Ä¢¹½Ö±²¥

Opponent is professor Helen Spencer-Oatey (University of Warwick) and Custos is professor Tarja Nikula-Jäntti (Ä¢¹½Ö±²¥). The doctoral dissertation is held in English.

The audience can follow the event online, the link is 
If a member of the audience wants to ask questions at the end of the public examination, it is possible to call the Custos. The phone number of the Custos is +358 40 5565 877.

Publication:
JYU dissertations number 358. 249s. ISBN:978-951-39-8553-0. ISSN: 2489-9003. Online:

Abstract

A fundamental feature of human existence is that we are concerned with what others think of us, and we are aware of similar concerns in others. In foreign or second language (L2) communication, this concern may include what others think of us as a skillful user of that language. These concerns have been studied in communication anxiety studies earlier, but face theory has been little deployed to explore this, despite its inherent explanatory potential. Face theory provides a theoretical concept to address both the sensitivity of participants in an interaction to their image as users of L2 and the similar sensitivities that they assume their interlocutors have. This study aims to shed light on how language proficiency face, the vulnerable image of an L2 speaker, is noticeable in interaction as facework. Another aim is to find out how L2 users perceive this language proficiency face. The theoretical framework introduces face theories, the concepts around language self, and language concepts around language self, and language concepts as underpinnings of language proficiency face claims. The data consist of authentic video-recorded interaction material with English-as-a-lingua-franca speakers in study and work settings and audio-recorded interviews with the same participants. In addition, the author used his own introspective autobiographical material. Marked Selected extracts where facework could be detected from the interaction were analyzed using discourse analysis. The findings were triangulated with content analysis of the interviews, which included post-commentary on the interaction. Further triangulation was sought through the author’s introspective autobiographical data. The findings show that proficiency facework includes co-construction of turns and non-verbal communication, which enable participants to treat language problems similarly to content negotiations. As for the perception of proficiency face, the findings suggest that participants may view the face relevance of features of language use and interaction differently. Participants had different perceptions of the seriousness of communication problems, the origin of these problems, and the resulting consequences for proficiency face. Features of proficiency faces of participants are illustrated in facework postures, which are based on individuals’ beliefs and attitudes related to language proficiency, and their facework preferences.

Further information

Tarmo Ahvenainen, puh. 0443025611, tarmo.a.ahvenainen@gmail.com

Communications Specialist Kananen Anitta, anitta.kananen@jyu.fi, 040 846 1395