Politeness theory

Politeness theory accounts for politeness in terms of the redressing of affronts to a person's sociological 'face' by face-threatening acts. The concept of face was derived from Chinese into English in the 19th century. Erving Goffman would then go on to introduce the concept into academia through his theories of 'face' and 'facework'. The theory builds on the sociological concept of face (as in 'save face' or 'lose face') to discuss politeness as a response to mitigate or avoid face-threatening acts such as requests or insults. Notable concepts explicated in the framework of the theory include positive politeness, negative politeness, bald on-record and off-record communication styles; each described below. Although politeness has been studied in a variety of cultures for many years, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's politeness theory has become very influential. In 1987, Brown and Levinson proposed that politeness was a universal concept, which has had some disagreement within academia. Politeness is the expression of the speakers' intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward the listener. Another definition is 'a battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction'. Therefore, being polite can be an attempt for the speaker to save their own face or the face of who he or she is talking to. Face is the public self-image that every person tries to protect. 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. 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 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. 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. In their study of refusals to requests, Johnson et al. argue refusals can threaten both the positive and negative face of the refuser (the person who was asked a favor), and the positive face of the requester (the person asking for a favor). Obstacles, or reasons for non-compliance with a person's request, can 'vary on three dimensions: willingness-unwillingness, ability-inability, and focus on-focus away from the requester'.