Brown and Levinson's Face Theory

Politeness is described as a 'social norm' or a set of prescriptive social 'rules' that many people abide by. Brown and Levinson researched politeness and developed their 'face theory' based on the principles of peoples desire to be liked.

'Face' is defined as the public self image every adult portrays, this must be attended to in interaction.

There is Positive and negative face:

• POSITIVE FACE - the desire to be appreciated and liked
• NEGATIVE FACE - the desire to have freedom and to not be imposed upon

A Face Threatening Act (FTA) is an act which deliberately threatens the face of others.

Politeness is being contextually appropriate, following cultural and social norms and being socially positive by addressing face needs.

In order to save face from FTAs, people can use politeness superstrategies:

• Bold on record - not attempting to minimise the face threat
• Positive politeness - showing you value someone so minimising the threat to the positive face
• Negative politeness - not impeding on someone, minimising the threat to the negative face
• Off record - avoiding responsibility for the FTA often by being indirect
• Withhold - not performing the FTA

Politeness superstrategies are determined by contextual factors 

• Power relations between speaker and listener
• Social distance between speaker and listener
• How great the threat of the FTA is

Peoples aim in conversation is to be cooperative so the worse the FTA is percieved, the higher the number of strategies we use is.

Impoliteness is engaging in aggressive facework in particular contexts to cause social disruption by the speaker intentionally attacking face, the listener perceiving a face attack or both.

In order to save face from FTAs, people can use impoliteness superstrategies:

• Bold on record - unmitigated intentional face attack
• Positive impoliteness - attacking the positive face need by not showing you value someone e.g criticism, insults, dissagreements
• Negative impoliteness - attacking the negative face need by imposing on someone e.g orders,threats, requests
• Off record - using indirect offence e.g sarcasm 
• Withhold - failing to be polite when it is expected

Grice's Maxims

Grice's Maxims have 4 types:

• The maxim of quality: where someone tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

•  maxim of quantity: where someone tries to be as informative as they possibly can, and gives as much information as needed, and no more.

• The maxim of relation: where someone tries to be relevant, and says things that are relevant to the discussion.

• The maxim of manner: when someone tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as they can in what they say, and where someone avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

There can be overlap of the maxims within the units of the conversation where they seem to be giving all the information (maxim of quality) but they are too short or long winded for the listener and therefore break the maxim of manner.

Maxim Violations

A speaker might break the maxim of quality if they are trying to deceive the listener

A person might tell you they are violating a maxim and why. For example:

•  “I don’t know if this is relevant, but...” (relation) 
• “I’m not sure how to say this, but...” (manner) 
• “I can’t tell you; I’m sworn to secrecy.” (quantity) 
• “This is just the word on the street; I can’t vouch for this information.” (quality)

 Maxim clash: A speaker might violate one maxim in order to preserve another.

'Language and Power' powerpoint

Language and Power Powerpoint