Politeness theory, proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, centers on the notion of politeness, construed as efforts to redress the affronts to a person's public self-image or face (as in "save face" or "lose face") in social interactions. Notable concepts include positive and negative face, the face threatening act (FTA), strategies surrounding FTAs and factors influencing the choices of strategies.
Though Brown and Levinson proposed their model as universally applicable, their theory has been challenged by other scholars both theoretically and with respect to its cross-cultural applicability.Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Positive and negative face The concept of face was derived from Chinese into English in the 19th century. "Face" conceptualized as an individual's positive claim of social values in socializing contact was introduced into academia by Erving Goffman through his theories of "face" and "facework". According to Brown and Levinson's assumption in politeness theory based on Goffman's "face", one's face is categorized into two forms: positive and negative. 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".Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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.Coates, Jennifer. 1998. Language and Gender: A Reader. Wiley-Blackwell. Positive face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act.Foley, William. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Blackwell. 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.
Face-threatening acts 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-threatening acts 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.
Damage to the hearer The following are cases in which the negative face of the hearer (the person being spoken to) is threatened. 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 speaker's sentiments of the hearer or the hearer's belongings. Examples: compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong negative emotion toward the hearer (e.g. hatred, anger, distrust). An act that expresses speaker's future imposing of positive effects toward the hearer, as either rejection or acceptance put pressure on the hearer and may incur a debt. Examples: offers and promises.
Damage to the speaker The following are cases in which the negative face of the speaker (the person talking) is threatened. An act that speaker's humbles his own face or accept debt to maintain hearer's face and make good for the hearer. Examples: expressing thanks, acceptance of gratitude or apology, excuse, acceptance of offers, pretending unaware of H's mistakes, committing to something unfavorable.
Positive face-threatening acts 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.
Damage to the hearer The following are cases in which the positive face of the hearer (the person being spoken to) is threatened. An act that expresses the speaker's negative assessment of the hearer's positive face or an element of his/her positive face. The speaker directly or indirectly indicating that he dislikes some aspect of the hearer's possessions, desires, or personal attributes. Examples: disapproval, criticism, contempt or ridicule, complaints and reprimands, accusations, insults.
The speaker expresses disapproval by stating or implying that the hearer is wrong, irrational, or misguided. Examples: contradictions or disagreements, challenges. An act that expresses the speaker's indifference toward the addressee's positive face. The addressee might be embarrassed for or fear the speaker. Examples: excessively emotional expressions. The speaker indicates that he does not 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, abrupt change of subject. 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 "ma'am" instead of "miss."
Damage to the speaker The following are cases in which the positive face of the speaker (the person talking) is threatened. An act that shows that the speaker is in some sense wrong, has own dignity offended, or unable to control himself. Examples: apologies, acceptance of compliment, inability to control one's physical self, inability to control one's emotional self, self-humiliation, confessions.
Refusals as threatening both positive and negative face 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". The willingness dimension differentiates between refusals where the refuser states, "I don't want to help you" and "I'd like to help." Ability differentiates between, "I'm short on cash" and "I have some extra money." Focus on-focus away from requester differentiates between, "It's your problem, so you take care of it" and "It's terrible that your mom won't give you the money."When a person makes a request, their positive face is threatened mostly along the ability and unwillingness dimensions. People tend to make requests of "intimates," people they are supposed to know well/have a good relationship with. Threat to the requester's positive face increases when the requester chooses a person who has low ability/inability to fulfill the request or is unwilling to comply (the person being asked has to refuse the request); choosing a person with low ability suggests the requester has poor relational knowledge. On the other hand, choosing a person with high ability decreases threat to the requester's positive face because it shows the requester's competence; choosing a person with high willingness reinforces the requester's choice and decreases threats to positive face.
Choosing to refuse or not refuse a request can threaten the requester's positive and negative faces in different ways. When a person refuses to comply with a request from an intimate, they are violating relational expectations and increasing threat to their positive face; however, focusing attention away from the requester can decrease threat to the requester's positive face even if they are unwilling to help. In contrast, focusing attention on the requester can increase threat to positive face since it highlights the refuser's unwillingness. Accepting a request is the least threatening act.
Threats to the refuser's negative face vary along the ability and focus dimensions. Focusing away from the requester allows the refuser to maintain their autonomy while maintaining the relationship; this leads to less face-threat if the refuser has high ability because they can choose whether to comply or not. Focusing on the requester would threaten their relationship with the requester and their long-term autonomy (the requester may be unwilling to comply to future requests when the roles are reversed); however, if the refuser has low ability, focusing on the requester can actually decrease threats to negative face by showing they are unable to comply even if they wanted to.
*Note: the requester and refuser would be analogous to the "speaker" and "hearer" roles discussed earlier in the section "Face-threatening acts".
Politeness strategies Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer's positive and negative face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. Brown and Levinson outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect) as well as simply not using the face-threatening act. Jonathan Culpeper also used these strategies and added on them in his impolitness theory. Several factors contribute to the differences in the use of (im)politeness strategies, including work experience, writing skills, and familiarity with appropriate levels of formality.
Bald on-record