Face concept
The facial concept by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson is based on the model by Erving Goffman and represents a universally applicable model of courtesy.
Her theory became known worldwide through her book Politeness: Some universals of language use , published in 1987 , and research has been conducted on the theory since then. Their basic thesis is the analysis of the facial (English face ), which is named face in the rest of this article with the English term.
The concept of the Faces and the Face Threatening Act
Brown and Levinson define this face as "the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself".
The self-image is not constant, but can change in that it is hurt, preserved or enlarged by other people. Consequently, the face is dependent on the behavior of other people. It is assumed that normally people try to preserve the face of their fellow human beings, since in the case of a Face Threatening Act (FTA) the person concerned tries to save face and thereby threatens the face of the other. To avoid this threat to the face, it is important to clearly signal to other people that they are paying attention to the person's face. Even so, the face is often accidentally or deliberately injured in order to achieve a communication goal.
On the one hand, the positive face, which represents the need for confirmation, and on the other hand, the negative face, which reflects the need for freedom, can be injured. A violation of the negative face occurs, for example, with a proposal or a request, as this restricts freedom of action , while the positive face is threatened as soon as it is unclear whether a friendly relationship exists. In general, both the positive face and the negative face of the speaker and the addressee can be injured.
Facial injuries
Due to the vulnerability of the face, people mostly try to avoid or minimize a Face Threatening Act (FTA). To achieve this goal, various main strategies can be used, which are divided into further sub-strategies. The least amount of FTA occurs when the facial threatening act is not performed. If the FTA is carried out, it can be carried out obviously, ie "on record" or not obviously, ie "off record". If actors follow the off-record strategy, their statements are ambiguous and the speaker's intention cannot be precisely determined. An example of this is the statement that you have run out of money because you forgot to withdraw money from the bank. While this statement can be taken as a solicitation to lend this person money, it is not a direct solicitation to do so, and so the speaker cannot be committed to that intention.
Ambiguous statements of this kind can take several variations, such as the irony : "This is great". Likewise, a rhetorical question with the off-record strategy can represent a request for an action, such as the question of who forgot to wash the dishes.
On-record acts
In contrast, "on-record" actions serve as a clear statement and are carried out especially when the intention of the statement is clear to all persons concerned. For example, if a promise is made that something will be done the next day and those affected are all of the opinion that this promise represents an obligation to act, the promise was made on record.
"On-record" procedures can take place both without compensation and with compensation. It should be noted that on-record actions without compensation usually only take place if all parties involved agree that an FTA may only take place to a small extent, such as an offer or a proposal, and therefore the speaker does not have to fear retaliation. An example of an on record act without compensation is being asked to come in or sit down.
The "on-record" action with compensation is much more polite, as it takes into account the need for the positive face or the negative face and thus shows that an FTA is not the speaker's intention. The on-record action with compensation is subdivided into the positive-politeness and the negative-politeness strategy. The positive politeness strategy aims at the need of the positive face, and the basis for positive politeness is the establishment of contact, through which the demand of the positive face for confidentiality is fulfilled. The feeling of togetherness is important for this strategy , as this confirms a common identity , interests, values, etc. the self-image, i.e. the positive face.
Controversial topics are therefore often avoided and more general topics such as the weather are discussed instead. In addition to similarities, the cooperation with addressees leads to an appreciation of the positive face, in that the speaker shows that the positive face of the addressee is important to him. This is possible by means of statements such as “if you are okay” or “I hope you don't mind”.
A third point concerns the direct fulfillment of the other person's wishes, such as giving that person a gift.
See also
literature
- Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Face-threatening nudes. In: injuring words, ed. Herrmann, Steffen; Kramer, Sybille; Kuch, Hannes. 2007. 59-88. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag
- Friedman, Ray; Chi, Shu-Cheng; Liu, Leigh Anne. 2006. An Expectancy Model of Chinese-American Differences in Conflict-Avoiding. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (1): 76-91
- Günthner, Susanne. 2002. Politeness practices in intercultural communication - using the example of Chinese-German interaction. In: Cross Cultural Communication, ed. Lügner, Heinz-Helmut. 295-315. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag
- Hero, Gudrun. 2002. Correct criticism - a question of polite style? In: Cross Cultural Communication, ed. Lügner, Heinz-Helmut. 113-127. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag
Individual evidence
- ↑ Brown, Roger; Gilman, Albert. 1989. Politeness Theory and Shakespeare's Four Major Tragedies. Cambridge: Language in Society 18 (2)
- ↑ a b c d e f Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. Face-threatening nudes. In: injuring words, ed. Herrmann, Steffen; Kramer, Sybille; Kuch, Hannes. 2007. 59-88. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag
- ↑ Holtgraves, Thomas M. 1992. The Linguistic Realization of Face Management: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension, Person Perception, and Cross-Cultural Communication. Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2)
- ↑ a b Holtgraves, Thomas M. 2002. Language as Social Action. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- ↑ Qu, Yuanyuan 曲 媛媛; Sun, Ya 孙亚. 2007. Limao celüe zai zhongwen xuyan li de yingyon g 礼貌 策略 在 中文 序言 里 的 应用 [The application of the politeness strategy in the Chinese introduction]. Wenhua jingguan 文化 景观