不能为了那点儿钱，是吧？
[…]
09 C: (对B) 钱不值钱，情面值钱。
10 C: (对M) 她应了，我做主了。
01 → B: If it is less than 5000 RMB, no way!
02 M: How much?
03 B: 5000 RMB, only if she gives the money right now. Otherwise I will
not agree.
04 M: Listen to me. I have no bias. I’m impartial. If you insist on so
much, it’s like a customer asking for compensation beyond what
is expected, right? You are making an unreasonable case, you
know?
[…]
05 M: (To A) She is asking for 5000 RMB, do you agree?
06 A: No, I do not agree either.
07 C: (To B) We can’t accept.
08 M: (To B) Are you really willing to hurt your relationship because you
cannot accept such a small amount of money?
[…]
09 C: (To B) Qingmian is more valuable than money.
10 C: (To M) She has agreed, I have made this decision.
In this excerpt, B’s excessive pursuit of self-interest threatens her qingmian with
A, indicated by B’s repeated argument that A must compensate her with 5000
RMB (lines 1 and 3). This lack of consideration triggers M’s mediation, requesting
that the price should be reduced so as to maintain their interpersonal harmony. In
line 9, a third party, C, brings to the fore the moral order that qingmian is more val-
uable than money. This example illustrates that placing self-benefit over others’
feelings may cause qingmian threat and relational separation, leading to evalua-
tions of impoliteness.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 275
Inattentiveness to other’s needs involve cases where the offender does not
think of the other person’s well-being or immediate needs. Renqing is long-
term oriented, and therefore takes time to build and should be earned over time
through one’s actions and efforts (Huang 2011). If A neglects to do a favor for B at
a certain time, it would threaten their qingmian.
(6) A conflict between neighbors: [A is B’s neighbor. B refused to do A a favor in
the past by not sharing her wall with A. Now A retaliates against B by dumping a
truckload of bricks in the road, which complicates B’s normal life. B asks him to
move them aside in order to make it possible to drive the car, but her proposal is
rejected by A.]
01 → A: (对M) 这花生蔓，她不让我靠墙我不靠，去年我就挪出这么宽。
02 M: (对B) 你家也是，一个花生糠，挨着墙就挨着呗。
[…]
03 M: 还有别的事吗？她对不住你的事还有没有？你说说。
04 A: (对M) 没有。她不说，我什么也不言声。
05 B: (对A) 我也不言声，你说吧。
06 M: (对B) 你一开始啊，嫂子，你就小心眼了，跟你说实话。弄个这
个怕什么，墙又捂不坏，你就记下这个仇了，你不让人家放，
人家这不挪砖，可能在这里边也憋着一股小气，所以说砖就是
不给你挪。
01 → A: (To M) She did not allow my peanut vines to touch her wall, so I
had to move them aside. Last year I moved them, just to about this
space.
02 M: (To B) Oh, really? It’s just a peanut vine. Why not let it touch the
wall?
[…]
03 M: Anything else? Did she do anything else that offended you? Just
speak out.
04 A: (To M) No. If she remains silent, then I will also keep silent.
05 B: (To A) I will not say either. You speak.
06 M: (To B) Aunt, you were narrow-minded at first, to be honest. It
doesn’t matter if he did so, the wall was not a problem! He then
started bearing a grudge against you because you did not allow him
to place the vines. So he refuses to move over the bricks and has
disdain in his heart.
At first, this conflict revolves around the right to use the country road (data not
shown): B argues that A should move aside his bricks a bit so she will be able to
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
276 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
drive the car, but A rejects her request and claims his road use rights. However,
as the mediation progresses, it turns out that A’s deepest concern is his unfair
treatment by B some time ago. This can be deduced from A’s complaint in line
1, wherein A asserts that B did not share her wall with him; that is, letting his
peanut vines touch her wall. Subsequently, M points out the crux of the problem
to B by confirming A’s offence (line 6). M indicates that B’s ignorance of renqing
in the past causes A’s retaliation by refusing to do B renqing when B is in need,
thereby alluding to the moral order of qingmian that one should display renqing
(i.e., empathy and attentiveness) when others are in need. When A perceives that
his qingmian with B is threatened, he performs the “tit-for-tat” action, namely,
“behaviour, prosocial, antisocial or of some other kind, should be matched”
(Gouldner 1960; cited in Culpeper 2011: 205). The Chinese reciprocity norm in
relation to youen baoen, youchou baochou (有恩报恩，有仇报仇, a favor for a
favor, an attack for an attack) (cf. Hwang 1987: 957) can well explain the origin of
this conflict.
The next example deals with the problem of qingmian during the negotiation
process, wherein the offender does not show attentiveness to the other party by
paying attention to his circumstances.
(7) A conflict between neighbors: [A is B’s neighbor. After some rainfall, A’s wall
collapsed and crushed B’s television satellite in the yard. They are having a
dispute over the amount of compensation.]
01 A: 你看自来水离多远都砸坏了，砖扑过去了。
02 → B: 那墙倒了，你上那躺着去啊！你上那躺着，我还给你偿命呢！
03 M: 别嚷，你这事总嚷也不对。毕竟是你的墙倒了，砸了人家的东
西了，这个从法律上也好，从情理上 (也好)，这都是咱的不对。
如果说你们两家反过来，你想想他把你的东西砸了，你什么心
情？
04 B: 我心情，墙倒也不是人为的，坏了就坏了，我也不找你家去。
一辈子你带走了吗那东西？死了啥也不是你的，都是地球的，
争啥？
05 M: 我跟你说吗，大嫂，咱反过来，咱不想赔人家，咱的态度还不
好，咱一点道理也不跟人家讲，一点理也不赔，那还行啊？
06 B: 他就是麻烦！
07 M: 尽量的大事化小，小事化了。邻居们住到一起，互相有个照
顾，说一点不管这事也不对，知道吧？
(双方开始协商)
01 A: You see the tap water is far from the wall. The bricks knocked it
down.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 277
02 → B: If the wall were knocked down, you could lie on it. If you lie on it, I
will take a life for a life.
03 M: Don’t shout at each other. Shouting is not an appropriate way to
solve this. Anyway, your wall collapsed and ruined her property.
According to the law or the rational affection, it is our fault. If you
view the problem from the other’s perspective, how would you feel
if your property was damaged?
04 B: These are my feelings: The wall was not knocked down by a person.
Things were already damaged. I wouldn’t ask you for compensation.
After someone dies, can you ask them for compensation? No, they
belong to the earth. What’s the point of arguing?
05 M: Let me tell you, aunt, think about it from his perspective: Suppose
you don’t want to compensate to him and our attitude is bad and
unreasonable. Is that okay?
06 B: He is a difficult person!
07 M: Try to minimize the problem. Neighbors living together should be
helpful when others are in need. Inattentiveness to the other per-
son’s need is not right, you understand?
(They begin to negotiate)
In this extract, A demands that B compensates for the damage, but B implicitly
rejects his request through a series of contradictions (lines 2 and 4). For instance,
by taking an ironic stance that she may take life for life if A lies besides the wall
(line 2), B regards A’s claim as groundless. Such refusing behavior threatens B’s
qingmian with A through hurting A’s feelings (Hwang 1987). Then M criticizes B’s
emotionless attitude in line 3 by appealing to the moral order that ‘neighbors
living together should be helpful when others are in need’ (line 7). M’s comment
further manifests B’s offensiveness and the problem of qingmian if B fails to
display attentiveness to A.
4.2.2 Unmet reciprocity expectations
Renqing is characterized by the obligation of giving, receiving and displaying a
sense of indebtedness (bao, 报) (cf. Yang 1957). When reciprocity is not realized,
it would be interpreted as projecting one party’s relational separation from the
5Yang (1957) provides a systematic account of the concept of bao, including ‘respond’, ‘return’,
‘recompense’ or ‘revenge’.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
278 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
other party (Arundale 2010a), which may threaten qingmian and lead to conflicts.
Unmet reciprocity expectations involve lack of appreciation, failure to recipro-
cate renqing, calculation (Fukushima and Haugh 2014) and clearing the account
(breaking off relationships).
Renqing needs to be repaid with genuine appreciation. The appreciation
comes from one’s heart, and may not require material considerations (Chang and
Holt 1994b). When the beneficiary does not show appreciation to the benefactor,
it may threaten their qingmian and cause relational tension.
(8) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s younger brother. B requests A to relocate
the small factory from his home, because the noise of the machines is intolerable
for his family. But A refuses to do so, saying that B is ungrateful for what he did
for him. M is the mediator.]
01 → A: (对B) 咱娘没了，你那些个年在外头，家里所有的白事都是我应
酬，咱妹妹，俩妹妹的老人，都是我拿的钱，对不？你承认这
个吧？我问你是不是？别的村的亲朋好友，咱娘没了以后，他
们随过来的礼，往外做了吗？咱哥俩分，算了，我拿出去拿出
去了，个人妹妹，给了就给了，我也没找你分摊。
02 M: (对A) 我明白你的意思，是不是？一开始呢，你确实让着你弟弟
让着不少，包括这个走这人情世故，红白喜事了，你也都自己
掏了，当时你把这个情面送给你弟弟了，这也是送。
03 A: 他念这个情吗？ 他不念这个情！
04 M: 你现在就是赌的气，“我送了你那么多人情，我让了你那么多，
现在呢，你不让我”，那我就把这事说说。
01 → A: (To B) When our mom passed away and you were not at home
during those years, I had to deal with the funeral arrangements all
by myself. I sent monetary gifts for the funeral of our sister’s parent,
right? Did you even acknowledge it? Is it true? After our mom died,
friends and relatives from other villages sent gifts to us. Did I spend
them? No, they were shared between us. OK, I did not mind using
my own money. I sent a gift to our sister, but I did not ask you to
share the expense.
02 M: (To A) I understand what you mean. At first, you had actually
compromised with your brother by doing favors (i.e., gift giving)
at weddings or funerals, using your own money. At that time,
you gave affection-based face to your brother, which is also a
favor.
03 A: And, does he acknowledge this affection? He does not acknowledge
it!
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 279
04 M: That is why you are angry with him now. “I have done so many
favors for him, I have offered a lot (of favors) to you, but now you do
not compromise with me.” Now I will address this issue.
A takes offense because he, as the eldest brother, has done a lot for B and for the
whole family (line 1), but B does not acknowledge his renqing (line 3). The com-
plaint projects a relational separation from B. That is why A refuses to do B a favor
by moving the factory, which can also be seen from M’s reformulation that A is
just taking offence (line 4). Impoliteness evaluations of B’s social actions are thus
interactionally achieved between A and M in locally situated talk-in-interaction
(Haugh 2013a). Most importantly, these impoliteness evaluations are rooted in
the moral order of qingmian, namely, one should show an appreciation of what
others have done for him/her. This extract reveals that B’s lack of indebtedness
influences the dispute, putting their qingmian at risk.
The rule of renqing also requires that the beneficiary is expected to repay
a debt of favor (renqingzhai, 人情债) when he/she is helped by the benefac-
tor (Hwang 1987). Failing to follow reciprocity expectations may offend one
party, thereby threatening their qingmian and relational connection (Arundale
2010a).
(9) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s elder brother. B wants to exchange a
piece of farmland with A but gets into trouble. A feels deeply resentful towards B
since B previously failed to reciprocate a favor to him.]
01 B: 你这样，我在村东的一块地，我给了你了，你在村西给我多分
点。
02 → A: 不要，不要，哪儿我也不要，你白给我，我也不要。不牵连你
了这回不沾你了，好赖是不给你处事。[…] 就你这个毒劲，我
盖这个房几年了，你家来过吗？你上这屋来看过吗？看过一回
吗？今天是头一回啊！你家盖房的时候，我可给你家待八天。
03 B: 你怎么又争这个干嘛？
04 A: 你来家里你都不进这个屋啊你！
05 B: 你告诉我了吗？你怎么净说这个嘛？
06 A: 我告诉你，我告诉你！
07 B: 你盖房子你要告诉我，我都没听说过你盖房。
08 A: 你来过家里吗？你知道有这个房子吗？怎么你小子知道，你不
知道？
[…]
09 M: (对A) 着急生气就在这里，是吧？
10 A: (对B) 你家两口子办的是人事吗？还给你调地，想着去吧！
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
280 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
01 B: Think about it: I’ll give you a piece of land in the eastern part of the
village, and you redistribute land to me in the western part of the
village.
02 → A: No. No. Even if you give it to me for free, I will not accept it. I won’t
get myself tangled up with you anymore. […] You are malicious. I
have built this house for many years and did you ever come to my
home? I had stayed at your home for eight days, to help you build
your house, but this is the first time you have come to my home.
03 B: Why do you want to argue about it again?
04 A: You didn’t even enter into this house when you came here.
05 B: Did you tell me? Why are you always saying this?
06 A: Let me tell you. I’ll tell you right now.
07 B: You should have told me, I never knew that you had built a house.
08 A: Did you come to my home? Did you know this house? Your son
knew about it. How come you didn’t know?
[…]
09 M: (To A) That’s why you are angry, right?
10 A: (To B) Did you two handle things like human beings? You still want
me to exchange land with you? No way!
In this extract, the dispute is caused by B’s incessant request for a favor without
reciprocity. A refuses B’s request for an exchange of farmlands, because he is
offended by B who failed to reciprocate a favor to him (line 2): A helped B build
a house in the past, so B owned a favor to A and was expected to return it to
A; however, B did not attempt to come when A was in need of help. A brings
to the fore the moral order of qingmian that people should reciprocate the favor
they receive from others. Moreover, A’s negative evaluation of B’s person (Haugh
2015b) evidences his interpretation of relational separation from B. Consequently,
B’s conduct threatens their qingmian and long-term reciprocal relations. This
example illustrates that failing to repay renqing will cause offence and lead to
interpersonal conflict between the two parties.
Reciprocity-based renqing could be a double-edged sword: The exercise of
renqing enables people to maintain a warm and emotional connection based on
mutual help, but renqing may also be “over-managed” (Jin 1988) through negative
‘calculating’ (逼债, bizhai) behavior which is insincere and emotionless. Calcu-
lating means that one is disguising a self-interested or some underlying agenda
on the part of the one who is ostensibly doing a favor (Fukushima and Haugh
2014: 172, 177). Overt repayment and material compensation detract from or deny
the emotional commitment in the relationship (Yang 1994: 122). The following
example is a good illustration:
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 281
(10) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s younger brother. A wants to take back
the farmland lent to B several years ago, but gets into trouble. B thinks that she
has done a lot for the family and for A, so A is under obligation to repay the favor
to her. AW is A’s wife.]
01 B: 俺爹啊，有了病，他 (A) 那个时候还没成家，他光上班或者耍
呢，他也不管，扔下老的，有了病就接到俺家里了，俺家那个
就细心照顾、伺候。
02 M: (对A) 你姐姐说的这个，你回想回想，是不是？当时是这个情况
吗？
03 A: (对M) 当时是这情况，但也是几天。
04 B: 一天也不是，一弄就在俺那儿住好几个月，你不知道？什么也
不要说了，他没管，谁都没管。
05 AW: (对B) 你听我说，我就说一句，那时候你兄弟小，是吧？说你当
姐姐姐夫的，你管了咱爹了，你也知道你兄弟小。闺女、儿子
咱们都有义务管，知道吗，姐？咱爹光养活了小子了，也养活
了闺女了，都要义务，知道吧？你不能老拿这点 (当理由)。
06 B: 对，说得比唱得还好听呢！
07 A: (对M) 好了，我知道了，我知道这意思了。
08 M: 什么意思？
09 → A: 让报恩呢！白给了你们这块地呗！[…] 帮大哥，这个事情早我就
清楚了，你知道我为什么早就清楚了？那回俺们在邻村，我姐
夫就说过，报恩，你把你（的地）送给我算报恩，把这两亩地
送给我算报恩。我还怎么送给你？！我把俺们房子也给了你们
吧！
01 B: When my father was sick, he (A) did not care for the old. At that
time, he was not married, he just worked and played. So, I had to
take my father home and took good care of him.
02 M: (To A) Do you remember what your elder sister said? Is it true?
03 A: (To M) True, but only for a few days.
04 B: No, he lived for several months with my family. Don’t you know?
Stop talking! He hasn’t looked after anyone.
05 AW: (To B) Listen to me, let me have a word. At that time, your brother
was young, right? You looked after our dad, because you are our
elder sister and brother-in-law. As a daughter and a son, both of us
have duties. Do you understand, sister? Our father raised us, so we
both have duties. You can’t keep using it (as an excuse).
06 B: I won’t listen to your sweet-talk!
07 A: (To M) OK, I know. I know what you mean.
08 M: What?
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
282 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
09 → A: I must repay a debt of favor! The land is an absolute gift! […] Brother
Helper, I know well! My brother-in-law has told me that two acres
should be given for the repayment of debts. How can I send it to
you? Why not let me repay you with my house?
On the surface, this conflict seems to arise due to B’s attempt to possess herself
of the land A lent her. However, at a deeper level, it is driven by B’s calculation
of favors. As an elder sister of the family, B argues that she has expended a great
deal of time and effort in caring for their father (line 1), thereby indirectly remind-
ing A of his obligation to repay for what she has done for the family and for him.
There is a discrepancy between the two parties in regard to the perception of ‘ren-
qingzhai’ (Zhai 2007). First, A’s wife does not think they owe debts at all. By posi-
tioning B’s duty to support parents as a child and an elder sister of the family, AW
asserts that it is inappropriate of B to use what she had done as an excuse (line
5). Second, A unmasks B’s underlying purpose of repaying a debt of gratitude (“
报恩”, line 9), and obviously takes offence at B’s calculating behavior, indicated
by his annoyance (Culpeper 2011; Haugh 2015a). In this way, A and AW signal
that B’s conduct makes their warm and emotional sibling relations become cold
and practical, thereby occasioning an evaluation of damage on qingmian. Their
impoliteness evaluations seem to be based on the moral order that when the ben-
efactor deliberately manipulated reciprocity norm for his personal gain, he will
decrease his emotive relationship with the beneficiary This example illustrates
that calculation of renqing can cause conflict and increase the qingmian threat
and relational separation between the participants.
“To settle accounts (算账, suanzhang) or to be completely square with some-
body means to break off relationships (绝交, juejiao), because if people do not
owe something to each other, there will be no need for further contact” (Hamilton
and Wang 1992: 124–125). This analysis shows that the disputants tend to ‘clear
the account’ during the negotiation process, which implies that they want to get
rid of the indefinite exchange of favors with the other party. Deliberately avoiding
reciprocal favor practice is offensive and designed to project relational separa-
tion. The offender is criticized as a ‘ruthless’ (绝情, jueqing) person.
(11) A conflict between relatives: [A is B’s paternal elder male cousin. They are
having a dispute over land boundaries. B and his wife BW are arguing with A. BW
suggests that A’s tree should be removed from her land boundary. Such ruthless
behavior invokes the mediator’s criticism.]
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 283
01 → BW: (对M) 他 (A) 这个树在 (我的地) 边上，你说怎么弄吧？
02 M: 你别把事干那么绝了，那干什么呢？还有点乡情吗？正好是那
么个地边，别再动了。
03 BW: 你看在 (我的) 地边上吗？
04 M: 嗨，差不了三寸二寸的，你行了。
05 A: (对M) 砍了我也不沾光，我也不吃亏。
06 M: (对BW) 就这点乡情都不念，就这个弟兄谁都不认谁，你叫我
说什么，我和你一样，我也是个人，我也有点情，我也是XX县
人，我是作为一个调解员来说，我不愿意把事都办这么绝，听
透了吧？
01 → BW: (to M) His (A) tree stands on the edge (of my field). What should we
do about it?
02 M: You should not do anything ruthless. Why do something like that?
Don’t you have affection for your fellow villagers? The tree stands
right on the edge. Do not move it.
03 BW: Can’t you see, isn’t it on (my) edge?
04 M: Hey! It is less than two or three inches. Let it go.
05 A: (To M) If I cut it, I have nothing to win or lose.
06 M: (To BW) If you don’t have any affection for your fellow villagers and
brothers, then what do you want me to say? I am the same as you. I
am also a human being. I also have some affection. I also come from
XX county. As a mediator, I don’t want to resolve the issue in a ruth-
less manner, understand?
BW suggests that A’s tree should be removed from the edge of her field, which
implies that she does not want to get entangled with A anymore, thereby demon-
strating orientation to relational separation from A. Meanwhile, her ruthless
behavior can threaten their qingmian and cause relational separation between
them (Arundale 2010a). This is evidenced by M’s impoliteness evaluation of BW’s
conduct, whereby M claims that her proposal is ruthless (line 2). It is interesting
to note that M positions himself as a person who has affection, with the phrase “
我也有点情” (‘I also have some affection’, line 6), indicating that BW is in lack
of renqing and does not care about her qingmian with A. This example shows
that the interpersonal conflict can be affected by the offender’s act of clearing
account.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
284 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
5 Discussion and conclusion
This paper examined how impoliteness evaluations arise in talk-in-interaction,
using cases of interpersonal conflict mediation in China. Through the lens of
Haugh’s (2013a, 2015b) model of (im)politeness as social practice, it has been
demonstrated how qingmian threats are linked to evaluations of impoliteness as
social practice vis-à-vis both the moral and the participation order. Analysis of
the conflict episodes revealed that ‘taking offence’ is based on qingmian threat
with reference to unmet renqing and mianzi/lian expectations. These expecta-
tions are summarized as follows:
– Unmet mianzi (面子)/lian (脸)-saving expectations:
• Aggressive request
• Exposing shortcomings
• Damage to moral face
– Unmet renqing expectations:
• Unmet attentiveness (guanxi, 关心) expectations
(e.g., ruthless pursuit of self-interest; inattentiveness to others’ needs)
• Unmet reciprocity (bao, 报) expectations
(e.g., lack of appreciation, failure to reciprocate renqing, calculation,
clearing account)
These findings have important implications for our understandings of (im)polite-
ness theory in general: First, by examining qingmian threats in conflict situa-
tions, this study moves beyond the current focus on face threatening/attack as
‘offensive’ or impolite. This paper argues that the notion of ‘offence’ involves not
only a threat to the target’s person, but also a threat to his/her relationship with
others. This study focuses on the latter, a relatively understudied phenomenon
in impoliteness literature. The concept of face as claimed social image or iden-
tity has long been considered to be central in triggering interpersonal conflicts
and impoliteness (e.g., Goffman 1967; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Bousfield 2007, 2008,
2013; Graham 2007; Culpeper 2011; Bou-Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2014). The individually-based face threat has remained at the core of the anal-
ysis of impoliteness and conflictive interpersonal interactions. The actual rela-
tionships have, however, been relatively neglected in the analyses of face threat
(Chang and Haugh 2011: 2960). This analysis has revealed that qingmian threats
are first and foremost evaluated as threats to relational connections, which arise
due to someone’s transgression of qingmian. By reframing face threat from the
affective and relational aspect, this study represents a significant contribution
to the over-emphasis on person-centered face as a source of impoliteness and
conflictive situations.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 285
Second, this study illuminates the dynamic interconnection between qing-
mian, impoliteness and the moral order. The current studies reflect a growing
trend to propose alternative metaphors to analyzing and theorizing (im)polite-
ness in that face has long been used as the core of analysis (see Haugh 2005,
2013a, 2015b; Intachakra 2012; Fukushima and Haugh 2014). Many scholars argue
that face should be theorized and studied on its own terms and disentangled from
(im)politeness (Haugh 2009; 2013b; Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini 2010). For
instance, Haugh (2015b: 310) proposes the notion of “emotional order”, which
encompasses emotional status, i.e., “socially shared expectations regarding
experiencing, expressing, and sharing of emotions” and emotional stance, i.e.,
“displays of emotions”. This analysis shows, however, that impoliteness evalua-
tions are underpinned by both face and emotional order. By incorporating qing-
mian into the evaluative practice vis-à-vis the moral order, a more complex model
can be diagrammed in Figure 3.
As indicated in the figure, the basic assumption is that social actions and
meanings are important means of accomplishing qingmian. Qingmian and (im)
politeness are both conceptualized as evaluative practices in two ways. The solid
arrow denotes that qingmian threat/support and (im)politeness involve evalua-
tions which are occasioned by social actions/meanings (e.g., renqing and mianzi
acts). The dashed arrow means that these evaluations per se can reflexively occa-
sion evaluative social actions and meanings (e.g., the offendee’s evaluations of
qingmian threat and impoliteness further occasion the third parties’ evaluations).
In addition, evaluations of qingmian threat/support and (im)politeness involve
(implicit) appeals to the moral order, which is constituted through practices by
Social actions and
meanings
Evaluation of qingmian
and (im)politeness
Moral
order
Figure 3: The inter-relationship between qingmian, impoliteness and
moral order (adapted from Haugh 2013a: 60; see also Kádár and Haugh
2013: 73)
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
286 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
which social actions and meanings are made recognizable as “familiar scenes of
everyday affairs” and thus open to moral evaluation (e.g., as good/bad, appropri-
ate/inappropriate, polite/impolite and so on) (Kádár and Haugh 2013: 73). In this
sense, the moral and emotional dimensions of qingmian are incorporated into the
(im)politeness evaluations, which is articulated as follows:
(1) Politeness evaluation can ensue as result of qingmian-enhancing
actions, i.e., A expresses emotional concern to B consistent with the
moral order.
(2) Impoliteness evaluation can ensue as a result of qingmian-threatening
actions, i.e., A hurts B’s feelings/emotions by doing or saying something
that is inconsistent with the moral order.
These definitions contain three interconnected components, i.e., social action
or practice regarding emotional display, qingmian and (im)politeness evaluation.
Qingmian will always exist when interactions among acquaintances are evalu-
ated. Further research, however, is needed to assess the wider applicability of
qingmian in non-Chinese cultural contexts.
Third, this analysis sheds new light on the interconnection between face,
emotion and impoliteness. In much of the work to date, researchers have taken an
outcome-oriented view of emotion, focusing on emotional responses or reactions
to antecedents such as face threat/impoliteness (Culpeper 2011; Langlotz and
Locher 2013; Vergis and Terkourafi 2015) or rapport violations (Spencer-Oatey
2002, 2005, 2008). Some scholars have argued that face is vulnerable and asso-
ciated with ‘affective sensitivities’ (e.g., Spencer-Oatey 2007; Isik-Güler and Ruhi
2010; Culpeper 2011), while others analyzed the impact of emotions on impolite-
ness evaluations (e.g., Langlotz and Locher 2012; Vergis and Terkourafi 2015).
All of them emphasize the individual’s emotional states. However, this study of
qingmian threat moves beyond the hurt to a person’s feelings by considering how
affection between persons can be threatened and damaged. The data analysis
revealed that ganqing (感情, emotional attachment or affection) between the two
parties can be threatened, which is different from impoliteness associated with
individuals’ negative emotions.
This study supports the argument that the understanding of the moral order
may vary according to different individuals as well as “the relational histories
of those persons (or groups of persons) involved” (Kádár and Haugh 2013: 64).
However, the model proposed by Kádár and Haugh did not consider the impact
of face as a factor that influences moral foundations and (im)politeness evalu-
ations. This study found an important relationship between face, moral order
and (im)politeness evaluations. The contribution is a refinement of Kádár and
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 287
Haugh’s (2013) model which better accommodates the culture-specific moral
order of qingmian in Chinese society.
Finally, the analyses presented also show that interpersonal disputes involve
a metapragmatic dispute over offensiveness, or “accusations of impoliteness”
(cf. Mills 2003), in which the mediator (positioning himself or herself as the
moral authority) engages the disputants in a moral dialogue of the offensive act.
Offences associated with argumentative moves and conflict resolutions constitute
a significant part of relational mediation, whereby “aspects of the moral order
that ground evaluations of social actions and meanings as ‘polite’ and ‘impolite’
can be renewed, sustained, and in some cases challenged” (Haugh 2015b: 292).
Acknowledgements: This study has been supported by both Department of
Education of Guangdong Province and Center for Linguistics and Applied Lin-
guistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China for the project
(2018WZDXM006) on the frontier research and theoretical innovations in inter-
personal pragmatics.
References
Arundale, Robert. 2010a. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional
achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2078–2105.
Arundale, Robert. 2010b. Relating. In Miriam Locher & Sage Graham (eds.), Interpersonal
Pragmatics, 137–167. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bou-Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2014. Conflicts management in massive
polylogues: A case study from You Tube. Journal of Pragmatics 73. 19–36.
Bousfield, Derek. 2007. Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite
exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 2185–2216.
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bousfield, Derek. 2013. Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1(1).
37–57.
Brenneis, Donald. 1988. Language and disputing. Annual Review of Anthropology 17. 221–237.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Hui-Ching & Richard Holt. 1994a. A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational
concern. In Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework, 95–132. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Chang, Hui-Ching & Richard Holt. 1994b. Debt-repaying mechanism in Chinese relationships:
An exploration of the folk concepts of pao and human emotional debt. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 27(4). 351–387.
Chang, Wei-Lin Melody. 2013. Face and Face Practices in Chinese Talk-in-Interaction: An
Empirical Analysis of Business Interactions in Taiwan. Australia: Griffith University PhD
thesis.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
288 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
Chang, Wei-Lin Melody & Michael Haugh. 2011. Strategic embarrassment and face threatening
in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2948–2963.
Chang, Xiangquan. 2010. Guanxi or Lishangwanglai?—Reciprocity, Social Support Networks, &
Social Creativity in a Chinese Village. Taibei: Airiti Press Inc.
Chang, Yvonne Yanrong. 2008. Cultural “faces” of interpersonal communication in the U.S. and
China. Intercultural Communication StudiesXVII 1. 299–313.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25.
349–367.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The
Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 35–72.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, Jonathan, Leyla Marti, Meilian Mei, Minna Nevala & Gila Schauer. 2010.
Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events
reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural
Pragmatics 7(4). 597–624.
Deng, Yiheng, Kaibin Xu, Xiaoqiu Fu & Sang Ma. 2013. Mediating conflict on TV: A discourse
analysis of the Gold Medal Mediation episodes. China Media Research 9(4). 5–14.
Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language
and Social Interaction 31(3–4). 295–325.
Eelen, Gina. 2014 [2001]. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Eisenberg, Ann R. & Catherine Garvey. 1981. Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving
conflicts. Discourse Processes 4. 149–170.
Fei, Xiaotong. 1947. Country China. Shanghai: Shanghai Guancha Press.
Fukushima, Saeko. 2009. Evaluation of politeness: Do the Japanese evaluate attentiveness
more positively than the British? Pragmatics 19 (4). 501–518.
Fukushima, Saeko. 2011. A cross-generational and cross-cultural study on demonstration of
attentiveness. Pragmatics 21(4). 549–571.
Fukushima, Saeko. 2013. Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese
students, Japanese parents and American students on evaluation of attentiveness.
Pragmatics 23(2). 275–299.
Fukushima, Saeko. 2015. In search of another understanding of politeness: From the
perspective of attentiveness. Journal of Politeness Research 11(2). 261–287.
Fukushima, Saeko & Michael Haugh. 2014. The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/
politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inferences in
Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 74. 165–179.
Gao, Ge. 2009. Face and self in Chinese communication. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini &
Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 175–191. London:
Equinox.
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of
impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 535–559.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1964. Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems
11(3). 225–250.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor
Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic
Books.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 289
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review 25(2). 161–178.
Graham, Sage Lambert. 2007. Disagreeing to agree: Conflict (im)politeness and identity in a
computer mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 742–759.
Hamilton, Gary G. & Zheng Wang. 1992. From the Soil, the Foundations of Chinese society:
A Translation of Fei Xiaotong’s Xiangtu Zhongguo, with an Introduction and Epilogue.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haugh, Michael. 2005. The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for
cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics 2. 41–68.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional
alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 95–317.
Haugh, Michael. 2009. Face and interaction. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh
(eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 1–30. London: Equinox.
Haugh, Michael. 2013a. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of
Pragmatics 58. 52–72.
Haugh, Michael. 2013b. Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural
Pragmatics 1(1). 46–73.
Haugh, Michael. 2015a. Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of
Pragmatics 86. 36–42.
Haugh, Michael. 2015b. Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haugh, Michael & Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini. 2010. Face in interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics 42(8). 2073–2077.
Hinze, Carl. 2012. Chinese politeness is not about ‘face’: Evidence from the business world.
Journal of Politeness Research 8(1). 11–27.
Ho, David Yau-Fai. 1976. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4). 867–884.
Ho, David Yau-Fai. 1994. Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In Stella
Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework, 269–286. New York: State University of New
York Press.
Hu, Xianjin. 1944. The Chinese concept of face. American Anthropologist 46. 45–64.
Huang, Yi-Hui Christine. 2011. Favor (Renqing): Characteristics and practices from a
resource-based perspective. China Media Research 7(4). 34–43.
Hutchby, Ian. 2008. Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite
acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4. 221–241.
Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. 1987. Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game. American Journal of
Sociology 92(4). 944–974.
Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. 2006. Moral face and social face: Contingent self-esteem in Confucian
society. International Journal of Psychology 41(4). 276–281.
Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. 2012. Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations. New
York: Springer.
Intachakra, Songthama. 2012. Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in
Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 619–635.
Isik-Güler, Hale & Sükriye Ruhi. 2010. Face and impoliteness at the intersection with emotions:
A corpus-based study in Turkish. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 625–660.
Izadi, Ahmad. 2015. Persian honorifics and im/politeness as social practice. Journal of
Pragmatics 85. 85–91.
Jin, Yaoji. 1988. The Analysis of Renqing in Interpersonal Relation. In Guoshu Yang (ed.), The
psychology of Chinese people, 75–104. Taibei: Guiguan Publisher.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
290 Linsen Zhao and Yongping Ran
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in
Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Yuling Pan. 2011. Politeness in China. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.),
Politeness in East Asia, 125–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kádár, Dániel Z & Yuling Pan. 2012. Chinese ‘face’ and im/politeness: An introduction. Journal
of Politeness Research 8(1). 1–10.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Rosina Márquez-Reiter. 2016. (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from
intervention. Journal of Politeness Research 11(2). 239–260.
Kraybill, Ronald, Robert Evans & Alice Frazer Evans. 2001. Peace Skills: Manual for Community
Mediators. California: Jossey-Bass.
Laforest, Marty. 2009. Complaining in front of a witness: Aspects of blaming others for their
behaviour in multi-party family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2452–2464.
Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam Locher. 2012. Ways of communicating emotional stance in online
disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12): 1591–1606.
Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam Locher. 2013. The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of
Pragmatics 58. 87–107.
Locher, Miriam & Richard Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of
linguistic behaviour. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language:
Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Mao, LuMing Robert. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics 21. 451–486.
Maynard, Douglas. 1985. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14. 1–30.
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ran, Yongping. 2010. A survey of the pragmatic studies about conflict talk. Foreign Language
Teaching 31(1). 1–6.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to
explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of
Pragmatics 34(5). 529–545.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging
their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95–119.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness
Theory. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics
39(4). 639–656.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2016. The bases of (im)politeness evaluations:
Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asia Pragmatics 1(1). 73–106.
Standifird, Stephen S. & R. Scott Marshall. 2000. The transaction cost advantage of
guanxi-based business practices. Journal of World Business 35. 21–42
Tayebi, Tahmineh. 2016. Why do people take offence? Exploring the underlying expectations.
Journal of Pragmatics 101. 1–17.
Terkourafi, Marina. 2011. From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness
across time and space. Journal of Politeness 7. 159–185.
Vergis, Nikos & Marina Terkourafi. 2015. The role of the speaker’s emotional state in im/
politeness assessments. Journal of Language & Social Psychology 34(3). 316–342.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
Impoliteness Revisited 291
Wang, Jiayi & Helen Spencer-Oatey. 2015. The gains and losses of face in ongoing intercultural
interaction: A case study of Chinese participant perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics 89.
50–65.
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yan, Yunxiang. 1996. The Flow of Gifts: Reciprocity and Social Networks in a Chinese Village.
California: Stanford University Press.
Yang, Lien-Sheng. 1957. The concept of pao as a basis for social relations in China. In John
Fairbank (ed.) Chinese Thought and Institutions, 291–309. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Yang, Mei-Hui Mayfair. 1994. Gifts, Favours and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in
China. New York: Cornell University Press.
Yu, Ming-Chung. 2003. On the university of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response
behavior. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1679–1710.
Yum, June Ock. 1988. The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and
communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs 55(4). 374–388.
Zhai, Xuewei. 2007. The operation of bao. Sociological Study 1. 83–98.
Zhai, Xuewei. 2014. Perspectives on Chinese “Face”: Psychological Motives and Social
Representation. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Zhou, Xinhua, Guicheng Shi, Tingchi Matthew Liu & Huimei Bu. 2015. The mediating roles
of renqing and ganqing in Chinese relationship marketing. Nankai Business Review
International 6(2). 156–176.
Bionotes
Linsen Zhao
Linsen Zhao is a lecturer at School of English and Education in Guangdong University of Foreign
Studies, Guangzhou, P.R. China. He received a Ph.D. in pragmatics from Guangdong University
of Foreign Studies. His research interests include pragmatics, in particular (im)politeness,
conflict resolution and mediation discourse.
Yongping Ran
Yongping Ran is a professor at Centre for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong
University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, P.R. China. His research interests include pragmat-
ics, interpersonal pragmatics and (im)politeness, he has publications in Journal of Pragmatics,
Intercultural Pragmatics, Pragmatics and Society, and in some top journals of linguistics in
Chinese.
Brought to you by | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies China
Authenticated
Download Date | 6/26/19 3:31 PM
