Being visually impaired is an inherently face threatening and potentially stigmatizing experience that can greatly affect personal relationships. Those with a visual impairment frequently miss nonverbal cues, must rely on others for transportation and other assistance, and can be overtly marked as different through their use of a cane or a guide dog. Framed by the theoretical lens of facework and using in-depth interviews of 24 visually impaired individuals, this study uncovered how people with a visual impairment engaged in facework to mitigate and remediate the low-vision-related face threats they and others experienced. Participants reported using preventive facework, including politeness and humor, as well as corrective facework (avoidance, apologies, accounts, and humor) to manage face threats. Interviewees also engaged in a new type of facework that was simultaneously corrective and preventive: future facework (education and advocacy). Findings offer practical strategies visually impaired individuals can use to ward off or repair face threatening acts, contesting stigma and potentially improving relationships and fostering allyship among sighted individuals. The study also suggests that facework be incorporated into a biopsychosocial model of disability to help combat disabling social barriers.

This study examined how instigators of abuse used emotionally abusive messages to manipulate politeness to attack their partners' face. Additionally, we studied how the people experiencing abuse responded to such messages. Using thematic co‐occurrence analysis (TCA), we analyzed 20 semi‐structured interviews with those who have experienced abuse. Participants reported that instigators of abuse used all three of Austin's (1990) face attack act strategies of (a) bald‐on‐record, (b) on record with inappropriate redress, and (c) off‐record, as well as the emergent strategy of (d) non‐response. Similarly, those who experienced abuse indicated that they used three politeness strategies: (a) bald‐on‐record, (b) positive politeness, and (c) off‐record, and the emergent strategy of (d) not doing the face‐threatening act (FTA). TCA revealed five relationships between instigators' messages and the responses of those who experienced abuse. Finally, we discussed theoretical implications and practical applications.

No abstract

No abstract

Communicating with one’s family of origin requires considerable effort for queer people (e.g., LGBTQ+; queer is used as an encompassing term to include all gender and sexual identities that are not both cis and heterosexual). Queer people must decide if they want to disclose their gender and/or sexual identities, to whom they want to disclose, how they want to communicate, and anticipate the ways their family members may react. Immediate family members, such as parents and siblings, typically play an important role in queer people’s lives and are consequently some of the first people to whom queer people talk about their gender and/or sexual identities. Yet not all these disclosures are met with positive reactions from family members. Research suggests that queer people perceive their families’ reactions range from complete acceptance to total rejection. Thus, it is often the case that queer people must cope with multiple sources of stigma. From the family members’ perspective, parents and siblings also report having varied reactions to the queer person’s initial disclosure that require them to engage in sense-making. Thus, in addition to the communicative burden of queer people, their families may also have to share in the communicative work to communicate with people outside the family or (re)construct their family identity. All this communicative labor simultaneously reflects and constructs larger overarching ideologies surrounding gender and sexuality.