62
More often, face-threatening situations to others would be accelerated by emphasizing the negative elements and the responsibility of those involved. Despite hard work and conspiracy, crowd support, athletes from countries other than China lost (7 August, 1984; 1 and 4 October, 1986). Many of the losses were attributed to poor tactics and poor leadership (2 August, 1984; 17 September, 1986).
On the other hand, the losses were further negatively described such as highlighting the difference between expectations and results. For example, Korean sweep in Taekwondo was broken and the press mocked the Korean ambitious prediction (October 2nd, 1986). The Japanese, regarded as a strong nation by herself and the press, gained no gold medals in three consecutive days. This was reiterated in two articles (4 October, 1986). Pakistan's defeat by Korea was named as the signal of the decline of the hockey empire (30 September, 1986), thereby making the defeat look more drastic.
In short, in face-threatening situations to other countries, more negative portrayals were found. Meta-accounts, justifications, excuses etc. that were in sight in the case of face-threatening situations to China could not be seen here.
Discussion And Conclusion
The Concept Of Face - Individual And Collective
In the past, studies on the concept of face mainly focussed on the individual level. Little evidence for collective face could be gathered. But now through the findings in this paper, it could be firmly said that collective face exists, or at least, exists in the press. The three basic factors of face, others' reactions and face attributes all demonstrate some degree of collectivity.
If we count from the level of people up to the level of government as collective levels, then the concept of face as appearing in its factors and attributes has a significant portion of collectivity. The aggregate percentages are 3.1% (basic factors), 8.17% (other's reactions) and 39.74% (attributes) at these levels together (Table 6). If we take the level of the delegation also as a collective level, then the aggregate percentages would be 14.78%, 46.28% and 54.27% respectively. Thus, the significance of the collective level of face is indisputable.
62
More often, face-threatening situations to others would be accelerated by emphasizing the negative elements and the responsibility of those involved. Despite hard work and conspiracy, crowd support, athletes from countries other than China lost (7 August, 1984; 1 and 4 October, 1986). Many of the losses were attributed to poor tactics and poor leadership (2 August, 1984; 17 September, 1986)
On the other hand, the losses were further negatively described such as highlighting the difference between expectations and results. For example, Korean sweep in Taekwondo was broken and the press mocked the Korean ambitious prediction (October 2nd, 1986). The Japanese, regarded as a strong nation by herself and the press, gained no gold medals in three consecutive days. This was reiterated in two articles (4 October, 1986). Pakistan's defeat by Korea was named as the signal of the decline of the hockey empire (30 September, 1986), thereby making the defeat look more drastic.
In short, in face-threatening situations to other countries, more negative portrayals were found. Meta-accounts, justifications, excuses etc. that were in sight in the case of face-threatening situations to China could not be seen here.
Discussion And Conclusion
The Concept OfFace - Individual And Collective
In the past, studies on the concept of face mainly focussed on the individual level. Little evidence for collective face could be gathered. But now through the findings in this paper, it could be firmly said that collective face exists, or at least, exists in the press. The three basic factors of face, others' reactions and face attributes all demonstrate some degree of collectivity.
If we count from the level of people up to the level of government as collective levels, then the concept of face as appearing in its factors and attributes has a significant portion of collectivity. The aggregate percentages are 3.1% (basic factors), 8.17% (other's reactions) and 39.74% (attributes) at these levels together (Table 6). If we take the level of the delegation also as a collective level, then the aggregate percentages would be 14 78%, 46.28% and 54.27% respectively. Thus, the significance of the collective level of face is indisputable.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.