BrLev model + critics & Watts' own model Flashcards
Core principles of Br / Lev
“Face saving” theory of politeness → a production model = how individuals produce linguistic politeness
Notion of ‘Politeness’ is equalled with ‘face work’ - accommodating the hearer’s face
Builds on Goffman’s notion of face, but deviates from it
Assume a model person: the speaker, theory is centred on the MP
(Hearer’s acceptance of the chosen politeness strategies by the MP is not considered)
Has ability to rationalise: communicative goals and optimal means to achieve them
Knows of risks of threatening the other’s and their own face → tries to minimise this
Core principles of Br / Lev
“Face saving” theory of politeness → a production model = how individuals produce linguistic politeness
Notion of ‘Politeness’ is equalled with ‘face work’ - accommodating the hearer’s face
Builds on Goffman’s notion of face, but deviates from it
Assume a model person: the speaker, theory is centred on the MP
(Hearer’s acceptance of the chosen politeness strategies by the MP is not considered)
Has ability to rationalise: communicative goals and optimal means to achieve them
Knows of risks of threatening the other’s and their own face → tries to minimise this
Br / Lev face:
Pos face / pos politeness:
„the want by every member (of a speech community) that his wants be desirable to at least some others.“ (Brown/Levinson, p. 62)
Includes the desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired
Positive politeness = adherence to positive face wants of S and H, strategies to support their pos face
Neg face / neg politeness:
„… the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others“
Negative face wants can be interpreted as the right of every person to be independent, unimpeded and act in a self-controlled manner
Negative politeness = adherence to negative face wants of S and H, strategies to avoid imposing on H’s freedom
FTA towards speaker’s face
pos FTA: show that S has a negative evaluation of H
(criticism, complaints, disagreement, bringing of bad news)
neg FTA: S impedes H’s freedom
(requests, advice, warnings, threats…)
FTAs towards hearer’s own face
neg self FTA:
e.g. acceptance of H’s thanks or apology (S feels constrained to play down H’s debt as in ‘it was nothing, don’t mention it, etc.)
e.g. acceptance of offers (S is constrained to accept a (future) debt
pos self FTA:
apologies, confessions
breakdown of physical control over body (stumbling)
emotion leakage, non-control of laughter or tears
FTA Strategies
Impolite: Do the FTA baldly, on record
Do the FTA - with positive politeness (e.g. compliments, jokes)
Do the FTA - with negative politeness (disclaimer of not wanting to overstep)
Do the FTA off record (flout a gricean maxim, let the hearer do an inference)
Most polite: don’t do the FTA at all
Watts criticism of B/L
(I think Watts general criticism is that B/L is not nuanced enough, and yes takes an bad approach with focus on face -> B/L provide so many moulds for analysing pieces of language, which probably explains its success, BUT they are fictional, they don’t consider coming across as insincere, don’t consider the hearer’s perception)
generally: excludes “group face” cultures
The model requires multiple levels of rational decision making alongside binary sets of choices
-> Implies that all these considerations have to be made by the speaker in the presented order until arriving at a conclusion for how to do the FTA -> NOT REALISTIC
Also excludes the use of two strategies at the same time
Minimization of face-loss / facework is not a theory of linguistic politeness
-> Watts says B/L’s model seems “paranoid” as if committing an FTA is a constant risk
Their Examples of FTA strategies in “action” are fictional, no further insight on the context or information how the participants evaluate the exchange
Plus: their examples rely on the FTA, without the FTA, they’d just be normal utterances. Strategy “give reasons”: I think you’ve had a bit too much. FTA: Why not stay at our place?”
Argues that some of their politeness strategies would be seen as insincere therefore NOT polite at all:
e.g. complimenting and then making a selfish request
Weight of imposition formula: unrealistic, speaker might not know what the variable of “cultural ranking” is -> it’s too absolute, Br/Lev cannot define it themselves either
Watts lawn mower example
Does it harm neg face? -> property is being asked of someone, taking away their freedom of using it themselves
or pos face: audacity of asking something of someone that they personally value
Plus: if any of these faces are being accomodated with politeness strategies, what about if the neighbours have always borrowed the lawnmower or gardening tools? Asking with politeness strategies would then be impolite!
Goffman’s face
On-going constructed self-image, can change for any conversational context
BR/ Lev: it is static, interchangeable, pre-exists before the interaction
example of politeness as an expression of power (not as facework)
Professor at office hours “Would you mind taking your feet off my desk?” → ironic politeness
Lawer to witness at court: “Would you be so kind as to tells us…” → official, witness knows they have no choice
→ both are elaborate phrasings of politeness, but it does not express higher status of the addressee. it is rather a form of social control, expression of power.
Werkhofer’s take on politeness
Advocates for a comparison of politeness with money:
both are social forces / social medium:
Money is symbolic, is associated with something of value → politeness too
Money changes in value over time → politeness too
Money can mean power, can motivate actions → politeness too
Watts: politic behaviour would be paying what is due; Politeness is paying extra in an exchange
Watts’ politeness model aims
focused on impoliteness1, lay perceptions of what is polite/impolite during interaction
“Tries to offer ways of recognising when a linguistic utterance might be open to interpretation by interlocutors as (im)polite”
Incorporates Werkhofer politeness as money idea, and Borrdieu’s “theory of practice” and habitus notion
Watts’ model of politeness basics
- Politeness as money: it is symbolic, and its value fluctuates
more politeness buys the option for more ’socially sanctioned actions’
→ if I’m polite, I can risk more … politeness = payment ‘in excess’
-> politic is just general amount owed - interactants bring in pre-established expectations of appropriate behaviour as saved/known in their “habitus” -> this is POLITIC behaviour
e.g. In radio-phone-in programme: habitus says = that host and caller will greet each other, it is politic behaviour to greet and also to use Mrs/Ms address forms
However, a more formal greeting aka being welcomed is more than politic = payment in excess = polite rating can be seen by reaction of hearer: hesitates, seems flustered
Watts’ network theory
2 networks relevant:
emergent network: during interaction
Every interaction is an exchange of utterances, each utterance has a value; the exchange of that value demonstrates POWER
E.g. Assertive statements give a value, and can expect payment in return
E.g. interrogatives request a value, If it is given in return, the speaker will then in turn give something of value
E.g. Imperatives: request value and definitely expect payment -> greatest power display
This exchange of value creates social links between interactants, binds them into a network together
→ during interaction: all exchanged values/utterances create more and more links between them = emergent network
Latent network: longterm
part of the habitus, knowledge of firmly established social networks, guides the speaker’s actions in any situation -> includes knowledge of power relations and thus of what is considered politic
Mutual influence: first speaker uses latent network /habitus to engage in an interaction; then they might learn something new in there which is added to the longterm latent network.
