Politeness theory, proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, centers on the notion of politeness, construed as efforts to redress the affronts to a person's public self-image or face (as in "save face" or "lose face") in social interactions. Notable concepts include positive and negative face, the face threatening act (FTA), strategies surrounding FTAs and factors influencing the choices of strategies. Though Brown and Levinson proposed their model as universally applicable, their theory has been challenged by other scholars both theoretically and with respect to its cross-cultural applicability.
Positive and negative face The concept of face was derived from Chinese into English in the 19th century. "Face" conceptualized as an individual's positive claim of social values in socializing contact was introduced into academia by Erving Goffman through his theories of "face" and "facework". According to Brown and Levinson's assumption in politeness theory based on Goffman's "face", one's face is categorized into two forms: positive and negative. Brown and Levinson defined positive face two ways: as "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others executors" (p. 62), or alternatively, "the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants" (p. 61). Negative face was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition". Whereas positive face involves a desire for connection with others, negative face needs include autonomy and independence. Ten years later, Brown characterized positive face by desires to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, noting that one would threaten positive face by ignoring someone. At the same time, she characterized negative face by the desire not to be imposed upon, noting that negative face could be impinged upon by imposing on someone. Positive face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act. These two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction; during any social interaction, cooperation is needed amongst the participants to maintain each other's face. Participants can do this by using positive politeness and negative politeness, which pay attention to people's positive and negative face needs respectively.
Face-threatening acts According to Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist universally in human culture; it has been argued that the notion of face is the actual universal component to their proposed politeness theory. A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Face threatening acts can be verbal (using words/language), paraverbal (conveyed in the characteristics of speech such as tone, inflection, etc.), or non-verbal (facial expression, etc.). Based on the terms of conversation in social interactions, face-threatening acts are at times inevitable. At minimum, there must be at least one of the face threatening acts associated with an utterance. It is also possible to have multiple acts working within a single utterance.
Negative face-threatening acts Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interlocutor's freedom of action. It can cause damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes one of the interlocutors submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when negative face is threatened.
Damage to the hearer The following are cases in which the negative face of the hearer (the person being spoken to) is threatened. An act that affirms or denies a future act of the hearer creates pressure on the hearer to either perform or not perform the act. Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, remindings, threats, or warnings. An act that expresses the speaker's sentiments of the hearer or the hearer's belongings. Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, distrust). An act that expresses speaker's future imposing of positive effects toward the hearer, as either rejection or acceptance put pressure on the hearer and may incur a debt. Examples: offers and promises.
Damage to the speaker The following are cases in which the negative face of the speaker (the person talking) is threatened. An act that speaker's humbles his own face or accept debt to maintain hearer's face and make good for the hearer. Examples: expressing thanks, acceptance of gratitude or apology, excuse, acceptance of offers, pretending unaware of H's mistakes, committing to something unfavorable.
Positive face-threatening acts Positive face is threatened when the speaker or hearer does not care about their interactor's feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants. Positive face threatening acts can also cause damage to the speaker or the hearer. When an individual is forced to be separated from others so that their well-being is treated less importantly, positive face is threatened.
Damage to the hearer The following are cases in which the positive face of the hearer (the person being spoken to) is threatened. An act that expresses the speaker's negative assessment of the hearer's positive face or an element of his/her positive face. The speaker directly or indirectly indicating that he dislikes some aspect of the hearer's possessions, desires, or personal attributes. Examples: disapproval, criticism, contempt or ridicule, complaints and reprimands, accusations, insults.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
