Han 5 Flashcards
Politeness, Face and Discourse
Notions such as cooperation and relevance are mainly valid for informative language use. The speaker wants the addressee to close the door in the following examples:
(1)
a. Close the door.
b. There’s a draft.
c. Would you close the door?
d. Would you be so kind as to close the door?
According to the maxims of the cooperative principle, (1a) is sufficient. Language is often used indirectly, as in (1b). Sometimes certain politeness forms such as in (1c) and (1d) are applied as well
A social psychologist, Erving Goffman (1956), introduced the concept of face
Face
FaCe
FaCE
FAce
FACE
By this he meant the image that a person projects in his social contacts with others
The notion of ‘face’ ties up with
with notions of being embarrassed, humiliated or ‘losing face’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Politeness and face are important for understanding why people choose to say things in a particular way in spoken and written discourse.
Politeness principles and cooperative principles are often in conflict with each other. 💪🏼
There are also situations in which one principles might become more important than another. In an emergency, for example, there is less need to be polite than, say, in a normal situation.
Can you say Would you please call 911 and being very calm? While there is a burning house in front of you
Face has the meaning as in the saying “to lose face”. According to Goffman, every participant in the social process has the need to be appreciated by others and the need to be free and not interfered with.
It can be lost! But how?
Goffman calls the need to be
appreciated
positive face
Goffman calls the need to not be disturbed
negative face”.
Positive face
reflects an individual’s need for his or her wishes and desires to be appreciated in a social context. This is the maintenance of a positive and consistent self-image.
Negative face
reflects an individual’s need for freedom of action, freedom from imposition, and the right to make one’s own decisions.
Participants in conversations should, therefore, not violate one another’s face. Refusing a request or reproaching someone is an action that can form a threat to the other’s positive or negative face. In the case of these
face threatening acts” (FTAS), something is needed which will reduce the violation of face to a minimum and, therefore, preserve stability as much as possible. This can be achieved by using “face work techniques”. Examples are careful formulations of refusals, which make it clear that the request made is impossible to grant.
face threatening acts” (FTAS)
something is needed which will reduce the violation of face to a minimum and, therefore, preserve stability as much as possible.
How does politeness fit into this approach?
Politeness prevents or repairs the damage caused by FTAS. The greater the threat to stability, the more politeness, face work technique, is necessary. Just as there are two types of face, there are two types of politeness:
Face work that is aimed at positive face is called “solidarity politeness”; this kind of politeness is, for example, achieved by giving compliments.
ii. Face work that deals with negative face is known as “respect politeness”, and can be achieved by not invading another’s “domain” in communication. Example:
When a personnel manager has to turn down a job applicant who should not have applied in the first place owing to lack of education, this is an FTA that threatens the positive face of the applicant, and that of the manager. For this reason, the personnel manager will be more apt to write (2b) than (2a).
(2)
In the following interaction between an instructor and a student at the end of a tutoring session, the second variant is more polite as it is less damaging to the instructor’s face and that of the student.
(3)
a. We do not understand why you bothered to apply.
b. We have some doubts concerning your prior education.
A: I’ve tried to explain this as clearly as possible. Now I have to leave as I have another appointment. I hope that the homework will be easier next time.
2
B:
a. I still don’t understand the material.
b. If problems should arise, is it all right if I stop by tomorrow?
Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978) developed a theory on the relationship between the intensity of the threat to face and linguistically realized politeness
The intensity of the threat to face is expressed by a weight (W) that is linked to an FTA. This weight is the sum of three social parameters:
(a) The rate of imposition (burden), which is the “absolute weight” of a particular act in a specific culture.
(b) The social distance between the speaker and the person addressed. (c) The power that the person being spoken to has over the speaker.
The term absolute weight refers to the fact that, for example, the request “May I borrow your car?” is in a category other than “May I borrow your pen?” The request to borrow a car is of course not quite such a great demand if the person requesting the car is the car owner’s brother. This illustrates that the factors distance and power influence the ultimate weight.
The ultimate weight of an FTA can be expressed by a value according to the formula: (5) Intensity of threat to face
W(FTA) = R + D + P
Weight of Face Threatening Act = Rate of imposition + social Distance + Power
Brown and Levinson did not indicate how values are to be assigned to R (rate of imposition), D (social
distance), and P (power). But it should be clear that the value for P is different in the following examples: (6)
a. Excuse me, sir, would it be all right if I close the window?
b. Mind me closing the window?
Utterance (6a) is more likely to be said by an employee to his boss, while in the same situation, (6b)
might be said by the boss to the employee. In these examples parameters R and D have the same values.
You getting it right? You must be bright speaker so do not be rude and lose face
Choosing a politeness strategy
We draw on a number of considerations when we decide on a choice of politeness strategy. We may consider how socially close or distant we are from our hearer. For example, are we close friends, is the hearer older than I am and are we ‘social equals’? We may consider how much or how little power the hearer has over us. For example, am I talking to my boss or to my employee, to a policeman or to a judge? We also consider how significant what I want is to me, and to the person I am talking to. For example, am I asking for change, for a loan or to borrow a car? Moreover, we may consider our culture.
In their research on linguistically realized politeness, Brown and Levinson investigated a number of languages. Their analyses indicate that there are many ways of committing an FTA with a given weight. All of these variants can, according to Brown and Levinson, be reduced to five strategies:
Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAS
The fifth strategy (Don’t do the FTA) is implemented when the risk of speaking is too great. For example, when an individual does not risk answering an impolite and face threatening question and simply remains silent.
