INTRODUCTION
Introduction
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a new branch of linguistics emerged, evolving from pragmatics and sociolinguistics This innovative field, known as linguistic politeness, aimed to uncover the complexities of human interaction.
In just over 40 years, the field of linguistic politeness has experienced remarkable growth, evidenced by the exponential increase in literature on the topic across magazines, journals, and symposiums This surge shows no signs of slowing down, highlighting the ongoing relevance and importance of linguistic politeness in contemporary discourse.
Politeness in communication is a fundamental concern for pragmaticians, influencing various aspects such as speech patterns, conversational rules, and polite linguistic structures This field also explores the complexities of indirect speech acts, where individuals convey meanings that differ from their literal words, highlighting the intricacies of effective conversation.
Numerous theoretical models and hundreds of theories have been proposed in the quest to understand human communication, yet none fully satisfy this enduring curiosity Researchers continuously critique previous work while facing scrutiny from their successors, highlighting the ongoing cycle of analysis in the field.
Ambitious researchers seeking a definitive solution to linguistic politeness may find themselves lost, as the pursuit of a universal answer is elusive Instead of searching for a one-size-fits-all approach, it is advisable for researchers to select a specific theory to follow or even combine multiple theories to leverage their strengths This study will focus on the influential Face Theory developed by Brown and Levinson, which is particularly valuable for cross-cultural studies due to its consistent framework.
Thesis Statements
Exploring the complex realm of pragmatics reveals that reaching unanimous agreements among pioneers and their successors is often unlikely, necessitating careful consideration The following sections aim to clarify the foundational principles that support the arguments presented in this thesis.
The primary objective of language learners is to successfully engage in communicative events However, assessing the success of communication requires more than just evaluating lexis, syntax, and grammatical accuracy This narrow perspective fails to capture the complex and nuanced nature of effective communication For a deeper understanding, consider the following example.
Many foreigners may feel uncomfortable with the Vietnamese tendency to show concern for their well-being, often asking personal questions and offering unsolicited advice For instance, a twenty-one-year-old Danish woman felt annoyed when her Vietnamese boss, a forty-five-year-old woman, advised her to go to bed early and be cautious about inviting strangers into her home However, this behavior stems from a place of care, as the Vietnamese woman viewed her as a daughter and wanted to offer guidance.
In the case discussed by Ashwill and Ngoc (2005), communication was effectively conveyed despite the Danish girl's annoyance, indicating that misunderstandings can still arise even when the message is clear This highlights that beyond formal grammar, cultural knowledge and pragmatic competence play a significant, often hidden role in the success of conversations.
Despite the importance of pragmatics, Vietnamese students often prioritize formal language aspects over developing their cultural and pragmatic competence, leading to inadequate communication skills.
Politeness varies significantly across cultures, with each culture defining it in unique and sometimes eccentric ways This lack of a shared understanding can lead to misunderstandings, resulting in anything from minor embarrassments to more serious conflicts.
The concept of "politeness universality" is widely acknowledged in literature; however, the origins and perceptions of politeness differ significantly across cultures Therefore, it is crucial for Vietnamese learners of English to be aware of these linguistic differences in politeness This cultural sensitization should be conducted explicitly to enhance learners' pragmatic competence and improve their communication effectiveness.
This thesis aims to enhance pragmatic competence among students and English learners by focusing on linguistic politeness By contrasting Vietnamese and American cultures, the study seeks to raise awareness of how each culture expresses politeness in everyday communication.
Following is a summary of the research’s rationales:
Table 1.1 Summary of research’s rationales
With the three guiding rationales, the thesis is designed to perform two main researching actions, the objectives of which are:
1 To describe , compare and contrast the linguistic di ff erences (through the use of linguistic strategies) in the concept of politeness between Vietnamese and American
2 To determine the main driving force that induces such linguistic discrepancies
The above statement has delineated the scope of the thesis:
Politeness is primarily understood through linguistic expressions, focusing on how it is conveyed through words rather than through behavioral cues, clothing choices, or non-verbal communication such as tone of voice and facial expressions.
Achieving successful communication is the primary objective of language learning, yet this goal cannot be fulfilled solely through grammar acquisition Despite this, language curricula often show a disproportionate emphasis on formal grammar over the teaching of pragmatics.
Politeness varies significantly across different cultures, making it essential to explore how each culture perceives this concept Understanding these cultural differences is crucial for a comprehensive grasp of politeness.
A linguistic perspective on politeness is essential for restoring the crucial balance between formal grammar comprehension and pragmatic skill mastery in language teaching curricula.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2007
The coexistence of cooperative principles and politeness theory highlights a fundamental duality in human communication: the need for effective communication with minimal effort while fostering positive relationships to avoid social friction Achieving pragmatic effectiveness is often straightforward, as speakers can directly address issues and convey their ideas clearly, prioritizing information transfer over emotional considerations However, this straightforward approach has garnered less academic interest compared to the more complex goal of politeness, which aims to maintain social harmony.
People often compromise effective communication to maintain politeness, leading them to employ various strategies to soften their messages and shield themselves and their listeners from potential misunderstandings.
The concept of 'face' plays a crucial role in politeness motivation, influencing how individuals implement their politeness strategies Depending on whether negative or positive face is prioritized, the approach to politeness can vary significantly Consequently, many studies on politeness begin by addressing the fundamental issue of 'face' needs.
Theoretical and practical significance
Exploring pragmatics reveals its deep connections to linguistics, alongside influences from culturology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy, creating a rich and diverse field This interdisciplinary nature fosters a wealth of possibilities for research and understanding.
This thesis explores the hypothesis that collectivist societies prioritize in-group communication styles, while individualistic cultures allow for greater personal freedom in expression Testing this hypothesis could serve as a foundational empirical step for future research on how the concept of face influences communication patterns.
Values of theory could be transferred to serve in the practical domain The thesis is a source of information on linguistic politeness for students of English major
Engaging learners in communication beyond traditional language learning can illuminate key aspects where meaning is conveyed not solely through formal elements like grammar.
To describe , compare and contrast the linguistic differences (through the use of linguistic strategies) in the concept of politeness between Vietnamese and
What kind of ‘face’, negative face and/or positive face, preponderates as the chief motivation of politeness in each language, i.e American and Vietnamese?
To determine the main driving force that induces such linguistic discrepancies.
The primary driving force behind variance in politeness strategies, as proposed by Brown and Levinson, lies in the contextual determinant of Social Power, Social Distance, and Ranking of Imposition Understanding these parameters can reveal which factor significantly influences politeness within different speech communities This awareness may encourage a pedagogical shift from solely focusing on language to a more balanced integration of language learning and cultural appreciation.
Translation and semantics can greatly benefit from studying linguistic politeness, as demonstrated in semantics where the phrase “Can you open the door?” is more socially acceptable than its imperative form in a negative-face society This complexity extends to understanding why similar grammatical constructs, such as “Can you pass the salt?” versus “Can you lift this weight?”, are perceived differently by listeners, with the former often seen as a fake question The interplay between a speaker's intended meaning and a listener's interpretation raises intriguing questions about communication These challenges can be explored through the lens of linguistic politeness, a field enriched by influential scholars like Searle, Brown and Levinson, Goffman, Grice, Lakoff, Beebe, and Cummings, where numerous theories and explanations have been developed to address pragmatic issues.
Thesis structure
Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
LITERATURE REVIEW
Preparation for a newborn: foundational theory of Austin
Linguistic politeness, a sub-discipline of Pragmatics within Linguistics, extends its influence beyond language to various fields such as psychology, interactional sociology, and negotiation communications Despite its significant impact, the origins and relatively recent emergence of linguistic politeness as a study remain largely unknown to many.
The study of politeness in the Western world, emerging in the late 1960s and early 1970s, remains relatively new compared to the extensive research conducted in Eastern cultures, particularly in China and Japan For a deeper understanding of the evolution of politeness studies in these regions, refer to works by Lee-Wong (1999) and Shibamoto (1985).
This lateness is usually attributed to a lack of theoretical premise necessary for the conduction of a standardized research Without a back-up theory, all
In the 1960s, John L Austin published a groundbreaking work on human speech, which sparked extensive debate among critics His major contribution, known as Speech Act Theory, is detailed in his influential book, "How to Do Things with Words." Austin's theory is built on three key concepts: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts, each representing different functions that verbal utterances perform.
A locutionary act refers to the act of saying something, encompassing the full performance of an utterance This includes phonetic, phatic, and rhetic acts that align with the verbal, syntactic, and semantic components of a meaningful statement.
Illocutionary act , on the other hand, is what we do when we say something It is the intent of the speaker in performing the locution
Perlocutionary acts refer to speech acts that influence the emotions, thoughts, or actions of both the speaker and the listener, highlighting the interpersonal impact of what is said.
A refined taxonomy of illocutionary acts was later developed and elaborated by Searl (1969) in which he suggested a category of five types: 1
1 Assertives (representatives ): statements may be judged true or false because they aim to describe a state of affairs in the world: asserting, claiming, affirming, predicting, reporting, etc
2 Directives : statements attempt to make the other person's actions fit the propositional content In other words, a directive intends to get the
Speech Act Theory Retrieved 26 March 2013 from http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/
1 speech_act.htm listener to carry out an action: commanding, requesting, begging, warning, inviting, suggesting, etc
3 Commissives : statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content: promising, vowing, threatening, offering, etc
4 Expressives : statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act” It indicates the speaker’s psychological state(s) or feeling(s)/ attitude(s) about something: greeting, apologizing, complaining, thanking, etc
5 Declaratives : statements that attempt to change the world by
“representing it as having been changed”: dismissing, sentencing, naming, announcing, etc
Leech (1983) proposed one more type: Rogative
6 Rogatives : statements that refer to a special kind of directives which deals with requests for information and which is typically in form of a question.
Grice’s cooperative principles
Austin's speech act theory has faced criticism for its one-sided focus on the speaker's role in determining utterance meanings, primarily through the lens of illocutionary acts that reflect the speaker's intentions This approach categorizes meanings based on the speaker's original intent, as illustrated by Searle's (1969) taxonomy, which distinguishes between expressive statements that reveal the speaker's feelings and commissives that commit the speaker to specific actions However, the theory overlooks the crucial role of the hearer in shaping and interpreting meanings, highlighting the need for a more balanced perspective that acknowledges the reciprocal nature of conversation A comprehensive theory of speech acts must address this intrinsic reciprocity to accurately capture the dynamics of communication.
Pragmatic researchers classify the meaning aimed at by Austin’s theory intentional meaning as opposed to negotiated meaning
H P Grice developed a new theory that shifted conversational studies into a more balanced direction In this new approach, the hearer’s role emerges forcefully as an important factor in the perception of meaning
Grice’s theory builds on Austin’s foundational work, introducing two levels of meaning in verbal communication The first level encompasses the conventional or denotative meanings, akin to Truth-conditional or propositional meaning, while the second level reflects the speaker's intention, known as the illocutionary act and illocutionary force according to Austin.
Grice's Cooperative Principle (CP) introduces a set of conversational maxims that guide interactions, suggesting that participants should adhere to these principles, although they often do not When one of these maxims is violated, it sends a message that must be interpreted within the context of cooperation The analysis of meaning through CP assumes that interlocutors are working together, and any deviation from these maxims during conversation is intentional and should be understood in relation to the principles set forth by Grice in 1975.
1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)
2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
1 Do not say what you believe to be false
2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
“Be relevant”: make your contribution relevant to the purposes of the overall conversation
3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle expands on Austin's (1962) classification of illocutionary acts, emphasizing that meaning emerges from a bi-partite negotiation process In this framework, the ultimate interpretation of an utterance may diverge from the speaker's original intent Understanding meaning is inherently reciprocal, as the listener must engage in inference based on the assumptions outlined by the Cooperative Principle to accurately interpret the intended message.
Lakoff ’s pragmatic competence
Language and gender are central themes in Lakoff’s work, particularly highlighted in her influential 1975 publication, "Language and Woman's Place," which has become essential reading for those studying sociolinguistics and gender differences in language During the late 1960s and 1970s, her engagement with the American feminist movement shaped her research focus While her early writings on gender and language did not emphasize politeness, her 1973 article "The Logic of Politeness; or Minding Your P’s and Q’s" provided a significant framework by redefining Gricean conversational maxims into a new subcategory of Rules of Conversation.
Lakoff's background as a generative linguist significantly influenced her perspective on pragmatics, leading her to propose that pragmatic rules are as valid as syntactic and semantic ones She argued that just as syntactic and semantic rules guide speaker behavior and establish a framework for assessing correctness, linguists can also define pragmatic rules for producing 'pragmatically correct' utterances However, her notion of pragmatic well-formedness faced substantial criticism, as discussions of 'correctness' typically focus on concrete language units, such as words or sentences In contrast, pragmatics addresses real conversational utterances, where the relevant concept is 'pragmatic appropriateness.'
In other words, an utterance cannot be evaluated as correct or incorrect but only contextually/pragmatically appropriate or inappropriate
Traces of her generative background are also found in the term ‘pragmatic competence’ which she coined, as being analogous to Chomsky’s notion of
Lakoff's concept of pragmatic competence includes two main sets of rules: the conversational maxims introduced by Grice and a set of rules developed by Lakoff herself These frameworks guide effective communication and understanding in conversations.
The coexistence of two sets of rules under 'Pragmatic Competence' does not guarantee harmony between them Rules of clarity prioritize effective communication, enabling speakers to express ideas efficiently while minimizing resource expenditure This involves providing only necessary, true, and relevant information in a clear manner The primary objective of these clarity rules is to ensure that the speaker's intentions are conveyed clearly to the listener, emphasizing the effectiveness of communication over mere politeness.
Emotional consideration for the hearers is totally absent in this set of strategies
The principle of 'Be polite' emphasizes the importance of communicative comfort by considering the reactions of both parties involved in a conversation A key takeaway from Lakoff's politeness rules is that the manner in which something is expressed often holds greater significance than the content itself These guidelines aim to reduce friction, minimize conflict, foster goodwill, avoid imposing on others, and build strong interpersonal relationships.
Rules of conversation= Grice CP
PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE supportiveness and camaraderie Comfortable feeling(s) of the hearer and also of the speaker are the final goal of these strategies
Effective communication in conversations often requires balancing clarity and politeness, as individuals aim to convey their messages comfortably However, this balance can lead to conflicts where adhering to the "don't impose" rule may hinder clear expression of ideas, necessitating the use of conversational implicatures that require contextual inference for proper understanding Consequently, while prioritizing politeness may compromise clarity, it does not mean that the speaker entirely disregards conversational maxims; rather, they emphasize what is deemed more important in the interaction Lakoff acknowledges this tension, concluding that when clarity and politeness conflict, politeness generally takes precedence.
In terms of pragmatic well-formedness, Lakoff (1979) suggests a cline of 2 politeness types using the rules she proposed some years earlier A summary of the list is reproduced here:
A continuum refers to a series of similar items where each element closely resembles its neighbors, yet the final item significantly differs from the first.
Lakoff’s theory enhances the Gricean approach by incorporating Rules of Politeness into the Conversational Maxims, thereby restoring balance between speaker and hearer roles This addition provides valuable insight into the dual objectives of human communication: achieving clarity and effectiveness while also fostering positive interpersonal relationships Lakoff's most significant contribution to Politeness Theory is her Be Polite rules, which mitigate the extremities found in the Gricean framework These rules later served as a foundational element for Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness.
Leech’s general pragmatics
Leech is a highly influential figure in pragmatic research, particularly known for his work in "Principles of Pragmatics" (1983), which has significantly shaped studies on linguistic politeness The widespread acceptance of his theory stems from its testable nature against real data, transforming previously unverified claims into clear, testable hypotheses His book provides a compelling analysis supported by numerous examples, paving the way for future researchers to conduct their own studies effectively.
Don’t impose Give options Make A feel good
Formal/impersonal politeness Informal Intimate
I am s orry t o bot her you but
Do you t hink you c an
, wanna go hom e? Wow , tha t’s aw esom e!
Leech's approach to pragmatic competence differs from Lakoff's, as he starts from a less ambitious perspective His focus is on 'general pragmatics,' which refers to the overarching conditions governing the communicative use of language, intentionally excluding more specific local factors that influence language use (1983:10, 11).
Leech's approach to rhetoric is traditional, defining it as the effective use of language in everyday conversation, with less emphasis on formal public speaking (1983:15) He treats rhetoric as a countable noun, concentrating on goal-oriented speech situations This perspective highlights how pragmatics is examined through the specific impact that a speaker's language can have on the listener's perception.
There are two types or two levels of rhetoric; the classification of which echoes Halliday’s distinction of types of meaning Rhetoric comes in two levels:
Interpersonal and textual rhetoric are comprised of distinct principles, each encompassing a series of maxims and sub-maxims This hierarchical structure illustrates the complexity of rhetorical frameworks, as depicted in Leech's categorization.
Leech's hierarchical structure of rhetoric is more intricate than Lakoff's, incorporating Lakoff's framework as a subset of interpersonal rhetoric This nuanced approach highlights the complexity of rhetorical analysis, as discussed by Fraser.
(1990:224) called this ‘a grand elaboration of the Conversational Maxim approach to politeness.’
Leech's scheme is distinguished by the inclusion of the Irony Principle, which elucidates the intriguing phenomenon where indirectness inversely correlates with intended politeness For instance, when a sister asks her brother, "Do you think it would constitute an enormous offence if I happened to tell you that your little lovely cat has eaten all my fish?" she skillfully adheres to the conventional politeness strategy by presenting options.
To effectively communicate, one can mitigate the propositional meaning by taking a thoughtful approach rather than directly confronting the message Additionally, fostering a friendly relationship and offering praise, such as referring to someone as a "little, lovely cat," can enhance the interaction Furthermore, it is important to balance the costs to oneself while maximizing the benefits in communication.
Figure 2.3 Leech’s Scheme of Rhetoric benefit to H (an enormous offence), etc However, far from being perceived as polite, the whole utterance triggered an impression of irony
The Irony Principle is essential for understanding how language can cleverly disguise offensive messages within a facade of extreme politeness, as the Cooperative and Politeness Principles alone cannot adequately explain this nuanced communication.
Leech pragmatic theory revolves around the central concept of Cost-Benefit scale Generally, politeness, defined by Leech, is the minimisation of cost and 3 maximisation of benefit to both S and H
I TACT MAXIM (applicable to impositives and commissives)
(a) Minimize cost to other [(b) Maximize benefit to other]
II GENEROSITY MAXIM (applicable to impositives and commissives)
(a) Minimize benefit to self [(b) Maximize cost to self]
III APPROBATION MAXIM (applicable to expressives and assertives)
(a) Minimize dispraise of other [(b) Maximize praise of other]
IV MODESTY MAXIM (applicable to expressives and assertives)
(a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self]
(a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b) Maximize agreement between self and other]
(a) minimize antipathy between self and other [(b) Maximize sympathy between self and other]
Cost –bene fi t Scale is not the only one used in Leech theory The others are Th e Optionality Scale , Th e 3
Indirectness Scale, Th e Authority Scale and Th e Social Distance Scale
Critics of Leech's theory question the clarity of fundamental terms used in formulating the maxims, particularly regarding the interpretation of cost and benefit They argue that the values associated with cost and benefit may vary not only across different cultures but also within various contexts in the same culture Additionally, the definitions of concepts such as praise, sympathy, antipathy, and agreement are under scrutiny, as highlighted in the research of Sifianou (1992), Gu (1990), and Lee-Wong.
Research since 1999 has demonstrated that the meanings of certain terms can vary significantly across different nations, speech communities, and even subgroups within the same culture This raises important questions about the universality of the terms in Leech's theory, a topic that remains unresolved.
Watts (2003) critically examines Leech's theory of politeness, highlighting that while Leech prescribes maxims that define polite utterances, this suggests an inherent (im)politeness in speech that is misleading.
The multitude of suggested scales presents a challenge for speakers, as they must recognize and apply these scales during spontaneous interactions To create a polite utterance, speakers may need to navigate a complex process of identifying and evaluating the situation to select the most suitable maxim However, this task is complicated by the lack of clear definitions for fundamental terms as noted by Leech.
Th e fi rst section of Literature review is summarised as followed:
Table 2.2 Summary of literature review
“How to do things with words”
Lakoff’s politeness types: formal, informal, and intimate
• An extension of Gricean approach: the addition of Rules of Politeness to the Conversational Maxims
• The idea of “Pragmatical correctness": an utterance cannot be said to be pragmatically correct but pragmatically appropriate
Maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner
1 A further step than Austin’s foundational theory: Meaning is the product of bi-partie process between speaker and hearer.
Interpersonal rhetoric and textual rhetoric.
• Maxims of politeness: Tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement
• Refined description of the framework
• The exact understanding of cost and benefit as well as praise , sympathy , antipathy , etc.
• The idea of utterance’s intrinsic politeness
• The complexity of many scales
Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness
Brown and Levinson’s politeness model, often referred to as the ‘face-saving’ theory, is a seminal work in the fields of pragmatics and sociolinguistics Since its reissue in 1987, this theory has gained significant recognition and is frequently referenced by linguists, psychologists, and social interaction scholars.
The widespread popularity of this theory stems from its systematic representation and testable nature, which serves as a guiding framework for future researchers This chapter will summarize the key aspects of this highly influential theory, forming the foundation of the thesis, supported by examples from its original authors, Brown and Levinson (B & L).
In B & L’s politeness framework, the Speaker (S) and Hearer (H) are identified as Model Persons (MPs), characterized as rational agents who possess the ability to reason effectively and navigate social interactions to achieve their goals.
2.5.1.1 Assumption 1: it is the mutual knowledge of all competent adult members of a society that they all have (and know each other to have): a Face b Certain rational capacity, in particular, consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends
The concept of 'face', as defined by B & L, is rooted in Erving Goffman's theories and the English idiom of 'losing face' It represents an emotionally significant aspect of identity that can be lost, preserved, or improved, emphasizing its importance in social interactions.
The theory first appeared in a collection in the series Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology, volume
John J Gumperz in Foreword to ‘Politeness: Some universals in language usage’, 1987.
5 constantly attended to in interaction (1987:61); briefly defined as ‘the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself’ 6 (1987:61)
In B & L’s theory, 'face' is defined as a mental construct shaped by individual expectations of their desired self-image, existing independently of social interactions This concept suggests that each person has already formed a self-image before engaging in real-life social encounters, distinguishing B & L’s understanding of 'face' from Goffman's perspective.
‘Goffman’s notion is claimed as the predecessor
Goffman asserts that 'face' is a social construct, emphasizing that its existence relies on social interaction and societal expectations It cannot be understood in isolation, as 'face' is inherently tied to the dynamics of social relationships.
Goffman is ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the lines others assume he has taken during a particular contact ’ [Bold
&Italics mine] (Quoted from Watts, 2003:104)
The distinction between Goffman’s and B & L’s concept of face highlights that face is a social construct, granted by others during interactions It emphasizes that an individual adopts an image derived from societal perceptions, and this 'face' is formed in the moment of interaction rather than existing independently Consequently, 'face' is not an inherent attribute of the individual but is shaped and assigned by the perceptions of others (Watts, 2003:105).
Brown and Levinson’s theory claims that there are two kinds of face corresponding to the two basic needs that every competent adult member brings to a social interaction:
Henceforth, the researcher would follow the use of pronouns by Brown and Levinson when addressing
6 the Model Person: masculine, third-person, singular pronoun (he, him) would be used No gender differentiation is intended.
Negative face : the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e rights to freedom of action and freedom from imposition
Positive face : the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants
The two types of facial orientations differ significantly: when the focus is directed inward towards the self (ego), it is considered Negative, while an outward focus towards others (alter) is deemed Positive.
Social interaction revolves around the ongoing exchange of face threats, requiring participants to consistently work to uphold each other's face This mutual vulnerability inherent in social interactions highlights that certain speech acts can pose risks to the face of one or both parties involved.
2.5.1.2 Assumption 2: it is in general every participant’s (best) interest to keep or maintain the face of himself and of his interlocutor because everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s being maintained
Figure 2.4 Negative and Positive Politeness
Negative Politeness SELF Positive Politeness
It is justifiable for [A] to defend and protect his faces if threatened.
This defense for face unavoidably entails the threatening of other participant’s [B] faces.
( Thus ) ➔ If B wants to protect his faces, he must seek way to protect A’s; and vice versa
If A wants to protect his faces, he also has to save B’s faces.
Mutual vulnerability regarding face encourages both parties to find strategies that fulfill each other's face needs The efforts made by participants to address these fundamental desires are referred to as facework.
2.5.1.3 Assumption 3: The interest of face protection in interaction is universal , i.e in every socio-cultural community, people in general want to be mutually supportive of each other’s face need, despite the content of face is subject to change and fluctuation across different ‘cultures’ (even across groups and subgroups within one ‘culture’.)
We’re assuming that the mutual knowledge of members’ public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction are universal (1987:62)
2.5.1.4 Assumption 4: Face is the basic want of everyone ‘which every member knows every other member desires and which, in general, it is the interests [sic.] of every member to partially satisfy’ (1987:62)
Accordingly, negative and positive face are re defined in terms of ‘basic wants’ as followed:
Negative face : the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others
The positive face refers to the inherent desire of individuals for their wants and needs to be acknowledged and valued by others This includes the yearning for approval, understanding, sympathy, admiration, and agreement from those around them.