I hate babies. | Is It Normal? |
Check out our friends at .
The best new movie trailers on shuffle, just like in the theater.
We're here to help each other.
Play Nice!
I hate babies.
82% Normal
I have to get this off my chest. All of my life, ever since I was young, I have hated babies with a passion. I NEVER played with baby dolls, I NEVER showed any interest at all in babies or motherhood. Why? Because they freak me out. They freaked me out back then, they freak me out today. The tought alone of having to take care of one or just interact with one, scares the heck out of me. Why do I feel like this? +++1. I think they look utterly repulsive.+++ I honestly think human babies are, untill they reach the age of HAIR, among the most vile-looking creatures in nature. The chubby factor doesn't work for me. Newborn babies make me want to vomit. I really believe anyone who calls a newborn baby 'precious', 'sweet' or 'beautiful' is in fact a hypocrite and in reality comforting its parents.+++2. The way they cry for something makes my skin crawl.+++ The newborns look like squirmy little maggots with their bald heads, shut eyes and toothless mouths. They totally. Freak me out. The older ones are just plain annoying and aggravating. Whenever they cry, I feel like punching them in the face. Ever looked a needy baby in the face while he is wailing? You know what that expression means? &I WANT! WANT! WANT! GIVE ME MY BOTTLE. GIVE ME MY DIAPER. GIVE ME MY TOYS. NOOOOOOOW!!!&+++3. They're very effective in showing you what they DON'T want, but they are never able to show you what they WANT.+++ They are spoiled even when they're just in the crib. They manipulate us because they are used to getting what they want, ALL the time. And people think it's strange I call them annoying? They cry, whine, fuss and moan CONSTANTLY even when NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM! Most older babies just cry for attention, to get what they want. They have no patience, no empathy or regard for anyone but themselves. Yes, they love you. Would't you love the single idiot willing enough to wipe the shiat off your butt and bring you milk?+++4. They stay little too long.+++They progress frustratingly slowly. They're incontinent for what? Three whole years? They spill their food all over the place and projectile vomit for about... Two entire years? You have GOT. To be kidding me. Kids don't grow up too fast when it comes to the gross stuff. They are plain nasty when it comes to bodily fluids.+++5. They're dumb. There, I said it.+++I see babies hanging from their buggies that look like they are retarded, in a coma or drugged. How anyone can interact with such a child, is beyond me. There ARE some older babies that actually act like a small human being, but most of them have an expression on their faces that show they are not really there. They should just stay asleep for the next two years if they can not do anything... Interesting.Those are my reasons for hating them. I can tolerate older children, but babies? They make me run for the nearest exit. Sorry.
Is It Normal?
Thanks for voting!
Help us keep this site organized and clean.
[We'll look into it, thanks! ()]
Check out these other IIN posts or :
3 Comments
9 Comments
11 Comments
2 Comments
5 Comments
17 Comments
8 Comments
14 Comments
6 Comments
30 Comments
Advertisement
<td class="count" id="choice_count_
Other (In comments...)
All Rights Reserved
Pro bono lawyer needed
Message HereLOGIN WITH YOUR JAPANTODAY ACCOUNT
Remember Me
You will be sent an email to activate your account before you can log in.
Yes, I would like to receive news alerts from JapanToday
I agree to the
Man punched in face by fellow train commuter over phone manners
A man was arrested after punching another man in the face for purportedly having bad cell phone manners Monday morning at Takadanobaba station on the Seibu Shinjuku Line.
According to police, 49-year-old Hiroshi Matsukawa had warned a fellow passenger to obey the mobile phone manner rules while the two were riding the train. The man reportedly talked back to him, causing Matsukawa to get angry and punch him in the face when they both got out at the next station, witnesses said. After being punched, the man teetered on the edge of the platform and his arm was broken by a train passing through the station.
Matsukawa was quoted by police as saying: &#8220;I warned him and he complained back at me. That really pissed me off.&#8221;
News reports
Login with your JapanToday account
Remember Me
JapanToday Insight
Matsumoto-roOnsen
<Health & Fitness
Dai-ichi TakimotokanOnsen
Special Offers
Offer ends: Aug 31, 2017From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term face
refers to one's own sense of
in social contexts. In the , the expression "To save face" describes the lengths that an individual may go to in order to preserve their established position in society, taking action to ensure that one is not thought badly of by his or her peers. It is a fundamental concept in the fields of , , , , , , , and , and translates at least somewhat equivalently into many , both
and otherwise.
claimed "Face cannot be translated or defined", compare these definitions:
The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self, delineated in terms of approved social attributes.
Face is the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim for himself from others, by virtue of the relative position he occupies in his social network and the degree to which he is judged to have functioned adequately in that position as well as acceptably in his general conduct. (Ho )
[Face] is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. (Brown and Levinson 1978:66)
Face is a sense of worth that comes from knowing one's status and reflecting concern with the congruency between one's performance or appearance and one's real worth. (Huang 1987:71)
"Face" means "sociodynamic valuation", a lexical hyponym of words meaning " status". (Carr 1993:90)
"Face" has more meaning based on Chinese culture context.
"The concept of face is, of course, Chinese in origin" (Ho ), yet many languages have "face" terms that metaphorically mean " reputation". , who sociologically studied the
(formerly known as ) and
nations in , interpreted the
word q'elsem (lit. "rotten face") meaning "stingy - one who gives no feast".
Kwakiutl and Haida noblemen have the same notion of "face" as the Chinese mandarin or officer. It is said of one of the great mythical chiefs who gave no feast that he had a "rotten face". The expression is more apt than it is even in C for to lose one's face is to lose one's spirit, which is truly the "face", the dancing mask, the right to incarnate a spirit and wear an emblem or totem. It is the veritable persona which is at stake, and it can be lost in the potlatch just as it can be lost in the game of gift-giving, in war, or through some error in ritual. (1954:38)
Michael Carr () lexicographically investigated " prestige"
in Chinese, Japanese, and English. Within this sample,
include 98 forms, e.g., sipo lian 撕破臉 (lit. "rip up face") "have no consideration for someone's feelings";
list 89, e.g., kao o uru 顔を売る (lit. "sell face") " gain influence"; and English dictionaries include 5 forms, e.g., lose face (borrowed from Chinese diulian 丟臉 "lose face"). Carr found that the Chinese and Japanese lexicons have roughly equal numbers of words for "losing face" and "saving face", while English has more for "saving face".
Two influential Chinese authors explained "face".
referred to the missionary 's () interpretation.
The term "face" keeps cropping up in our conversation, and it seems such a simple expression that I doubt whether many people give it much thought. Recently, however, we have heard this word on the lips of foreigners too, who seem to be studying it. They find it extremely hard to understand, but believe that "face" is the key to the Chinese spirit and that grasping it will be like grabbing a queue twenty-four years ago [when wearing a
was compulsory] – everything else will follow. (:129)
Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face".
Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift". Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social intercourse is regulated.
Lin refers to liu mianzi 留面子 " give (someone) a chance to regain lost honor", shī miàn zi 失面子 "lose face", zheng mianzi 爭面子 " ", and gei mianzi 給面子 " show respect (for someone's feelings)".
has three common words meaning "face":
mian (: ; : miàn; : mien)
lian (: ; : ; : liǎn; : lien)
yan (: ; : ; : yán; : yen).
Mian 面 " side" occurs in words like:
" self- prestige, social standing"
(lit. "face and eyes") " honor"
mianpi 面皮 (lit. "face skin") " sense of shame"
(lit. "body face") " prestige"
qingmian 情面 (lit. "feelings face") " partiality"
Mianmu, which occurs in the , , and other , is the oldest Chinese word for figurative "face" (Carr 1992:43). David Yau-fai Ho () describes timian as "an expression without an exact equivalent in English", meaning "the social front, the ostensible display of one's social standing to the public. It is both a prerogative and an implicit obligation for the socially prominent to be particular about." Mianzi is a measurable and quantifiable concept of "face". Face, Hsien-chin Hu says,
can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded, — all terms indicating a gradual increase in volume. It is built up through initial high position, wealth, power, ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people, as well as through avoidance of acts that would cause unfavorable comment. (1944:61)
Lian 脸 " prestige" is seen in several "face" words:
lianshang 脸 上 (lit. "face on/above") "one' respect"
lianmian 脸 面 (lit. "face face") " self- influence"
lianpi 脸 皮 (lit. "face skin") " compassion"
While the use of the word "mian" is more common outside , in
, it is the word "lian" 臉that is more commonly used.
Hu () contrasts meiyou lian 沒有臉 (lit. "without face") " shameless" as "the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person" and buyao lian 不要臉 (lit. "don't want face") " selfishly inconsiderate" as "a serious accusation meaning that ego does not care what society thinks of his character, that he is ready to obtain benefits for himself in defiance of moral standards."
uses 面 instead of 臉. However, Chinese people generally use the term 脸 子 more commonly when speaking in
Yan 顏 " honor" occurs in the common expression diu yan 丟顏 and the words:
yanhou 顏厚 (lit. "face thick") or houyan 厚顏 "thick- impudent"
yanmian 顏面 (lit. "face face") " prestige"
Chinese uses yan less often in expressing " prestige" than either mian or lian.
Carr () summarizes four common Chinese lexical patterns for "face" words. First, the lexicon antithetically modifies all three "face" words with hou 厚 " great" and bao or bo 薄 " weak" to describe "(in)sensitivity to prestige", for example, mianpi hou "thick- shameless" and mianpi bao "thin- diffident". Second, owing to the importance of the visible face, kan 看 " look" meaning "have consideration for" and buhaokan 不好看 "not good looking" describe "face". Third, several expressions reciprocally describe you 有 "having" or meiyou 沒有 "not having" "face", such as dajia you mianzi "everybody has mutual honor" and meiyou mianzi "lacking prestige". Fourth, "losing face" can be expressed with the common "lose" verb shi 失 and the rarer diu 丟, for instance, shi mianzi and diu mianzi " lose prestige".
Recent studies of Chinese "face" have principally accepted Hu Hsien-chin's original distinction between a person's mianzi "social status" and lian "moral character". Hu (1944:45) dichotomized mianzi as "a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation" versus lian which "represents the confidence of society in the integrity of ego's moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly within the community". Ho qualified this dichotomy:
although the distinction between the two sets of criteria for judging face – based on judgments of character and, broadly, of the amoral aspects of social performance – is justified, it cannot be anchored to a linguistic distinction between the two terms, lien and mien-tzu, as proposed by Hu. However, we may continue to use these terms in the senses that Hu has defined. ()
On the basis of experiments showing that Chinese high school students defined losses of mianzi and lian interchangeably, while university students distinguished them, Huang Shuanfan concluded that:
Succinctly, among college subjects, loss of mianzi is more definitely tied to failure to measure up to one's sense of self-esteem or to what is expected by others, whereas loss of lian is closely tied to transgression of social codes. Hu's (1944) forty-year-old distinction between the two Chinese concepts of faces appears to stand very well, even today. (1987:73)
Lian is the confidence of society in a person's moral character, while mianzi represents social perceptions of a person's prestige. For a person to maintain face is important with Chinese social relations because face translates into power and influence and affects . A loss of lian would result in a loss of trust within a , while a loss of mianzi would likely result in a loss of .
Two "face"-related concepts in
" relationships" and
"feelings".
The English
for "face" words meaning " honor" is smaller than the corresponding Chinese field, but historical dictionaries more accurately record its history. The
(2nd ed., 1989) documents how the English community in China originated lose face and save face in the late 19th century, and how
variants like face-saver subsequently developed.
is a linguistic
from Chinese diulian 丟臉 "lose face". The OED2 Face 10 definition distinguishes meanings between native 10a. "O assumed or f disguise, a pretext" (for instance, to put a good face on) and borrowed:
10b. to save one's face: see save v. 8f; also to save face; to lose face [tr. Chinese diu lien]: to be humiliated, lose one's credit, good name, similarly, loss of face. Hence face = reputation, good name.
originally translated lose face in a January 23, 1876
customs memorandum, "The Inspector General's Memorandum Concerning Commercial Relations" (Appendix II in Hart ).
The country begins to feel that Government consented to arrangements by which C the officials have long been conscious that they are becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the people, seeing that where a foreigner is concerned they can neither enforce a Chinese right, nor redress a Chinese grievance, even on Chinese soil. ()
Loss of face occurs in
(August 3, 1929): "Each wishes to concede only what can be conceded without loss of 'face'."
was coined from lose face applying the semantic
[tr. Chinese 保面子／bao mianzi／guard/save face; when successful, it's called "保住面子／bao zhu mianzi／saved/guarded face "].
OED defines Save 8 "To keep, protect or guard (a thing) from damage, loss, or destruction", and elaborates,
8f. to save one's face: to avoid being disgraced or humiliated. Similarly, to save (another's) face. Hence save-face adj. = face-saving … Originally used by the English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace. The exact phrase appears not to occur in Chinese, but ‘to lose face’ (diu lien), and ‘for the sake of his face’, are common.
For the earliest usage examples, the OED gives the following. Save one's face is recorded in the
(April 5, 1898): "Unquestionably the process of saving one's face leads to curious results in other countries than China." Save-face is found in
(1917): "The civilian native staff had bolted at the first sign of trouble, 'going to report to the authorities' being their 'save face' for it!" Face-saving first appears in Enoch A. Bennett's Lilian (1922): "She had been trapped beyond any chance of a face-saving lie." Face-saver, defined as "something that 'saves one's face', " originated in 's Scorched Earth (1941): "As a face-saver, however, Doihara was given enough support, from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria." Carr (1993:74) notes, "It is significant that the earliest usages for English lose face, save face, save-face and face-saver refer to China, while later ones are more international in application."
By expanding "lose face" into "save face", English developed oppositely from Chinese, which has many "lose face" , but none literally meaning "save face". Yao mianzi 要面子 "eage be concerned about appearances" is (Hu 1944:58) "the closest Chinese approximation" for "save face".
The underlying reason for this difference is that English "face" lacks the sociological contrast between Chinese lian and mianzi. Since Chinese lian is ethically absolute while mianzi is socially quantitative, losing the former is more significant. According to Huang:
The fact that Chinese lexicalizes losing face (丟臉, 沒面子), but not gaining face is a potent reminder that losing face has far more serious implications for one's sense of self-esteem or decency than gaining face. (1987:71)
Ho explains how "losing" one's "face" is more sociodynamically significant than "saving" it.
Previous writers on face have treated losing face and gaining face simply as if they were opposite outcomes in a social encounter and have thus failed to notice the basic difference between two social processes that are involved. In the first instance, while it is meaningful to speak of both losing and gaining mien-tzu it is meaningful to speak only of losing lien. One does not speak of gaining lien because, regardless of one's station in life, one is expected to behave in accordance with the pre correctly conceptualized, exemplary conduct adds not to one's lien, but to one's mien-tzu. ()
"Losing face" brings into question one's moral decency and societal adequacy, but not "gaining face".
The lose verb in lose face means "fail to maintain" (cf. lose one's life), while the save in save face means "avoid loss/damage" (cf. save one's honor). "The English creation of save face as the opposite of lose face was arbitrary because lose has other antonyms: win, find, keep, catch, maintain, preserve, gain, and regain", Carr (1993:77) notes, "Speakers occasionally use the last three (esp. gain) regarding face 'prestige', though less frequently than save". Another usage example is , which is included in the
but not the OED2.
Among the , lose face is an uncommon
and a unique
translation. Most Anglo-Chinese borrowings are
(Yuan ), with a few exceptions such as , , , and lose face. English face meaning " honor" is the only case of a Chinese . Semantic loans extend an indigenous word's meaning in conformity with a foreign model (e.g., French realiser " construct" used in the sense of English realize). The vast majority of English words from Chinese are ordinary
with regular phonemic adaptation (e.g.,
& Cantonese tsap-sui
"miscellaneous pieces"). A few are
where a borrowing is blended with native elements (e.g., chopsticks & Pidgin chop "quick, fast" & Cantonese kap
"quick" + stick). Face meaning "prestige" is technically a "loan synonym" owing to semantic overlap between the native English meaning " effrontery" and the borrowed Chinese meaning " dignity".
John Orr (1953) coined the term "invisible exports" to describe how French forme, ouverte, and courir borrowed the sports meanings of English form, open, and run. Chinese lose face is an imperceptible English import because it appears to be a predictable semantic extension of face, and not a noticeable foreign borrowing. This invisible face " status" loan is, Chan and Kwok (1985:60) explain, "so firmly established in the English vocabulary that the average native speaker is unaware of its Chinese origin."
When face acquired its Chinese sense of " honor", it filled a
in the English lexicon. Chan and Kwok write,
The Chinese has supplied a specific "name" for a "thing" embodying qualities not expressed or possibly not fully expressed, by a number of terms in English. The aptness of the figurative extension has probably also played a part ().
Carr concludes,
The nearest English synonyms of the apt figurative face are prestige, honor, respect, dignity, status, reputation, social acceptance, or good name. Ho () explains how "face" is a more basic meaning than "status", "dignity", or "honor". "Prestige" appears to be semantically closest to "face", however a person can be said to have face but not prestige, or vice versa. Prest one can easily live without it, but hardly without "face". ()
In , the expression hafi?a mā' al-wajh (), which literally translate as save the face's water, is used to mean save face.
, expressions like "Aab ro rizi" (????????) literally - losing the face's water, is used to mean save face and "Dou roi" (??????) (lit. two-facedness) , "Ro seyahi "(???????) (lit. Black-facedness) and "Ro sepidi" (???????) (lit. White-facedness)are used.
Among , especially in
and , the word obraz (: образ) is used as a traditional expression for
and the sociological concept of face. Medieval Slavic documents have shown that the word has been used with various meanings, such as form, image, character, person, symbol, face, figure, statue, idol, guise and mask. The languages also have a derived adjective bezobrazan (: безобразен) "without face", used to associate
to a person.
The Thai word for face is ????,meaning literally face. There are basically two main ways of expressing loss of face. One, ????????, [sia naa] translates literally as 'lose face.' Another term, ???????, or [khai naa], means sale of face - actual connotation is that the person who lost face did so through fault of self or through the thoughtless action of another. As in China and other regions where loss of face is important, the Thai version involves sociodynamic status.
Figurative "face" meaning " dignity" is applied across many .
"Face" is central to
and . Martin C. Yang analyzed eight sociological factors in losing or gaining face: the kinds of equality between the people involved, their ages, personal sensibilities, inequality in social status, social relationship, consciousness of personal prestige, presence of a witness, and the particular social value/sanction involved.
The sociologist
introduced the concept of "face" into
with his (1955) article "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction" and (1967) book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. According to Goffman's , face is a
that changes depending on the
and the variety of social interaction. People strive to maintain the face they have created in social situations. They are emotionally attached to their faces, so they feel good when their
loss of face results in emotional pain, so in
by using politeness strategies to maintain each other's faces.
"Face" is sociologically universal. People "are human",
and I. C. Jarvie () believe, "because they have face to care for – without it they lose human dignity." Ho elaborates:
The point is that face is distinctively human. Anyone who does not wish to declare his social bankruptcy must show a regard for face: he must claim for himself, and must extend to others, some degree of compliance, respect, and deference in order to maintain a minimum level of effective social functioning. While it is true that the conceptualization of what constitutes face and the rules governing face behavior vary considerably across cultures, the concern for face is invariant. Defined at a high level of generality, the concept of face is a universal. ()
The sociological concept of face has recently been reanalysed through consideration of the Chinese concepts of face (mianzi and lian) which permits deeper understanding of the various dimensions of experience of face, including moral and social evaluation, and its emotional mechanisms (Qi 2011).
Penelope Brown and
(1987) expanded Goffman's
of face in their , which differentiated between
(Miller 2005).
Positive face is "the positive consistent
or '' (crucially including the
that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants"
Negative face is "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves,
to non-—i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition"
In human interactions, people are often forced to threaten either an addressee's positive and/or negative face, and so there are various politeness strategies to mitigate those face-threatening acts.
Tae-Seop Lim and John Waite Bowers (1991) claim that face is the public image that a person claims for himself. Within this claim there are three dimensions. "Autonomy face" describes a desire to appear independent, in control, and responsible. "Fellowship face" describes a desire to seem cooperative, accepted, and loved. "Competence face" describes a desire to appear intelligent, accomplished, and capable (Miller 2005).
Masumoto, Oetzel, Takai, Ting-Toomey, & Yokochi (2000) defined "facework" as "the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person's face". In terms of , Facework refers to an individual’s
and how that identity is created, reinforced, diminished, and maintained in
interactions.
Face is central to
or . Bert Brown explains the importance of both personal and national face in international negotiations:
Among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation are the intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps the importance of the tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the costs of conflict resolution. ()
In terms of 's dichotomy between
focused upon in-groups and
focused upon individuals, face-saving is generally viewed as more important in high context cultures such as China or Japan than in low-context ones such as the United States or Germany (Cohen 1977).
Stella Ting-Toomey developed
to explain cultural differences in communication and conflict resolution. Ting-Toomey defines face as
the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation. (1990)
of "face" is another field of research. , who analyzed Chinese "" and "" in terms of literary psychology, debunked the persistent myth that "face" is peculiar to the Chinese rather than a force in every human society. Eberhard noted
It is mainly in the writings of foreigners that we find the stress upon shame in C it is they who stated that the Chinese were typically afraid of "losing their face". It is they who reported many cases of suicide because of loss of face, or of suicide in order to punish another person after one's death as a ghost, or to cause through suicide endless difficulties or even punishment to the other person. But in the Chinese literature used here, including also the short stories, I did not once find the phrase "losing face"; and there was no clear case of suicide because of shame alone. ()
The Chinese University of Hong Kong social psychologist Michael Harris Bond observed that in Hong Kong,
Given the importance of having face and of being related to those who do, there is a plethora of relationship politics in Chinese culture. Name dropping, eagerness to associate with the rich and famous, the use of external status symbols, sensitivity to insult, lavish gift-giving, the use of titles, the sedulous avoidance of criticism, all abound, and require considerable readjustment for someone used to organizing social life by impersonal rules, frankness, and greater equality. (1991:59)
"Face" has further applications in . For instance,
(1989) stressed the importance of "losing face" in Japanese .
Linguists have analyzed the
of "face". Huang (1985, cited above) used
to differentiate lian and mianzi.
(1980:37) emphasizes "the face for the person" metonymy.
(1986) extended "face" into theoretical semantics. He postulated it to be an essential element of all language interchanges, and claimed (1986:10): "A satisfactory theory of linguistic meaning cannot ignore questions of face presentation, nor other politeness phenomena that maintain the co-operative nature of language interchange."
Yutang, Lin (1935). My Country and My People (Hardcover). New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. pp.&#160;199–200.
Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction". P Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. 18 (3): 213–231.
Stoianovich, Traian (1994). . USA: M.E. Sharpe. pp.&#160;48–49. &#160;.
Yang, Martin C. (1945). A Chinese V Taitou, Shantung Province (1967 ed.). Kegan Paul Reprint. pp.&#160;167–179.
Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, I.C. (1969). "A Study in Westernization," In Hong Kong: A Society in Transition, ed. by I.C. Jarvie, pp.&#160;129–163. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Allan, Keith. (1986). , 2 vols. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bond, Michael Harris (1991). Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. . &#160;.
Brown, Bert. (1977) "Face Saving and Face Restoration in Negotiation." In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Sage. pp.&#160;275–300.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, Michael. (1992). , The Review of Liberal Arts 84:39-77.
Carr, Michael. (1993). , The Review of Liberal Arts 85:69-101.
Chan, Mimi and Kwok, Helen. (1985). A Study of Lexical Borrowing from Chinese into English with Special Reference to Hong Kong. University of Hong Kong Press.
Cohen, Raymond. (1977). Negotiating Across Cultures. Communications Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Washington DC: U.S. Institute of Peace Press.
Eberhard, Wolfram. (1967). Guilt and Sin in Traditional China. University of California Press.
Goffman, Erving (1955). "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction." Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18(3), 213-231. Reprinted in Goffman (2005, pp.&#160;5–46)
Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, Erving (1967). . Random House. (2nd ed. with Joel Best, 2005). Aldine Transaction.
Hart, Robert (1901). . Hyperion.
Ho, David Yao-fai. (1974). "Face, Social Expectations, and Conflict Avoidance, " in Readings in Cross-cultural P Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong, August 1972, ed. by John Dawson and Walter Lonner, 240-251. Hong Kong University Press.
Ho, David Yau-Fai (1976), "On the Concept of Face, " American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4), 867–84.(subscription required)
Hu, Hsien Chin (1944). "The Chinese Concept of "Face", " American Anthropologist 46(1), 45-64.
Huang Shuanfan. (1987). "Two Studies of Prototype Semantics: Xiao 'Filial Piety' and Mei Mianzi 'Loss of Face', " Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15: 55-89.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Lim, T.S., & Bowers, J.W. (1991). "Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact, " Human Communication Research 17, 415-450.
Lu Xun. (1959). "On 'Face'," tr. by
and Gladys Yang, Selected Works of Lu Hsun, 4:129-132. Foreign Language Press.
Masumoto, Tomoko, Oetzel, John G., Takai, Jiro, Ting-Toomey, Stella, & Yokochi, Yumiko (2000). "A Typology of Facework Behaviors in Conflicts with Best Friends and Relative Strangers, " Communication Quarterly 4(48), 397-419.
Mauss, Marcel. (1954). , tr. by Ian Cunnison. Cohen & West.
Miller, Katherine (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Orr, John. (1953). Words and Sounds in English and French. Oxford University Press.
Pharr, Susan J. (1989). Losing Face, Status Politics in Japan. University of California Press.
Qi, Xiaoying (2011). "Face: a Chinese Concept in a Global Sociology". Journal of Sociology 47, 279-296.
Smith, Arthur H. (1894). . Fleming H. Revell.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. (1990). A Face Negotiation Perspective Communicating for Peace. Sage.
Yang, Martin C. (1945). A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province. Columbia University Press. Kegan Paul reprint. 1967.
Yuan Jia Hua. (1981). "English Words of Chinese Origin," Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9:244-286.
in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
, Michael Haugh and Carl Hinze
, Doris Weidemann
, Wenshan Jia
,[] Ning Yu
,[] Akio Yabuuchi
,[] Li Xiaoshi and Jia Xuerui
, Liisa Vilkki
, Karina Lam Wai-ling
, Qiumin Dong and Yu-Feng L. Lee
, Michael W. Morris and Ho-Ying Fu
,[] Peter Longcope
, Conflict Research Consortium
, Sarah Rosenberg
, Online Etymology Dictionary
, Bruce. . Encyclopaedia Iranica.
: Hidden categories: