Abstract

Because the term “face” is used so frequently in research in language pragmatics, one overlooks the fact that it is a metaphor. This article questions whether face is the best metaphor to use in representing either the phenomena that Goffman examined, or the broad range of social practices for relating to others in using language that are evident across cultural groups. As background for questioning the viability of the metaphor of face, this article argues that the individual and social aspects of human existence form a Yin and Yang dialectic, employs this dialectic to identify three modes of explaining pragmatic phenomena, and considers both the nature of metaphors and how they afford and constrain understandings of these phenomena and conducting research on them. Using this background, the article argues that the metaphor of face has focused theory and research on the individual aspects of human existence, so that its fundamental social aspects have been overlooked and/or inadequately addressed. Exploring and employing alternatives to the metaphor of face has important benefits for theory and for research, especially if those alternative metaphors are fitted to the particular communities of practice that one is studying.