The tension between theoretical conceptualizations of face and folk conceptualizations of face is long standing, ever since Erving Goffman first introduced the notion of face into academic discourse in the 1950s. To address this tension, this book views face as fundamentally interactional. The collection, with interaction at the heart of face analysis, brings together a team of contributors that includes scholars from communication studies (such as Robert B. Arundale, Tae-Seop Lim, Stella Ting-Toomey, and Ge Gao), psychological science (Thomas Holtgraves), linguistics (Eric A. Anchimbe, Marina Tekourafi), business (Yasuhisa Watanabe), and applied linguistics (Helen Spenser-Oatey). The editors hope that this interdisciplinary and multidimensional exploration of face will deepen our understanding of the issue and motivate further progress in face research.

The volume has sixteen chapters. With the exception of Ch. 1—which presents a brief survey by Michael Haugh of the history of face research and an overview of the book—and Ch. 16 by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini—which addresses the purpose of this collection—the rest of the contributions correspond to Levinson's ontological levels for the understanding of complex notions (the individual level, the interactional level, and the sociocultural level). Part 1 (Chs. 2–6), “Face in interaction,” includes work that deals with face as it arises in various kinds of institutional and noninstitutional interactions. Drawing on his Face Constituting Theory, Robert B. Arundel argues that face is an emergent and nonsummative phenomenon in the interaction (though the argument seems a bit thin, as it rests mainly on a rather brief conversation exchange). Invoking ethnomethodology and conversation analysis as approaches to face research, Rosina Márquez Reiter explores how facework is dynamically co-constructed in an intercultural service call, while Michael Haugh and Yasuhisa Watanabe focus on the interactional dimension of face in Japanese. In a study of Persian face, Sofia Koutlake integrates detailed ethnographic analyses into interactional analyses, arguing that Persian face is oriented towards group wants and may involve face enhancement. In the last chapter, Eric A Anchimbe looks into face-saving strategies by two former European political leaders and declares that political face-saving goes beyond the face demand of individuals.

In Part 2 (Chs. 7–11), the relationship between self, identity, and face in the context of interpersonal communication is investigated, with a focus on explaining how face is also constitutive of interaction. Drawing from research in social psychology, Helen Spenser-Oatey argues that an identity perspective can be very effective in the study of face. Grounded in self-presentation theory, Sükriye Ruhi's analysis indicates a close relationship between Turkish face idioms and the projection and evaluation of self or other with respect to behavioral expectations and norms. Echoing Spenser-Oatey and Ruhi, who take self face as an analytic unit, Ge Gao adopts a survey approach to facework in Chinese and claims that Chinese face is tied to the social self on the one hand, and to the relational self on the other. Thomas Holtgraves' chapter examines how face is influenced by interpersonal variables such as perceived power or social distance. And building on Traumatic Face Theory, Alexander Kozin explores whether the concept of face is capable of sustaining both the pragmatics of self-presentation and the ethical imperative of the absolute.

Taking “Face, norms and society” as its theme, the final part of the volume (Chs. 12–15) deals with face in its broader historical and sociocultural context, validating important links between individual interactions and the broader sociocultural expectations or “norms” that interactants bring to interactions. In the opening chapter in this part, Stella Ting-Toomey illustrates how facework may cause confusion or misunderstanding in intercultural settings in light of Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory and the Corporate Values Cultural Grid. In the chapter that follows, the complex nature of Korean face is examined by Tae-Seop Lim, who argues that face is holistically assessed and relatively allotted within a broader social network. Invoking the sociological distinction of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Marina Tekourafi explores the relationship between the emic and etic notions of face in Greek society. And drawing on face idioms in Thai, Margaret Ukosokul establishes the underlying link between face and feelings of shame via a cognitive linguistic approach.

The collection is inspirational and innovative in several senses. Theoretically, the shift of face analysis to broader sociocognitive, as well as historical and sociocultural, dimensions of face/facework—by conceptualizing face as both co-constituted in and constitutive of interaction—addresses the emerging gap between first-order and second-order perspectives on face. Methodologically, the wide range of approaches (e.g. conversation analysis, linguistic analysis, ethnomethodology) to engaging with social interaction in face research offers fresh insights into the interactional properties and multiple functions of face. Also noteworthy is a balanced treatment of face research data in the book. With contributions covering face studies in both occidental and oriental cultures, which include Turkish, British, American, Greek, Chinese, Thai, and others, the volume saves itself from the charge of being ethnocentric. On the whole, although the range of authors presented is wide, the volume is a cohesive unit that fulfils its declared aims.