1. Cross-cultural variation in theperception of impoliteness A study of impolitenesseventsreportedbystudents in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey Jonathan Culpeper et al.

2. Categories in the rapport-managementframework(Spencer-Oatey)

3. QUALITY FACE  desire for people to evaluate us positively in terms of our personal qualities «Ignorant» istaken as a badquality and thus as anoffense Qualityfaceisviolated (TURKEY 89) “I don’t know the answer to that question” “Ignorant”

4. SOCIAL IDENTITY FACE  the value that we claim for ourselves in terms ofsocial or group roles He isnotthe target of theremark But he is a member of thatgroup His social identityfaceisviolated. (ENGLAND 23) “it’s because he’s a vegetarian, fucking veggie” “I’m a vegetarian”

5. RELATIONAL FACE  reflects who a person is in relation to his/her significant others: a good friend, a family member, etc. “ I told her ideas for some activities for our class […] She rejected the ideas loudly with a tone of ordering […] I was greatly annoyed because my classmates all respected me and I had never come across situations like that before.” Her relational value as a leader of her classmates, a group of significant others, isbeingthreatened. (CHINA 6)

6. Willtheresults back up theexistence of a clear-cutdistinctionbetweenWesternand non-Western cultures?

7. RESULTS

8. SOME OBSERVATIONS CHINA EquityRightsseemto be more important. WHY? - Confucianism? One-childpolicies?

9. SOME OBSERVATIONS GERMANY’simportance of «associationrights» ENGLAND and TURKEY share «qualityface» results.

10. CONCLUSIONS Western and non-Western are NOT unifiedwholes. Weshouldavoidsterotypes and generalizations. Furtherresearchisneededwithmore stress oncultural diversity.

11. Thankyouforyourattention!