Face and politeness theory explores how we manage our public image in social interactions. It examines the strategies we use to maintain positive relationships and respect others' autonomy, shaping how we communicate in different contexts.

This theory is crucial for understanding the nuances of human communication. By recognizing face needs and politeness strategies, we can navigate social situations more effectively, avoiding misunderstandings and building stronger connections with others.

Face and Politeness Theory

Positive and negative face

• Face embodies public self-image every person desires to claim for themselves shapes social interactions
  • Positive face reflects desire for appreciation and approval from others drives social bonding (compliments, group inclusion)
    • Need for belonging and acceptance motivates cooperative behavior
    • Want for actions, possessions, and values to be desirable to others influences self-presentation (fashion choices, social media posts)
  • Negative face encompasses desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition preserves personal autonomy (respecting privacy, avoiding intrusive questions)
    • Need for autonomy and independence manifests in decision-making and personal space
    • Want to maintain personal territory and rights to non-distraction affects boundaries in relationships and workplaces

Types of politeness strategies

• Positive politeness strategies orient towards positive face foster connection and solidarity
  • Claiming common ground builds rapport (shared interests, in-group markers)
  • Conveying cooperation demonstrates willingness to help (offers of assistance, teamwork)
  • Fulfilling wants addresses others' needs and desires (gifts, compliments)
• Negative politeness strategies orient towards negative face minimize imposition and show respect
  • Being indirect reduces pressure on the hearer (Could you possibly...?)
  • Minimizing imposition acknowledges the other's time and effort (Just a quick question...)
  • Showing deference recognizes social distance or power differences (Sir, Madam, Professor)
• Off-record strategies employ indirect speech acts allow for plausible deniability
  • Hinting conveys meaning without explicit statement (It's cold in here)
  • Using metaphors softens potential face threats (You're walking on thin ice)
  • Being ambiguous or vague leaves room for interpretation (Things could be better)
• Bald on-record strategies use direct speech acts without redressive action maximize efficiency
  • Used in emergencies prioritize clarity over politeness (Call 911!)
  • When speaker has power over hearer reflects authority (Clean your room)

Face management through politeness

• Face-threatening acts (FTAs) inherently challenge face require mitigation strategies
  • Requests threaten negative face by imposing on recipient's autonomy (Can I borrow your car?)
  • Criticisms threaten positive face by questioning recipient's competence or value (Your report needs improvement)
• Factors influencing strategy choice shape communication approach
  • Power distance between interlocutors affects level of deference (employee to boss vs. peer to peer)
  • Social distance (familiarity) determines formality level (close friend vs. acquaintance)
  • Ranking of imposition in the culture varies by context (asking for a pen vs. asking for a large loan)
• Contexts for strategy application demonstrate situational adaptability
  • Professional settings often employ negative politeness maintain formality and respect (Could you please review this document when you have a moment?)
  • Intimate relationships tend to use positive politeness reinforce closeness (Hey sweetie, grab me a drink while you're up?)
  • Public spaces may use off-record strategies to avoid confrontation (Wow, it's getting loud in here)

Cultural influence on politeness norms

• Cultural dimensions affecting politeness shape communication expectations
  • Individualism vs. collectivism influences focus on personal vs. group needs
  • High-context vs. low-context communication styles determine explicitness of messages
  • Power distance variations affect deference levels in hierarchical relationships
• Language-specific politeness markers reflect cultural values
  • Honorifics in Japanese and Korean encode social relationships and respect (san, nim)
  • T-V distinction in Romance languages differentiates formal and informal address (tu vs. vous in French)
• Politeness universals vs. culture-specific practices highlight commonalities and differences
  • Universal: existence of face-saving strategies across cultures (apologies, compliments)
  • Culture-specific: degree of directness considered polite varies (direct requests in German vs. indirect in British English)
• Cross-cultural communication challenges arise from differing norms
  • Misinterpretation of politeness levels leads to unintended offense or perceived rudeness
  • Transfer of L1 politeness norms to L2 contexts causes pragmatic failures in intercultural interactions