As efficient communication plays a crucial, far-ranging role in our everyday life, it is highly interesting to examine how we transport the information we want to communicate. Yet, in contrast to what efficient might implicate, the actual language use is rather characterized by “indirectness and the flouting of Gricean maxims” (Blum-Kulka 1998: 50), than by clear and direct expressions. One of the main reasons for this process lies within the concept of politeness: Since, roughly speaking, the more indirect a request is being articulated, the more polite it will be considered.
Thus, this paper aims to contemplate the aspect of politeness in interactions, as it greatly influences the choice of speech. Therefore, I will make use of Brown and Levinson’s notion of politeness and present their concept in theory before I will continue by questioning the practicability and universality of this model.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Cooperative and Politeness Principle
2.1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle
2.2. Leech’s Politeness Principle
3. Face
3.1. Goffmann’s Concept of Face
3.2. Further Development through Levinson and Brown
3.2.1. Positive and Negative Face
3.3. Face Threatening Acts
4. Politeness Strategies.
4.1. Doing FTAs.
4.2. Choice of a Strategy.
5. Politeness Theory in Practice.
6. Conclusion.
7. Bibliography.
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the theoretical framework of politeness, specifically focusing on Brown and Levinson's model. It explores how individuals use language to manage interpersonal interactions, questioning the model's universality and practical application by analyzing how social norms, context, and face-saving strategies influence communication.
- Theoretical foundations of the Cooperative and Politeness Principles
- The role and definition of "Face" in social interactions
- Classification and analysis of Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
- Politeness strategies as mechanisms to mitigate face loss
- Critical evaluation of cultural and contextual limitations in current politeness theories
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1. Positive and Negative Face
Brown and Levinson offer two definitions for each of the two components of face in their essay. Generally, they characterize positive face as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants” (1990: 61) and in terms of face as wants as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” (1990: 62). Negative face, on the other hand is defined as “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom of imposition” (1991: 61) or as “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (1990:62). In other words, positive face can be equalized with Goffmann’s notion of face, as it refers to the image we create and project and the wish to have it considered by other individuals. Not only do we want to be respected and admired but moreover do we want “to have [our] goals thought of as desirable” (Brown and Levinson 1990: 62). While positive face resembles our personality, which is transported through language, negative face displays what is commonly linked with politeness (cf. Bublitz 2001: 224).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research focus on politeness in everyday communication and outlines the structural plan to evaluate Brown and Levinson’s theory.
2. The Cooperative and Politeness Principle: Discusses the foundational work of Grice and Leech, highlighting how conversational maxims shape the understanding of cooperative communication.
3. Face: Explores the origins of the "face" concept in Goffman's work and its expansion by Brown and Levinson into positive and negative aspects.
4. Politeness Strategies.: Details the various strategies speakers utilize to minimize the risk of face loss during communicative interactions.
5. Politeness Theory in Practice.: Provides a critical assessment of the practical applicability and cultural limitations of established politeness models.
6. Conclusion.: Synthesizes the findings, arguing that politeness is deeply context-dependent and that current models are often too idealistic.
7. Bibliography.: Lists the academic sources used to substantiate the theoretical claims made throughout the paper.
Keywords
Politeness, Pragmatics, Face, Brown and Levinson, Face-Threatening Acts, Cooperative Principle, Leech, Communication, Linguistics, Social Interaction, Politeness Strategies, Discourse, Implicature, Culture, Social Norms
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
This paper provides a theoretical review of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, exploring how linguistic choices reflect the speaker's attempt to manage face in social interactions.
What are the key thematic areas covered?
The core themes include the Cooperative Principle, the definition of positive and negative face, the nature of Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs), and the various strategies individuals use to maintain politeness.
What is the primary research goal?
The objective is to present the theory in its original form and subsequently conduct a critical analysis regarding the model’s universality, practicability, and validity in diverse social contexts.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The work employs a qualitative, literature-based approach, synthesizing key pragmatics research from scholars like Grice, Leech, Goffman, and Brown and Levinson.
What is discussed in the main body?
The main body systematically progresses from basic communicative principles to the specific categorization of face-saving strategies, followed by an evaluation of where these models succeed or fail in real-world application.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Politeness, Face, Face-Threatening Acts, Pragmatics, and Social Interaction.
How do Brown and Levinson define "positive face"?
They define it as the desire for one's personality and self-image to be appreciated, approved of, and viewed as desirable by others.
What is the main critique offered regarding the theory?
The author argues that the model is often too prescriptive and fails to adequately account for cultural variances, gender, age, and the crucial importance of context in determining what constitutes polite behavior.
- Quote paper
- Nadja Grebe (Author), 2009, Politeness. A Theoretical Review of Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/138441
