The notion of face as the public self-image plays a major role in every culture. It shapes the character of a speaker as well as how he or she is perceived by others. Therefore, the cross-cultural analysis of face is a crucial field of study in every social science. In this essay, the importance of face in Politeness Theory will be discussed. It aims to show the development of the concept first defined by Goffman in 1967 to the further analysis by Brown and Levinson in 1978, which is influenced by Grice's Cooperative Principle and Austin's Speech Act Theory, as well as recent criticism and re-evaluation in post-modernism. Furthermore, the two concepts of positive and negative face will be discussed, which then leads to the devision of negative and positive politeness strategies. These negative and positive face-threatening acts (FTAs) are further subdivided into acts which damage the hearer's and acts which damage the speaker's face.
In the next chapter, five strategies for doing face-threatening acts are closely analysed: positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record, bald-on-record and redressive on-record acts. A fifth category – do not do a FTA – is also included in this section as not communicating may also minimise or increase the danger for doing a face-threatening act. In the last chapter of this paper, the development of Politeness Theory and face over the last twenty-five years will be critically discussed and compared to Brown and Levinson's 'traditional' theory.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Politeness Theory and Face
3 Face-threatening Acts (FTAs)
3.1 Negative Face-threatening Acts
3.1.1 Damage to the Hearer's Negative Face Wants
3.1.2 Damage to the Speaker's Negative Face Wants
3.2 Positive Face-threatening Acts
3.2.1 Damage to the Hearer's Positive Face Wants
3.2.2 Damage to the Speaker's Positive Face Wants
4 Strategies for Doing and Mitigating Face-threatening Acts
5 Weighting the Seriousness of a Face-threatening Act
6 Post-modern Politeness Theories
7 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This academic essay explores the linguistic concept of "face" and its significance within Politeness Theory. It aims to trace the development of the theory from Erving Goffman’s original 1967 definition to the foundational work of Brown and Levinson in 1978, while analyzing the mechanisms of face-threatening acts and the diverse strategies speakers employ to mitigate them during social interactions.
- Evolution of the "face" concept in social sciences
- Categorization of positive and negative face-threatening acts (FTAs)
- Communicative strategies for FTA mitigation (e.g., off-record vs. on-record)
- Calculations of FTA seriousness based on social variables
- Critical perspectives and post-modern revisions of Politeness Theory
Excerpt from the Book
3 Face-threatening Acts (FTAs)
A threat to a person's face is termed a Face-threatening Act (FTA) by Brown and Levinson. Depending on the speaker's and the hearer's reaction, a FTA can influence a communication in two different ways: Either a mitigating statement or a compensation is uttered, or the communication may break down. FTAs are sometimes inevitable in social interactions depending on the type and rules of a conversation, whereby “certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face, namely those that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 65). These acts damage the face of the hearer or the speaker by acting inversely to the face wants of the other. However, as Leech points out, “[s]ome illocutions (e.g. orders) are inherently impolite, and others (e.g. offers) are inherently polite” (1983: 83). In order to categorise these different FTAs, a distinction has to be made between acts which threaten the positive face and those which threaten the negative face of either hearer or speaker.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the role of "face" in cross-cultural communication and outlines the academic focus on Brown and Levinson's framework.
2 Politeness Theory and Face: Defines the origin of the term "face" and details the concepts of positive and negative face wants as described by Goffman and Brown/Levinson.
3 Face-threatening Acts (FTAs): Categorizes various linguistic acts that challenge or threaten the social self-image of both speakers and hearers.
3.1 Negative Face-threatening Acts: Examines how specific acts impose constraints on the hearer's or speaker's freedom and independence.
3.1.1 Damage to the Hearer's Negative Face Wants: Discusses how orders, requests, and warnings exert pressure on the hearer.
3.1.2 Damage to the Speaker's Negative Face Wants: Analyzes expressions like thanks, apologies, and excuses that impact the speaker's own face.
3.2 Positive Face-threatening Acts: Explores actions that signal disapproval or indifference toward the positive attributes of a conversational partner.
3.2.1 Damage to the Hearer's Positive Face Wants: Covers criticisms, disagreements, and the disregarding of taboo topics.
3.2.2 Damage to the Speaker's Positive Face Wants: Looks at how certain confessions or reactions to compliments can harm the speaker’s own self-image.
4 Strategies for Doing and Mitigating Face-threatening Acts: Presents the primary methods for managing communication, including off-record and on-record strategies.
5 Weighting the Seriousness of a Face-threatening Act: Explains the social variables (distance, power, and imposition) used to measure the weight of an FTA.
6 Post-modern Politeness Theories: Critically reviews traditional models and discusses contemporary shifts toward second-order politeness.
7 Conclusion: Summarizes the enduring relevance of "face" as a multi-layered and culturally significant concept.
Keywords
Politeness Theory, Face, Face-threatening Act, FTA, Goffman, Brown and Levinson, Positive Face, Negative Face, Linguistics, Pragmatics, Communication, Social Interaction, Speech Act Theory, Cooperative Principle, Redressive Action
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines how the concept of "face" functions as a public self-image and how it shapes social interactions within the framework of Politeness Theory.
Which central topics are discussed in the work?
The text focuses on the definition of positive and negative face, the nature of face-threatening acts, strategies for mitigating such acts, and the calculation of their social seriousness.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to analyze the development of Politeness Theory from its inception with Goffman and Brown/Levinson to modern re-evaluations, illustrating how "face" is preserved or damaged in discourse.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a qualitative, analytical approach based on a literature review and synthesis of key linguistic theories in pragmatics and sociolinguistics.
What content is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body systematically explores the categorization of FTAs, the specific communicative strategies like "on-record" or "off-record" actions, and the formula used to weigh the impact of an FTA.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Politeness Theory, face, face-threatening act (FTA), pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and communication strategies.
How is the "seriousness" of a face-threatening act determined?
The seriousness is calculated based on three variables: the social distance between participants, their power differential, and the degree of cultural imposition involved in the act.
What is the distinction between "positive" and "negative" face?
Positive face refers to the desire to be approved of and accepted by others, whereas negative face refers to the desire for independence and freedom from interference.
Why does the author discuss post-modern politeness theories?
The author includes this to show that traditional theories have been criticized for potential Anglo-centrism and a limited focus, necessitating a shift toward broader sociological perspectives.
What is the significance of "off-record" strategies?
Off-record strategies allow a speaker to communicate an intention indirectly, thereby minimizing the face-threatening impact by allowing for negotiable interpretations of the message.
- Quote paper
- Regina Seiwald (Author), 2011, The Importance of Face in "Politeness Theory", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/165502
