Politeness Strategies and Face

The aspects of  face (i.e., a self-image or impression of oneself presented publicly) are studied within the theories of politeness among which a prominent place is held by Brown and Levinson´s (1987) model. They claim that in any social interaction participants devote much of their time to face-work, i.e., strategies attending to aspects of their own face (viz. attempting not to lose it) as well as of other´s face (not threatening it by performing a face-threatening act, such as requesting, denying an invitation, rejecting an offer, or an other-repair, cf. 8.2).  There are two types of face: negative face (the freedom of indvidual action, a desire to be unimpeded) and  positive face (the need to be treated as equal, a desire for approval).

  Corresponding to these are the two types of strategies: negative politeness strategies (strategies of independence, also called deference politeness strategies) attend to hearer´s negative face and include the use of expressions indicative of indirectness, tentativeness, impersonality, social distance: mitigators (Sorry to interrupt, but...), euphemisms and politically correct language; positive politeness strategies (strategies of involvement, also called  solidarity politeness strategies) attempt to save hearer´s positive face by emphasizing closeness, intimacy, commonality and rapport.  The key factors determining the choice of appropriate strategy are, a) the relationship between participants, i.e., their relative power (social status) difference, and their social distance (the degree of closeness), and, b) the degree of imposition/urgency (K.C.C.Kong (1998) adds a mutual expectation of relationship continuity  as another factor). Depending on the degree of threat upon the addressee´s face, five politeness strategies can be identified: a) bald-on-record (open, direct) in case the risk of loss of face is minimum (Fetch me some water), b)  solidarity politeness which addresses the common ground (I know I can always rely on you, could you lend me your typewriter?), c) deference politeness, when the imposition is serious (I hate to impose on you but I wonder if you could possibly let me use your computer?), d) off record, an imposition is so great that it must be proffered indirectly  (I´m all out of money - this may be a source of ambiguity since it is up to the hearer to interpret this as a request), e) not saying anything, since the threat of loss of face is too great (for the politeness strategies employed in radio phone-in talk shows see Ferenčík (2002b)). From the viewpoint of language users´ intentions, their choices from the total pool of resources and the effects upon other participants, the legitimacy of the pragmatic perspective for stylistically-oriented study can hardly be denied.