Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor’s
face-saving and face-threatening acts: A DCT study
Sachiko KIYAMA, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology
Katsuo TAMAOKA, Nagoya University
Abstract
This study aims to reveal how response strategies change depending onwhether the interlocutor previously has taken face-saving act (FSA) or
face-threatening act (FTA), and at the same time to demonstrate effects ofinterpersonal and situational factors on the response strategies. Utilizing a
discourse completion task (DCT) on Japanese college students, we investigated three factors of (1) interlocutor’s preceding FSA and FTA, (2) power
relation and (3) distance (familiarity), within two types of situations differingin terms of the locus of responsibility. Content analyses of the data revealed
that the participants preferred to describe what had happened, rather than tomake judgments as to the locus of responsibility. This result suggests that they
may try to avoid being perceived as judgmental to the interlocutor whentalking about who is responsible for an incident.
1. Introduction
As a member of society, every individual has face. Goffman (1967) defines
face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself” (p. 5).
Face is also described by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) as a ‘basic want’consisting of positive face and negative face. Positive face refers to a want to beapproved of, while negative face concerns a want not to be disturbed. All
members of society are supposed to make appropriate consideration of othermembers’ faces, as well as their own faces. Goffman claims that the negotiationof multiple faces, called facework, is regulated by the principle of reciprocity,
because face can only be satisfied by others, not by oneself.
Although the reciprocity principle expects that individuals make effort to saveboth their own face and others’ faces, when one interacts with another, theirgoals are not always the same, i.e., sometimes saving one’s own face may
automatically threaten another’s face. Goffman (1967) discusses a more delicate
balance that actual facework requires successfully sustaining interpersonal
relationships. Thus, a FTA does not necessarily bring an immediate retaliation,
because the recipient of a FTA may be afraid of a breakdown of the interpersonal
relationships with the actor, and then may turn a blind eye to the FTA. The
present study is an attempt to explore how verbal responses are realized
depending on the previous FSA and FTA by the actor, focusing on Japanesecollege students’ norms reflected in a discourse completion task (DCT).
Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 12, 15–43.
2013, Kaitakusha, Tokyo, Japan.

16

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

1.1. Reactions to an Interlocutor’s Face-Saving and Face-Threatening Acts
A large amount of previous studies have investigated verbal responses to
FSAs and FTAs in detail. For instance, one of the typical FSA to another iscomplimenting, which directly augments the positive face of a person who
receives the compliment (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987). From the viewpointof the reciprocity principle, a recipient of a compliment should in return save thecomplimenter’s face. When recipients accept a compliment, it then implies thatthey also respect their own positive face. During such an exchange, if therecipient’s face has only been respected, the complimenter’s face is overlooked.
In this one-way action, the complimenter’s face and the recipient’s face are notwell-balanced. Therefore, as a response to a compliment, self-disapproving
strategies, such as avoidance, disagreement, rejection, etc., are sometimes
preferably selected in order to maintain balance of the two parties’ faces (e.g.,
Burnland & Araki, 1985; Herbert & Straight, 1989; Tang & Zhang, 2009).
On the other hand, one typical FTA to the interlocutor is a complaint (Brown& Levinson, 1978, 1987). Contrary to a compliment, a complaint denigrates
another’s positive face. Cupach and Carson (2002) argue that the face-threatening nature of a complaint influences the reactions of a complaint recipient. In
actual interactions, however, a recipient of a complaint is not always able tobreak off the relationship with the complainer. If the complainer is a person withstronger power, such as a professor, boss, client, etc., the recipient often has totolerate the complaint. As Goffman (1967) describes, everyone prefers toreceive good reputation from others in a society, so the recipient may try not toshow disgraceful feelings to a powerful complainer.
Although the above studies demonstrate delicate face management processes
in responses to either FSA or FTA, there appears to be a lack of studies about
how reactions differ depending on the interlocutor’s previous face-saving andface-threatening acts. The present study then focuses on differences in response
strategies to an interlocutor’s preceding FSA and FTA produced in a comparable
situation. Specifically, we explore exchanges to pursue the locus of responsibility between the two interlocutors, such that, verbal responses to the other’s
preceding FSA and FTA can be compared in a same setting. Within interactions
pursuing the locus of responsibility, one would assume the interlocutor admitting fault (i.e., self-disapproving) as FSA to oneself, while the interlocutor’s
claim of innocence (i.e., self-approving) as FTA to oneself.
1.2. Factors Influencing Selections of Response Strategies
Facework can be viewed as the process in which people try to keep a balance
between multiple faces during social encounters. Therefore, a realization of
facework should be viewed as a result of interactional effects caused by multiple
factors, which can be explained as facework behaviors summarized by the
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) model. Following Goffman’s (1967) concept

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 17

of facework, Brown and Levinson conceptualized a face-redressing (i.e.,politeness) strategy which is suitable to the degree to which an act isface-threatening to the interlocutor. In order to estimate the degree of aface-threatening act (FTA), they propose three factors using the following
formula:Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx
where Wx is the weight of a FTA, D refers to the distance (D) between speakerand hearer, P refers to the power (P) the hearer has over the speaker, and Rx
refers to a value that measures the degree to which FTAx is rated as an
imposition in the culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987, pp. 76–77).
A major issue in the literature has been to demonstrate how the interpersonal
factors of power and distance affect facework (or politeness) behaviors,
focusing on various speech acts (e.g., Guan, Park, & Lee, 2009 for apology;
Becker, Kimmel, & Bevill, 1989; Gagne, 2010; Holtgraves, 1994 for requests;
Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Locher, 2004 for disagreement; MacGeorge,
Lichtman, & Pressey, 2002 for advice; Holtgraves, Srull, & Socall, 1989 forassertion; Holtgraves, 1986 for questions). These studies showed an overall
influence of power and distance, and regarding power effects, individuals selectcareful verbal strategies when they converse with superiors. However, after
publication of Brown and Levinson (1978), opposing results have also beenreported concerning effects of distance. For instance, some studies (e.g., Baxter,
1984; Holtgraves, 1986) argue that individuals become more polite to familiar
people than those unfamiliar. In response to these conflicting reports, Brown andLevinson (1987) introduced the revised version of politeness theory allowing
the degree of affection to be confounded with the factor of distance. In thepresent study, we set the factor of distance as familiarity between speaker andhearer.
Besides power and distance, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) subsume all
potential variables influencing facework into the factor R (ranking of imposition); thus, the concept of R is rather miscellaneous. Brown and Levinson(1987) define R as “culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions”(pp. 76–77), so that R includes both situational and cultural factors. As a situational factor influencing face-considering strategies, questionnaire studies by
MacGeorge, Lichtman, and Pressey (2002) and Sillars (1980) revealed thatone’s recognition of responsibility in a given situation has a significant influence
upon response strategies among native English speakers. Therefore, this study
compares the differences caused by the locus of responsibility.
1.3. On the question of responsibility
There are two basic options when pursuing the locus of responsibility; namely,

18

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

claiming that one is right and the other is at fault, or vice versa. Further, one may
make this claim in an explicit or implicit way, or avoid making any claim.
Communication scholars have been paying attention to the speech act of
apology, a communication pattern characteristic to Japanese people. Sugimoto(1998) pointed out that Japanese, compared to Americans, differentiate a wide
variety of apology strategies according to relationships between the speaker andthe recipient. This implies that Japanese do not like bothering the others’
feelings, as many earlier studies depict Japanese as seeking social harmony andavoiding conflict (e.g., Benedict, 1954; Doi, 1971/1973; Hall, 1976, 1984;
Hofstede, 1980; Lebra, 1976; Nakane, 1967/1970; Triandis, 1995; Yamada,1997).
However, Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, and Cray (2000) have observed thatJapanese, unlike Canadians and British, likely refuse to apologize unless they
accept responsibility for having committed a fault. Although Tanaka et al.
(2000) do not clarify the reasoning behind this result, one possible interpretationis that the more Japanese value social harmony, the more they will require theinterlocutor to take cooperative attitude with themselves. If that is the case, asubstantial negative reaction would occur when Japanese, who are certain about
their innocence, take offense at unreasonable accusations. Even though Japanese are eager to seek social harmony, it is not the case that all Japanese have thesame needs, interests, goals, beliefs or behaviors. To the extent to which Japanese are incompatible with each other, conflict on the question of responsibility
should be inevitable in their interactions (Krauss, Rohlen, & Steinhoff, 1984).
Consistent with Tanaka et al.’s (2000) finding, Gudykunst and Nishita (1993)
also reported that Japanese are likely to mention duties and obligations to
persuade others, while Americans do not. These studies suggest that native Japanese speakers may place special emphasis on who has the responsibility in agiven situation. Based on the above findings, this study focuses on the effectcaused by the speaker’s recognition about whether or not one is at fault (i.e.,
responsible) in a given situation.
1.4. Rationale of the present study
The present study aims to reveal the differences of response strategies related
to the interlocutor’s preceding FSAs and FTAs, and to demonstrate interpersonaland situational factors influencing these differences. As discussed in the previous sections, it is assumed that response strategies delicately vary depending on
the interlocutor’s preceding contrasting acts, interpersonal relationships, and thesituation.
To explore various aspects of the linguistic realization of facework, linguistic
pragmatists have been using a wide range of data such as natural conversations,role-plays, corpora, literary writings, questionnaires and discourse completion
tasks (DCTs), according to each researcher’s purpose (see Jucker, 2009; Kasper,

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 19

2000). Data-collecting methods are selected depending on the extent to which
researchers control their informants’ language production and/or perception. In
order to reveal actual processes of how people interact with each other, an ideal
way may be to record natural conversations (e.g., Georgakopoulou, 2001;
Golato, 2003; Holmes, 2000; Jacobs, 2002; Locher, 2004; Saft, 2004; Yuan,
2001). However, within naturally occurring data, it is difficult to extract both
FSAs and FTAs given by the same speaker in the same situation. Role-playing
approach, on the other hand, allows eliciting both of the FSA and FTA in moreinteractive and authentic ways than questionnaires and DCTs do (e.g., Cohen &Olshtain, 1981, 1993; Kasper, G., & Dahl, 1991; Roever, 2011; Sasaki, 1998;
Taguchi, 2006). However, the objective of the present study differs from theseprevious role-play studies in that it is an attempt to compare responses bydifferent interlocutors in the same situations. With the role-playing approach, it
is impossible to ask all participants to bring multiple interlocutors to be
hypothetical interlocutors whom we will set in our scenarios.
The approach of DCT allows researchers to have greater control over manydifferent variables, despite authenticity not being guaranteed (e.g., Billmyer &Vardhese, 2000; Blum-Kulka, 1984; Limberg, 2009; Rose, 1992, 1994; Rose &Ono, 1995; Tang & Zhang, 2009; Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin,& Nishita, 1991; Turnbull & Saxton, 1997; Yuan, 2001). DCTs would missparticipants’ unconscious ways to express their intentions. However, it is notpossible to insure authenticity and generalizability in data at the same time.
Despite its weakness, DCT is useful to observe participants’ norm consciousness about facework. Therefore, by utilizing DCT, the present study investigates
the following three factors influencing response strategies by native Japanesecollege students, within two types of situations differing in terms of the locus of
responsibility: (1) interlocutor’s preceding FSAs and FTAs, (2) power and (3)distance, to be discussed in more detail below.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample included 30 male and 26 female (N = 56) undergraduate students
enrolled at a university in Hiroshima prefecture, Japan. All participants were
native speakers of Japanese. Their ages ranged from 19 years and 8 months to 26
years and 10 months (M = 22.13, SD = 1.85). The participants volunteered toparticipate in the study immediately after class time at the university. All
participants received financial compensation for their participation.
2.2. Materials and Procedure
Participants completed a discourse completion task (DCT) which involved
two situations where participants and a hypothetical interlocutor were in trouble.
The situations were developed in order to be as close to actual experiences of20

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

young Japanese college students as possible. The two situations differeddepending on whether the participant was supposed to assess the fault lying with
the interlocutor (Setting 1), or both the participant and the interlocutor (Setting2). For both situations, the interlocutor provided an explanation of the incident
to a third person(s). We set the interlocutor’s two contradictory explanations as
self-approving (i.e., face-threatening to the participant) and self-disapproving(i.e., face-saving to the participant).
Setting 1 was a situation where the participant was supposed to only assess
the interlocutor at fault. In this setting, participants were asked to imagine thatthey were working part-time in a restaurant and one day an expensive chair had
been damaged by rain because another co-worker (i.e., the hypothetical interlocutor) had forgotten to shut a nearby window. Later the co-worker explained
what had happened to the manager of the restaurant (i.e., the third person). The
co-worker’s explanation was presented in the following two ways: (1) “Ithought [participant’s name] had closed the window.” (i.e., self-approving) and(2) “I’m sorry, I didn’t close it.” (i.e., self-disapproving).
In Setting 2, the participant was supposed to assess both the participant andthe interlocutor were at fault. Participants were asked to imagine that they
guided a relative (i.e., the hypothetical interlocutor) to the place of their cousin’s
wedding but they each arrived late to the party because the relative had been lateto their meeting and the participant got lost on the way there. After the party, therelative explained what had happened to other relatives (i.e., the third persons).
The relative’s explanation was presented in the following two ways: (1) “We
were late because [participant’s name] was lost on the way here.” (i.e., selfapproving) and (2) “I’m sorry; I was late at the station.” (i.e., self-disapproving).
The question-reply sequence considered the following interpersonal relationships with the hypothetical interlocutors: factors of power (P) and distance(D). Conditions of P were differentiated between “older” as higher-poweredinterlocutor and “younger” as lower powered interlocutor, while D was differentiated between “the interlocutor with whom you have talked much” asfamiliar interlocutor and “the interlocutor with whom you have not yet talked
much” as unfamiliar interlocutor. In this way, P (i.e., two conditions of older andyounger interlocutors) and D (i.e., two conditions of familiar and unfamiliarinterlocutors) were measured using four (i.e., two conditions of P × two
conditions of D) hypothetical interlocutors per setting. Participants were asked
to write down responses to all types of hypothetical interlocutors. Since there
were two types of settings and two types of the interlocutor’s utterances ofself-approving and self-disapproving (the factor of the interlocutor’s precedingact) with the four types of hypothetical interlocutors each, participants completed responses to a total of 16 different cases (i.e., four hypotheticalinterlocutors × two settings × two interlocutor’s utterances). By the combinationof the 16 conditions and the 56 participants, we obtained a total of 896 responses.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 21

Completion of the DCT with a paper-and-pencil format took approximately
twenty minutes in the classroom where the participant had taken the class. The
original version in Japanese and its English translation are given in the
Appendix.
2.3. Coding Procedure
An original coding scheme of response strategies was developed specificallyto extract characteristics of interaction about the locus of responsibility.
Although there were some previous schemes (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1984; Cohen &Olshtain, 1981), our scheme was created to accommodate the data resulting
from the present DCT which investigated differences of verbal responses
depending on whether the interlocutor’s preceding act was self-approving (i.e.,
face-threatening) or self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving). Moreover, this was nota taxonomy of variation in speech forms, but rather a content-based categorization of verbal responses in terms of how the messages relate to facework,
especially in the exchanges about who should be responsible for the given
incident.
As summarized in Table 1, four types of broad categories were set up: (1)yes-no response, (2) attributing responsibility, (3) referring to inappropriate
behavior, and (4) off-topic comment. The first category, yes-no response, wasintended to code responses which began with ‘yes’ (hai/un in Japanese) or ‘no’(iie/ie). This category was established because some responses began with
yes/no responses, but others did not. It therefore consisted of two sub-categories(i.e., strategies) of ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ The second category, attributing responsibility,refers to strategies which explicitly assess who should be responsible for the
given accident. We coded expressions like ‘responsible’ (-no sekinin), ‘wrong’(-ga warui), and ‘fault’ (-no sei) for this category. It included three sub-categories (i.e., strategies) depending on who should be responsible: the participant,the interlocutor, or both parties. The third category, referring to inappropriate
behavior, was intended to depict strategies which did not explicitly assess whoshould be responsible, but instead mentioned behaviors which had caused thegiven incident. In Setting 1, “inappropriate behavior” represents anyone’s
failure to check whether or not the window was closed. In Setting 2, on the other
hand, “inappropriate behavior” represents the interlocutor’s being late to themeeting place and or the participant’s getting lost on the way to the wedding
party. This category, like the second category, consisted of three sub-categories(i.e., strategies) in terms of whose behavior was mentioned: the participant, theinterlocutor, or both parties. Lastly, the fourth category, off-topic comment,
refers to strategies which are unrelated to indications about who should be
responsible. In such strategies, participants did not make direct responses to theinterlocutor’s initial assessments about the issue of responsibility. This category
included ‘apology’ (sumimasen/ gomen-nasai/ mooshiwake arimasen ‘I’m

22

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

sorry’), ‘unavoidability’ (shikata nai/ shoo ga nai ‘It can’t be helped’), and‘future improvement’ (kongo ki o tsukemasu ‘I’ll be more careful in future’).
Nevertheless, the latter two strategies, ‘unavoidability’ and ‘future improvement’, were excluded from the analysis because their frequencies were too low
to apply.
A total of nine types of participants’ response strategies were subject to thepresent analyses. A detailed coding manual for all types of response strategies ispresented in Table 1. It was common for our participants to use multiple
strategies in combination within a single response, i.e., the number of strategies
in each of the 896 responses (i.e., 16 conditions × 56 participants) ranged from 1
to 7 (M = 1.94, SD = 0.19), which resulted in a total of 1,659 response strategies.
To ensure the consistency of strategy categorization, we randomly selected 189
strategies, representing approximately 10 percent of the total 1,659 response
strategies which were coded by the first author, and calculated the coefficient ofinter-coder reliability between the first author and a trained research assistant.
These 189 response strategies were coded with the overall percent of agreement
totaling 96.3 percent. An overall inter-coder reliability coefficient calculatedusing Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007; Krippendorff, 2004)
was 0.96 (a 95% confidence interval ranged from 0.93 to 0.99). As shown in
Table 1, coefficients for each category ranged from 0.96 to 1.00. All thesecoefficients were larger than 0.95. Therefore, we considered these values to bereliable.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 23

2.4. Analysis
The present survey investigated how the participants alter their response strategies depending on the interlocutor’s preceding contrasting acts, the interlocutor’s power, and the distance with the interlocutor, within two different settingsin terms of who should be responsible for the incident. The three independent
variables arranged in a 2 (i.e., the interlocutor’s preceding act of self-approving
and self-disapproving) × 2 (i.e., higher powered and lower powered interlocutor) × 2 (i.e., familiar and unfamiliar interlocutor) design were examined per
setting, from the perspective of a dependent variable set as the frequencies of thenine types of participant response strategies organized by the four types of broad
categories. All three independent variables were within-participant variables(i.e., repeated measures).
In order to explore the rank order of significance among the three factors (i.e.,
independent variables), the interlocutors preceding contrasting acts, power, anddistance, we conducted decision tree analyses for each of the two settings, using
SPSS Decision Trees, version 16.0 (SPSS, 2006). The methodology aims to
select a useful subset of predictors in descending order from a larger set of

24

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

independent variables with respect to a dependent variable. This tool is built on
the basis of CHAID, or chi-squared automatic interaction detector, originallyproposed by Kass (1980). According to SPSS (2006), CHAID automaticallychooses the independent variable which has the strongest interaction with thenext highest one. In the tree-growing process, each parent node splits into childnodes if a significant main effect or interaction is found among independent
variables. Every step for splitting nodes uses Bonferroni’s adjusted p values toavoid Type I Error, or false positive, which refers to the error of rejecting thenull hypothesis when it is actually true. In the present study, because adependent variable was categorical data (i.e., frequencies of participants’
response strategies), chi-squared tests were employed for growing the decision
tree, which was called classification tree analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Overall Results of the Classification Tree Analysis
To investigate how young Japanese college students change their verbal
responses depending on the interlocutor’s contrasting acts, classification tree
analyses were conducted based on frequencies of the aforementioned nine typesof response strategies. We investigated influences of the three factors (i.e.,
independent variables) of the interlocutor’s preceding acts, power, and distancefor each of the two different settings in terms of whether the participant was
supposed to assess the interlocutor was at fault or both parties were at fault.
Results revealed that the factor of the interlocutor’s preceding act was thestrongest predictor for participants’ response strategies in both of the twosettings. The influence of the interpersonal relationships of power and distancefactors did not have consistent influences. The next sections describe thedetailed results of the classification tree analyses, and the following residual
analyses of response strategies in both settings.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 25

Figure 1. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for response strategies
in situations concerning self-responsibility: Setting 1 where the participant is
supposed to assess that the interlocutor is at fault.
3.2. Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in Setting 1 Where the Interlocutor Is at Fault
In Setting 1 where the participant was supposed to assess that only the interlocutor was at fault for the incident, the factor of the interlocutor’s preceding
contrasting acts was the only significant predictor for participants’ response
strategies [χ2 (8) = 236.106, p < .001], as shown in Figure 1. The two types of theinterlocutor’s preceding acts of self-approving (i.e., face-threatening to theparticipant) and self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving to the participant) eachcreated a child node (i.e., Nodes 1 and 2) from the viewpoint of the nine types of
response strategies. Node 1 revealed frequencies of the response strategies in thecase of the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act. In this case,‘referring to the interlocutor’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” in Figure 1) was the most frequent response strategy (37.9%).

26

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

Node 2, on the other hand, indicated a result of response strategies to theinterlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving) act. In this case, ‘referring to
the self’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “self’s behavior” in Figure 1)
was the most frequent strategy (42.2%).

Figure 2. Dendrogram of the classification tree analysis for response strategies
in situations concerning self-responsibility: Setting 2 where the participant is
supposed to assess that both parties are at fault.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 27

3.3. Results of the Classification Tree Analysis in Setting 2 Where Both Parties
Are at Fault
In Setting 2 where the participant was supposed to assess that both theparticipant and the interlocutor were at fault for the incident, the two factors (i.e.,
independent variables) of the interlocutor’s preceding contrasting acts anddistance with the interlocutor had significant influences on participants’ response strategies, as shown in Figure 2. In this setting, as in Setting 1, the factorof the interlocutor’s preceding acts of self-approving (i.e., face-threatening to
the participant) and self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving to the participant) was
the strongest predictor for the participants’ selection of response strategies [χ2(8) = 273.378, p < .001]. In responses to the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e.,
face-threatening) act (Node 1), ‘referring to the interlocutor’s inappropriate
behavior’ (presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” as Figure 2) was the mostfrequent (38.6%). In response to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e.,
face-saving) act (Node 2), on the other hand, ‘referring to the self’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “self’s behavior” in Figure 2) was the most frequent(42.7%). In addition, the distance factor had a partial influence on participants’
response strategies to the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening)act [χ2 (8) = 37.102, p < .001]. In response to a familiar interlocutor’s selfapproving (i.e., face-threatening) act (Node 3), ‘referring to the interlocutor’s
inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” in Figure 2) was
the most frequent strategy (47.6%). On the other hand, in response to an
unfamiliar interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act (Node 4), thetwo response strategies of ‘referring to the interlocutor’s inappropriate behavior’(presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” in Figure 2) (28.8%) and ‘apology’(28.2%) almost had the same ratios as frequent strategies.
3.4. Residual Analysis of Response Strategies Depending on the Interlocutor’sPreceding Contrasting Acts
In order to explore detailed effects caused by the strongest predictor of theinterlocutor’s preceding acts, we further conducted residual analyses(Haberman, 1973) on differences of frequency among the nine types of participants’ response strategies. Adjusted standardized residuals for each response
strategy were calculated depending on the interlocutor’s preceding acts of‘self-approval’ (i.e., face-threatening to the participant) and ‘self-disapproval’(i.e., face-saving to the participant). Table 2 summarizes the values of theadjusted standardized residuals in the case of the interlocutor’s self-approving(i.e., face-threatening) act per setting. Values in the other case of the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving) act were shown as redundant because
this calculation procedure necessarily provides equal values in magnitude andopposites in plus and minus signs between the two conditions of the independent
variable. This means that a strategy with a positive value in Table 2 represents a

28

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

frequent response strategy to the interlocutor’s self-approval (i.e., face-threatening), compared to the interlocutor’s self-disapproval (i.e., face-saving).
Conversely, a strategy with a negative value in Table 2 represents a frequent
response strategy to the interlocutor’s self-disapproval (i.e., face-saving),
compared to the interlocutor’s self-approval (i.e., face-threatening).
In Setting 1 where the participant was supposed to assess that only the interlocutor was at fault for the incident, strategies of ‘referring to the interlocutor’s
inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” with a residual
value of 13.62, p < .001) and ‘attributing interlocutor’s responsibility’ (presented as “interlocutor’s responsibility” with a residual value of 4.54, p < .001)
were significantly frequent for responses to the interlocutor’s self-approving(i.e., face-threatening) act, compared to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e.,
face-saving) act. Alternatively, strategies of ‘attributing both sides’ responsibility’ (presents as “both sides’ responsibility” with a residual value of -2.63, p< .01), ‘no’ (with a residual value of -4.02, p < .001), ‘attributing
self-responsibility’ (presented as “self-responsibility” with a residual value of-4.63, p < .001), and ‘referring to self’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as“self’s behavior” with a residual value of -5.86, p < .001) were significantly
frequent for responses to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving)act, compared to the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act. In
addition, strategies of ‘referring to both sides’ inappropriate behaviors’ (presented as “both sides’ behaviors” with a residual value of 0.77, ns.), ‘yes’ (with aresidual value of -0.58, ns.) and ‘apology’ (with a residual value of -0.77, ns.)revealed no significant differences between the interlocutor’s self-approving(i.e., face-threatening) and self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving) acts to theparticipant.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 29
Table 2. Adjusted standard residuals of response strategies depending on the interlocutor's contrasting
acts of "self-approval" (i.e., face-threatening) and "self-disapproval" (i.e., face-saving)
Setting 1: A ruined chair in a restaurant(the interlocutor is at fault)
Response strategy
Interlocutor's behavior

Adjusted residual(self-approval)
13.62 ***

Setting 2: Being late for a wedding(the participant and the interlocutor are at fault)
Response strategy
Interlocutor's behavior

Adjusted residual(self-approval)
13.72 ***

Interlocutor's responsibility
Both sides' behaviors

4.54 ***

Yes

3.65 ***

0.77

Interlocutor's responsibility

3.55 ***

Yes

-0.58

Apology-0.77

Apology
Both sides' behaviors

0.18

Both sides' responsibility-2.63 **

Both sides' responsibility-2.68 **

No

-4.02 ***

Self-responsibility-3.06 ***

Self-responsibility-4.63 ***

Self's behavior-6.82 ***

Self's behavior-5.86 ***

No

-7.27 ***

1.26

Notes:
1: Values of adjusted standard residuals are shown on the side of "self-approval." They are equal inmagnitude and opposite in plus and minus signs on the other side of "self-disapproval."
2: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

In Setting 2 where the participant was supposed to assess that both theparticipant and the interlocutor were at fault for the incident, strategies of‘referring to the interlocutor’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “interlocutor’s behavior” with a residual value of 13.72, p < .001), ‘yes’ (with aresidual value of 3.65, p < .001), and ‘attributing interlocutor’s responsibility’(presented as “interlocutor’s responsibility” with a residual value of 3.55, p< .001) were significantly frequent responses to the interlocutor’s self-approving(i.e., face-threatening) act to the participant, compared to the interlocutor’s
self-disapproving (i.e., face-saving) act. In contrast, strategies of ‘attributing
both sides’ responsibility’ (presented as “both sides’ responsibility” with aresidual value of -2.68, p < .01), ‘attributing self-responsibility’ (presented as“self-responsibility” with a residual value of -3.06, p < .001), ‘referring to theself’s inappropriate behavior’ (presented as “self’s behavior” with a residual
value of -6.82, p < .001), and ‘no’ (with a residual value of -7.27, p < .001) weresignificantly frequent responses to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e.,
face-saving) act compared to the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act. Strategies of ‘apology’ (with a residual value of 1.26, ns.) and‘referring to both sides’ inappropriate behavior (presented as “both sides inappropriate behavior” with a residual value of 0.18, ns.) revealed no significant
differences between the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) andself-disapproving (i.e., face-saving) acts to the participant.

30

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

4. Discussion
Utilizing a discourse completion task (DCT), the present study examined
young Japanese college students’ norm consciousness on response strategies
which vary depending on whether the interlocutor previously has taken aface-saving (i.e., self-disapproving) or face-threatening (i.e., self-approving) act.
For this purpose, we constructed three factors of (1) the interlocutor’s preceding
contrasting acts, (2) the interlocutor’s power, and (3) the distance with theinterlocutor, using two different settings in terms of who should be responsible
for the incident. A series of classification tree analyses based on repeatedchi-squared tests and a post-hoc examination by residual analyses revealed thatthe strongest predictor for the our participants’ response strategies is theinterlocutor’s preceding utterance of either face-saving (i.e., self-approval) or
face-threatening (i.e., self-disapproval) acts to the participant. Factors concerning interpersonal relationships of power and distance do not have consistentinfluences on their strategies. These differences in the interlocutor’s preceding
acts can be explained in the light of Goffman’s (1967) and Brown andLevinson’s (1978, 1987) facework models. The following sections describe theprocesses whereby Japanese college students appear to be motivated to change
their response strategies towards others.
4.1. Differences Depending on Whether Only the Interlocutor Is at Fault, orBoth Participant and Interlocutor Are at Fault
The participants in the current study tend to select response strategies of‘referring to the interlocutor’s inappropriate behavior’ and ‘attributing the interlocutor’s responsibility’ to the interlocutor’s self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act, more often than they do to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e.,
face-saving) act in Setting 1 where participants do not recognize their own fault.
In Setting 2 where participants recognize faults of both parties, on the other hand,
they tend to select the response strategies of ‘yes,’ ‘referring to the interlocutor’s
inappropriate behavior’ and ‘attributing the interlocutor’s responsibility’ to theinterlocutors’ self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act. The finding that participants frequently mention the interlocutor’s inappropriate behaviors andattribute responsibility to the interlocutor throughout the two settings suggeststhat Japanese college students do not accept the interlocutor’s self-approving(i.e., face-threatening) act when they recognize the interlocutor’s fault. Nevertheless, only when they recognize their own fault as well as that of theinterlocutor (i.e., Setting 2), it seems that they feel they have to endure theinterlocutor’s authoritative act and are constrained to say ‘yes’ as an immediate
reaction to the interlocutor’s utterance. The recognition of self-responsibility
thus seems to be differential for their selection of response strategies to theinterlocutor.
Meanwhile, in response to the interlocutor’s self-disapproving (i.e., face-Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 31

saving) act, the current participants tend to select strategies of ‘referring to self’s
inappropriate behavior,’ ‘attributing self-responsibility,’ ‘no’ and ‘attributing
both sides’ responsibility,’ regardless of whether or not the participants recognize their own fault. If they use these strategies when they do not recognize theirown fault (i.e., Setting 1), their words contradict their recognition. In such asituation, a higher priority seems to be placed on face management rather than
the recognition of an actual situation. Once they see the interlocutor’s face being
devalued, these young Japanese college students seem to be motivated to savethe interlocutor’s face, no matter who is responsible for the trouble.
The strategy of ‘referring to the self’s inappropriate behavior’ is frequently
used by our participants, not only in response to the interlocutor’s selfdisapproving (i.e., face-saving) act, but also in response to the interlocutor’s
self-approving (i.e., face-threatening) act. The participants use this selfdamaging response strategy even when the interlocutor takes a challenging act
to them. However, they do not always select only one strategy to respond to theinterlocutor, but almost always bring multiple strategies together in a response.
Particularly to such a challenging interlocutor, they may use the self-damaging
strategy as a preface to the complaint to the interlocutor, as seen in an example,“Tashikani tashoo wa mayotta kedo, moto wa to ieba XX (the interlocutor’sname) san ga okureta noga ookina genin desu yo (It’s true I got somewhat lost,
but the primary cause was your being late).”For participants, it is a typical face-threatening act (FTA) to the interlocutorthat they pursue the interlocutor’s responsibility, in the light of Brown andLevinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness model. Their use of the self-damaged
strategy of ‘referring to self’s inappropriate behavior’ represents a strategy toredress the degree of the FTA to the interlocutor. If the participants threaten only
the interlocutor’s face and do not threaten their own face, equilibrium between
the face values of the two parties cannot be maintained. They should threaten
their own face by ‘referring to the self’s inappropriate behavior’ in order toavoid this imbalance between the two parties.
4.2. Pursuit of Issues Concerning Responsibility
It is common that our participants prefer strategies of ‘referring to someone’s
inappropriate behaviors’ rather than those of ‘attributing someone’s responsibilities,’ no matter what the interlocutor’s preceding act is, and no matter who is
responsible for the trouble. Referring to someone’s behavior does not directlyreflect a claim of who bears responsibility, but instead indicates a confirmationof facts, which is the basis for rational judgment of who bears a responsibility. In
other words, the participants tend to clarify situations so that their assessments
can be persuasive for their interlocutors. To provide a clear basis for anassessment of issues of responsibility can function as a means to show sincerity
to the interlocutor, while at the same time as a means to assert the authority of32

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

their own statement. Although to point out one’s fault for a trouble is a
face-threatening act to one’s own positive face, to point out an undeniable fact
concerning the trouble can be interpreted as an act of self-defense. This istherefore an efficient strategy and a way to reconcile conflict between one
another’s faces. This seems to be the way in which young Japanese college
students respect the reciprocity principle of facework (Goffman, 1967), which isa requirement for being a member of society.
It is also common that our participants frequently use the strategy of apology,
no matter what the interlocutor’s preceding act is, and no matter who is
responsible for the incident. Goffman (1971) says that apologies in nature
represent splitting of the self into a blameworthy part and a part that stands backand sympathizes with the blame giving. As clearly noted by Goffman (1971), by
apologizing one inevitably assumes the fact of being engaged in an inappropriate behavior which deviated from the cultural norm. In Setting 2, participants
indeed recognize their fault in that they got lost on the way to the wedding party.
This setting therefore includes the wrong self. By apologizing, “the self can split
itself into two parts, the part that is guilty of an offense and the part that affirms
a belief in the offended rule” (Goffman, 1971, p. 113). In Setting 1, on the other
hand, participants do not recognize their fault because the person who failed tolock the window is not the participant, but the interlocutor; however, theparticipant and the interlocutor were the last two to leave the restaurant. This
circumstance may make the participant feel solidarity with the interlocutor. In
other words, the self-identity and the interlocutor’s identity are clumped
together in the use of apology in this setting. This behavior can be interpreted asa kind of collectivistic behavior, which Triandis (1995) defined as “a social
pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts of
one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, nation, and so on)” (p. 2).
4.3. Interpersonal Influences on the Selection of Response Strategies
Of the two factors regarding interpersonal relationships of power and distance,
only the factor of distance shows a partial influence on the Japanese college
students’ response strategies to the interlocutor’s preceding self-approving (i.e.,
face-threatening) act, when they recognize that both parties of participant andinterlocutor are at fault (i.e., Setting 2). This suggests that if the participants areafraid of being blamed for their fault, they have to select response strategies bytaking into consideration interpersonal relationships with the interlocutor.
The factor of power has no significant effect throughout all conditions in thepresent DCT. However, it would be premature to conclude that power relationships have nothing to do with the participants’ pursuit of responsibility. The
present scenarios dealt with a limited scope of superior and inferior relationships
among young Japanese college students in order to accommodate our participants. Since the interlocutor was a co-worker in Setting 1 and a relative inResponse strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 33

Setting 2, our participants might not imagine considerable age difference with
the interlocutors. We still must continue further investigations with particularfocus on the effects caused by the power relationships.
5. Conclusion
On the basis of findings obtained from the present discourse completion task
(DCT), we observe that young native Japanese college students seem to have anorm that they should change their verbal responses depending on whether aninterlocutor’s preceding act is face-saving (i.e., self-disapproving) or facethreatening (i.e., self-approving) when pursuing the locus of responsibility. In
response to the interlocutor’s face-threatening (i.e., self-approving) act to theparticipant, they seem to adjust strategies according to whether or not they are at
fault for an incident. In response to the interlocutor’s face-saving (i.e., selfdisapproving) act, on the other hand, they may place higher priority on saving
the interlocutor’s face rather than pursuing the interlocutor’s responsibility
because the interlocutor’s face is already devalued. Findings also provide asuggestion that young Japanese college students’ verbal responses in exchanges
concerning issues of responsibility are characterized by the strategies of‘referring to someone’s inappropriate behavior’ and ‘apology,’ both of whichindicate feelings of sincerity and solidarity between speaker and hearer.
Nevertheless, these interpretations were depicted from the data obtained froma small group of native Japanese college students. The next path of study is todemonstrate strategies used by Japanese speakers in an older age group, and by
speakers of other languages. Furthermore, in order to reveal differences in
response strategies depending on the interlocutor’s contrasting acts, the present
study focused on two types of interlocutor’s preceding acts (i.e., FSA and FTA)
within a single DCT survey. However, the actual sequences of verbal responses
would be more complicated when observing authentic conversation data (e.g.,
Hayashi, 1996; Mori, 1999, Pomerantz, 1978, 1984; Schegloff, 2007). Complementary studies utilizing role-plays and/or natural conversation analyses arenecessary in order to understand how individuals engage in facework in actual
spontaneous interactions.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Masato Takiura, Shingo
Tokimoto, Minoru Nakau, Youngmi Choung, Michael Mansbridge, Arthur
Meerman and Kerry Hull, as well as the three anonymous reviewers, the journal
editor Yasuhiro Shirai and the associate editor Junko Mori, for providing a lot ofinvaluable comments on earlier versions of this article. The authors also thank to
Hiromu Sakai for his help in data collection. This study was funded by JSPS
KAKENHI Grants 24652080, 23320106, and 20520468.

34

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

References
Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness.
Human Communication Research, 10, 427–456.
Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D., & Bevill, M. J. (1989). The interactive effects ofrequest form and speaker status on judgments of requests. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 521–531.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag?: Social status andpatterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden,
D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition,
Vol. 1: Discourse and pragmatics (pp. 103–125). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Benedict, R. (1954). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japaneseculture. Tokyo: C. E. Tuttle.
Billmyer, K. & Vardhese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic
variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion test. Applied Linguistics, 21, 514–552.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study ofspeech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196–213.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politenessphenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies insocial interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burnland, D. & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The management ofcompliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 9–26.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of socioculturalcompetence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113–134.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL
Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 33–56.
Cupach, W. R. & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences ofinterpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 19, 443–462.
Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence (J. Bester, Trans.). Tokyo: Kodansha
International. (Original work published 1971).
Gagne, N. O. (2010). Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanesesocio linguistic politeness of request. Language & Communication, 30,
123–138.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1881–1900.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 35

York: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New
York: Basic Books.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs andrecording of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.
Guan, X., Park, H. S., & Lee, H. E. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in apology.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 32–45.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Nishita, T. (1993). Interpersonal and intergroup communication in Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Communication in Japan and the United States (pp. 18–50). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables.
Biometrics, 29, 205–220.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Press.
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis
of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 227–255.
Herbert, R. & Straight, H. S. (1989). Compliment-rejection versus compliment-avoidance: Listener-based versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies.
Language & Communication, 9, 35–47.
Hayes, A. F. & Krippendorff, K., (2007). Answering the call for a standard
reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures,
1, 77–89.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holmes, J. (2000). Small talk at work: Potential problems for workers with an
intellectual disability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1),65–84.
Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of
direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305–314.
Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: The effects of speaker statuson the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1205–1218.
Holtgraves, T., Srull, T., K., & Socall, D. (1989). Conversation memory: The
effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation
remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 149–160.
Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,
1403–1426.

36

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

Jucker, A. H. (2009) Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory:
The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1611–1635.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of
Pragmatics, 14, 193–218.
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247.
Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities ofcategorical data. Applied Statistics, 29, 119–127.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30,
411–433.
Laforest, M. (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1595–1620.
Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics,
41, 1376–1394.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral
communication. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., & Pressey, L. C. (2002). The evaluation ofadvice in supportive interactions: Facework and contextual factors. Human
Communication Research, 28, 451–463.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese:
Connective expressions and turn construction. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society (C. Nakane, Trans.). Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. (Original work published 1967).
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation ofmultiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of
conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Somefeatures of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. J. Atkinson, & J.
Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis(pp. 75–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future.
Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481.
Rose, K. R. (1992). Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 49–62.
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-Westerncontexts. Applied Linguistics, 15, 1–14.
Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effectof questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45, 191–223.

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 37

Saft, S. (2004). Conflict as interactional accomplishment in Japanese: Arguments in university faculty meetings. Language in Society, 33, 549–584.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A
comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457–484.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A prime inconversation analysis vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sillars, A. L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts.
Communication Monographs, 47, 180–200.
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS Classification Trees (Version 18.0) [Computer softwareand manual]. Chicago.
Sugimoto, N. (1998). Norms of apology depicted in U.S. American and Japanese literature on manners and etiquette. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 251–276.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2
English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–533
Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Cray, E. (2000). ‘It’s not my fault’: Japaneseand English responses to unfounded accusations. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.),
Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.
75–97). London: Continuum.
Tang, C. & Zhang, G. Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses
among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 325–345.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishida,T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal
conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Turnbull, W. & Saxton, K. L. (1997). Modal expressions as facework in refusals
to comply with requests: I think I should say ‘no’ right now. Journal of
Pragmatics, 27, 145–181.
Yamada, H. (1997). Different games, different rules: Why Americans and Japanese misunderstand each other. New York: Oxford University Press
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods:
Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of
Pragmatics, 33, 271–292.
Appendix. The Discourse Completion Task (DCT) Used in the Present
Study
In the DCT, the hypothetical interlocutors’ utterances were nested in sets ofrelationship made by combination of (1) the interlocutor’s preceding act (i.e.,
self-approving and self-disapproving), (2) power factor (i.e., the interlocutor is38

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

older or younger) and (3) distance factor (i.e., the interlocutor is familiar or
unfamiliar). Participants were asked to freely write down their expressions forthe responses. Notes in parentheses were not presented to participants in theactual questionnaire. Original version was written in Japanese. Both of theoriginal version and its English translation is presented as follows. The English
translations were back translated into Japanese, and no significant problems
were found.
Original Version in Japanese
これから 2 つの場面についてお尋ねします。あなただったら、それぞれの場面で、相手の発言に対してどのように対応しますか。どのように言うかイメージし、その通りに書いてください。回答に正解・不正解はありませんので、率直に答えてください。
場面 1（相手に責任がある）
あなたは、あるレストランでサービスのアルバイトをしています。まじめに働いて、責任ある仕事も任されています。今日出勤したら、窓際に置いてある革張りの高価な椅子が、雨に濡れていたんでしまっています。どうやら昨日から窓が開けっぱなしになっていたようです。 昨夜最後に帰ったのはあなたともう
1 人のアルバイトです。2 人で戸締りをして帰るときに、もう 1 人が「こっちのほうの戸締りは大丈夫みたい」と言ったのを聞いて、店を後にしました。あな
た自身は確認をしませんでした。2 人で店長に昨夜のことを話します。
相手の発言 (1)（自己肯定的態度）「この人（あなた）がきちんと戸締りの確認をしてくれませんでした。」① この相手がよく話をする先輩の場合：（年上・親しい）② この相手がよく話をする後輩の場合：（年下・親しい）③ この相手があまり話をしない先輩の場合：（年上・親しくない）④ この相手があまり話をしない後輩の場合：（年下・親しくない）
相手の発言 (2)（自己否定的態度）「私がきちんと戸締りを確認しなかったのが悪かったんです。」① この相手がよく話をする先輩の場合：（年上・親しい）② この相手がよく話をする後輩の場合：（年下・親しい）③ この相手があまり話をしない先輩の場合：（年上・親しくない）④ この相手があまり話をしない後輩の場合：（年下・親しくない）Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 39
場面 2（両方に責任がある）
今日はいとこの結婚式です。あなたが、遠方から来る親戚を駅まで迎えに行き、式場まで案内することになっていました。充分余裕をもって待ち合わせ時間を決めました。ところが、その親戚が待ち合わせに遅れた上に、思ったより駅から式場までの道のりが遠かったこともあり、到着したときには、もう結婚式が始まっていました。式の後、他の親戚があなたたち 2 人に嫌味を言います。
相手の発言 (1)（自己肯定的態度）「この人（あなた）が道をよく知らなかったみたいで、間に合いませんでした。」① この相手がよく話をする親戚の場合：（年上・親しい）② この相手がよく話をする親戚の場合：（年下・親しい）③ この相手があまり話をしない親戚の場合：（年上・親しい）④ この相手があまり話をしない親戚の場合：（年下・親しい）相手の発言 (2)（自己否定的態度）「私が待ち合わせに遅れたので、間に合いませんでした。」① この相手がよく話をする親戚の場合：（年上・親しい）② この相手がよく話をする親戚の場合：（年下・親しい）③ この相手があまり話をしない親戚の場合：（年上・親しい）④ この相手があまり話をしない親戚の場合：（年下・親しい）English Translation
The following is concerned with two different situations. Should you be in eitherof these situations how would you most likely respond? Please try to make yourown utterance, and then write it down for each of the hypothetical interlocutors.
There are neither correct nor incorrect answers in this questionnaire. We would
appreciate your honest answers.
Setting 1 (The interlocutor is at fault):
You work at a restaurant as a part-time worker of some importance with yourpart-time co-worker. One day when you arrived, an expensive leather-covered
chair had been found ruined by the rain that fell through the window nearby
which was supposed to be closed at the end of a day. You and your co-worker
were the last to have left there the night before. When you were leaving, you had
asked the co-worker “Is it all right around you there?” The co-worker answered“Yes, maybe, it’s all right.” So, you did not check the window around theco-worker’s side for yourself. The restaurant manager, then, asked both of you40

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

on the situation the night before.
Your co-worker’s utterance #1 (Self-approving act):“I thought [participant’s name] had closed the window.”
Case 1: To older co-worker with whom you have talked much. (older, familiar)
Case 2: To younger co-worker with whom you have talked much. (younger,
familiar)
Case 3: To older co-worker with whom you have not as yet talked much. (older,unfamiliar)
Case 4: To younger co-worker with whom you have not as yet talked much.
(younger, unfamiliar)Your co-worker’s utterance #2 (Self-disapproving act):“I’m sorry, I didn’t close it.”Case 1: To older co-worker with whom you have talked much. (older, familiar)
Case 2: To younger co-worker with whom you have talked much. (younger,
familiar)
Case 3: To older co-worker with whom you have not as yet talked much. (older,unfamiliar)
Case 4: To younger co-worker with whom you have not as yet talked much.
(younger, unfamiliar)
Setting 2 (Both sides are at fault):
Today, you are going to attend a wedding party of your cousin. You are supposed
to guide a relative of yours to the party place, receiving the relative at a station at
an appointed time, a time of a sufficient allowance for the beginning of the party.
However, the relative came late to the station and you were lost on the way there.
The party was already going when you got there. After the party, some of theolder relatives at the party made some criticism to both of you.
Your relative’s utterance #1 (Self-approving act):“We were late because [participant’s name] had been lost on the way here.”
Case 1: To older relative with whom you have talked much. (older, familiar)
Case 2: To younger relative with whom you have talked much. (younger,
familiar)
Case 3: To older relative with whom you have not as yet talked much. (older,unfamiliar)
Case 4: To younger relative with whom you have not as yet talked much.
(younger, unfamiliar)Your cousin’s utterance #2 (Self-disapproving act):“I’m sorry, I was late at the station.”

Response strategy changes depending on the interlocutor 41

Case 1: To older relative with whom you have talked much. (older, familiar)
Case 2: To younger relative with whom you have talked much. (younger,
familiar)
Case 3: To older relative with whom you have not as yet talked much. (older,unfamiliar)
Case 4: To younger relative with whom you have not as yet talked much.
(younger, unfamiliar)

42

Sachiko KIYAMA & Katsuo TAMAOKA

相手のフェイス保持行為とフェイス侵害行為に応じた応答ストラテジーの変化： 談話完成タスクによる検討
木山幸子（国立長寿医療研究センター）
玉岡賀津雄（名古屋大学）
要旨
本研究は、相手が先に自分に対してフェイス保持行為（face-saving act）をとったかフェイス侵害行（face-threatening act）をとったかによって選好される応答ストラテジーがどのように変わるか、またその選択に対人関係や状況に関わる要因が応答ストラテジーにどのように影響するかを検討した。日本
人大学生を対象とした談話完成テストの分析を通して、先行する相手の行為に応じて応答ストラテジーが異なることを例証した。とくに、どちらに責任があるかを直接述べるより、問題となっている事柄に関わる事実を整理しようとする傾向がみられた。