Politeness Theory: Brown and Levinson Model

Fatima Abdul Hussein Jabber

Politeness is the expression of the speakers intention to lessen face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another. Another definition is "a battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction". Brown and Levinsons theory of linguistic politeness first appeared in 1978 by their book Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. The theory is often referred to as the face-saving theory of politeness. Brown and Levinson suggest a Model Person (MP) with the ability to rationalize from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals. In doing so, the MP has to assess the dangers of threatening other participants (and hence her/his own( face and to choose the appropriate strategies in order to minimize any face threats that might be involved in carrying out the goal-directed activity. In contrast to Leechs model, therefore, Brown and Levinsons model can be seen as an attempt to formulate a theory of how individuals produce linguistic politeness, i.e. it is a production model.

Face
The notion of face is derived from Goffman (1967) and from the English folk term, which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or 'losing face'. Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual sensitivity of face. The aspects of face is treated as basic wants, which every member knows every other member desires, and which in general it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy. This public self-image consists of two related aspects:

negative face: the want of every competent adult member' that his
actions be unobstructed by others;

positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at
least some others. The reduction of a person's public self-image or personality to a want that one's wants be desirable to at least some others can be justified in this way.

The most salient aspect of a person's personality in interaction is what that personality requires of other interactants - in particular, it includes the desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired. The next step is to represent this desire as the want to have one's goals thought of as desirable. In the special sense of 'wanting' that we develop, we can then arrive at positive face as here defined. For instance, Mrs. B is a fervent gardener. Much of her time and effort are expended on her roses. She is proud of her roses, and she likes others to admire them. She is gratified when visitors say 'What lovely roses; I wish ours looked like that! How do you do it?', implying that they want just what she has wanted and achieved. Watts takes pains to say that B&L get face from Goffman but dont use it as he intended. For Watts ,the key to Goffman's notion of face is that it is "not something that the individual somehow builds for her/himself, which then needs to be supported and respected in the course of interaction, but is rather' public property', something which is only realised in social interaction and is dependent on others "(Watts 2003: 107).

Face Threating Act (FTA)

According to Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face exist universally in human culture. In social interactions, face-threatening acts are at times inevitable based on the terms of the conversation. 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. Most of these acts are verbal; however, they can also be conveyed in the characteristics of speech (such as tone, inflection, etc.) or in non-verbal forms of communication. 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-threatening acts

Negative face is threatened when an individual does not avoid or intend to avoid the obstruction of their interactants freedom of action. It can cause damage to either the speaker or the hearer, and makes one of the interactants submit their will to the other. Freedom of choice and action are impeded when negative face is threatened.

Damage to the hearer

An act that affirms or denies a future act of the hearer creates pressure on the hearer to either perform or not perform the act.

Examples: orders, requests, suggestions, advice, remindings, threats, or warnings.

An act that expresses the speakers sentiment of the hearer or the hearers belongings.

Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, lust).

An act that expresses some positive future act of the speaker toward the hearer. In doing so, pressure has been put on the hearer to accept or reject the act and possibly incur a debt.

Examples: offers, and promises.

Damage to the speaker

An act that shows that the speaker is submitting to the power of the hearer. Expressing thanks Accepting a thank you or apology Excuses Acceptance of offers A response to the hearers violation of social custom The speaker commits himself to something he or she does not want to do

Positive face-threatening acts

Positive face is threatened when the speaker or hearer does not care about their interactors 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.

Damage to the hearer

An act that expresses the speakers negative assessment of the hearers positive face or an element of his/her positive face. The speaker can display this disapproval in two ways. The first approach is for the speaker to directly or indirectly indicate that he dislikes some aspect of the hearers possessions,

desires, or personal attributes. The second approach is for the speaker to express disapproval by stating or implying that the hearer is wrong, irrational, or misguided. Examples: expressions of disapproval (e.g. insults, accusations, complaints), contradictions, disagreements, or challenges.

An act that expresses the speakers indifference toward the addressees positive face. The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker.

Examples: excessively emotional expressions.

The speaker indicates that he doesnt have the same values or fears as the hearer

Examples: disrespect, mention of topics which are inappropriate in general or in the context.

The speaker indicates that he is willing to disregard the emotional well-being of the hearer.

Examples: belittling or boasting.

The speaker increases the possibility that a face-threatening act will occur. This situation is created when a topic is brought up by the speaker that is a sensitive societal subject.

Examples: topics that relate to politics, race, religion.

The speaker indicates that he is indifferent to the positive face wants of the hearer. This is most often expressed in obvious non-cooperative behavior.

Examples: interrupting, non-sequiturs.

The speaker misidentifies the hearer in an offensive or embarrassing way. This may occur either accidentally or intentionally. Generally, this refers to the misuse of address terms in relation to status, gender, or age.

Example: Addressing a young woman as "maam" instead of "miss."

Damage to the speaker

An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, and unable to control himself. Apologies: In this act, speaker is damaging his own face by admitting that he regrets one of his previous acts. Acceptance of a compliment Inability to control ones physical self Inability to control ones emotional self Self-humiliation Confessions

Strategies for doing FTAs For Brown and Levinson, it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of act intrinsically threaten face, and in the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational MPs will seek to avoid or at least minimize face threat. The possible set of strategies is schematized by Brown and Levinson in the following Figure:
1. without redressive action, baldly on record politeness 2. positive

Do the FTA 4. off record

with redressive action

3. negative politeness 5. Don't do the FTA

Figure Possible strategies for doing

FTA

Brown and Levinsons politeness strategies form hierarchies of strategies that will achieve different goals in expressing different levels of politeness. They refer to the four strategies, bald on record, positive politeness, negative politeness and off record, as super-strategies. The four super-strategies are arranged along a scale from less polite to more polite, and each of the super-strategies has a number of sub-strategies.

Bald on-record: In going bald on record, the speaker does a face-threatening act in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (like, saying Do X! for a request). Brown and Levinson have pointed out that the possible circumstances for a speaker to go bald on record include the following: (1) both S (speaker) and H (Hearer) regard urgency or efficiency as more important than face demands; (2) the threat to Hs face is very small; (3) S is superior to H in power (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Positive Politeness: Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself. It is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA). Attend to the hearer: e.g. Goodness, you cut your hair! () By the way, I came to borrow some flour. Avoid disagreement: e.g. Speaker: How about the movie? Hearer: Well, some people may like it. Seek agreement by presenting safe topics, making repetitions. e.g. Speaker: I had a flat tyre on the way home. Hearer: Oh God, a flat tyre! Hedge opinion: "You really should sort of try harder." Negative Politeness: Brown and Levinson (1987) regard negative politeness as the heart of respect behavior, performing the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidably effects. The main focus for using this strategy is to assume that you may be imposing on the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation. Be indirect: "I'm looking for a comb." In this situation you are hoping that you will not have to ask directly, so as not to impose and take up the hearer's time. Therefore, by using this indirect strategy, you hope they will offer to go find one for you. A. Apologize by admitting the impingement, indicating reluctance, giving overwhelming reasons, and begging forgiveness. e.g. I dont want to bother you, but (apologize by indicating reluctance).

Minimize the imposition by using the quantity adjectives such as a little a bit a few and adverbs such as just and only. e.g. I just want to ask if you could lend me a little paper. Pluralize the person responsible: "We forgot to tell you that you needed to by your plane ticket by yesterday." This takes all responsibility off of only you and onto "we", even if you were the person responsible for telling the hearer when the deadline was to buy the ticket.

Off-Record (indirect): whatsoever. Give hints: "It's cold in here."

You are removing yourself from any imposition

Be vague: "Perhaps someone should have been more responsible." Be sarcastic, or joking: "Yeah, he's a real rocket scientist!" Factors Influencing the Choice of Strategies According to Brown and Levinsons analysis, these three sociological parameters (D, P and R) influence the weightiness of an FTA and thus further influence the choice of politeness strategies, namely, (a) the social distance (D) between S and H (b) the relative power (P) of H over S (c) the absolute ranking (R) of the FTA in the particular culture. (Some impositions are greater than others. Highly imposing acts like requests demand more redress to mitigate their increased threat level). Brown and Levinson hold that it might be appropriate to demonstrate that P, D and R factors are all relevant and independent, and they are the only relevant ones used by speakers to assess the weightiness of FTAs and to choose appropriate politeness strategies. The influence of the three factors P, D and R on the choice of politeness strategies is as follows: (a) In the circumstances where P and R are held constant, politeness increases as D goes up--- the larger distance between S and H is, the more polite S tends to be and the smaller distance between S and H is, the less polite S tends to be in language.

(b) In the circumstances where D and R are held constant, politeness increases as P increases--- the higher power H has over S, the more polite S tends to be and the lower power H has over S, the less polite S tends to be in language. (c) In the circumstances where P and D are held constant, politeness increases as R goes up--- the bigger R of an FTA in the specific culture is, the more polite S tends to be; and the smaller R of an FTA in the specific culture is, the less polite S tends to be in language. Critiques of Brown and Levinson The so-called universality of Brown and Levinsons theory does not go without being unchallenged. It has been the subject of much subsequent research and of some criticism. One of the reasons is that the Brown and Levinsons theory is only based on three countries; English, Tamil, and Tzeltal (Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 27 and Holmes 2006, p. 689). Meanwhile, it is a fact that there are other cultures in the world, such Asian cultures, among many others. To account for language and cultural diversities for instance, Holmes (2006, p. 685) believes that different cultures have different ways of expressing considerations for others. Other major criticisms is that Brown & Levinson assume an individualistic concept of face, which is not appropriate to cultures with broad value tendencies in emphasizing the importance of in group interests over individual wants. They have also questioned the validity of the Brown and Levinsons notion of negative face in cultures where the individuals freedom of thought and action are determined by the social status that the individual has in the group. In a similar vein, several researchers from other Asian cultures, as well as from Islamic and African cultures, have criticized the individualistic interpretation of face and/or the validity of the notion of negative face in Brown & Levinsons theory. The Brown & Levinson (1987) account of politeness strategies has also been under discussion in politeness research .It has been criticized as overly pessimistic view of social interaction. For example, Nwoye (1992:311) states that according to the Brown & Levinson interpretation of politeness, social interaction becomes an activity of continuous mutual monitoring of potential threats to the faces of the interactants, and if this view were always true, it could rob social interaction of all elements of pleasure. Werkhofer (1992:156) argues that the Brown & Levinson account of politeness is essentially individualistic: it presents the speaker as a rational agent who at least during the generation of utterances is unconstrained by social considerations and is thus free to select selfish, asocial and aggressive intentions. One of the major problems with Brown & Levinsons model is also the setting out the choices open to the speakers in the form of a decision-tree through which they have to work their way before they can arrive at the appropriate

utterances in which to frame the FTA. This kind of system also excludes the possibility that two or more strategies might be chosen at the same time. Much comment on the Brown and Levinsons theory suggests numbers of alter native approaches to politeness, such as Grice and Leech approach.

References
Brown, B., & Levinson Stephen, C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press. Vilkki , L 2006 , ' Politeness, face and facework: Current issues '. , no. 19 , The LinguisticAssociation of Finland , Turku , pp. 322-332 . Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.