politeness theory brown & levinson (1987) cheryl holden
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Politeness TheoryBrown & Levinson (1987)
Cheryl Holden
![Page 2: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction• Where does this theory fit into linguistics?
• Who are Brown & Levinson?
• B&L’s objectives
• So, what’s the theory?
• How does it work?
• Is it bomb-proof?
![Page 3: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Where does this theory fit into linguistics?
• Linguistics > pragmatics / interactional sociolinguistics > politeness / facework
• Brown & Levinson < Erving Goffman(1922-1982) <<< Émile Durkheim (1858-1917)
![Page 4: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Who are Brown & Levinson?
• Penny Brown and Stephen Levinson
• Worked with ‘situated conversational exchanges‘.
• Theirs remains one of the most prominent works in this domain.
![Page 5: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
B&L’s objectives• To examine the assumptions and reasoning used
by participants.
• Account for cross-cultural similarities in the abstract principles behind polite usage.
• To draw up a formal model to account for cross-cultural similarities that also worked for culturally-specific use.
![Page 6: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
So, what’s the theory? (1)
• All parties have positive face and negative face and are rational agents, and so will choose means that satisfy their ends.
• If the satisfaction of face wants relies on the actions of others, it is generally in the interests of both parties to maintain each other’s face.
• Some actions (or FTAs) are inherently threatening to face.
![Page 7: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
So, what’s the theory? (2)
• A speaker (S) will therefore want to maintain the face of his hearer (H) ... unless S’s desire to perform the FTA outweighs his need to respect H’s face.
• Given the above, the more that face is threatened, the more S will want to use a strategy that minimizes risk.
• Since these strategies are known to both parties, they will not use a less risky strategy than necessary, lest this be perceived as indicating that the FTA is more threatening that is really the case.
![Page 8: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
How does it work?
![Page 9: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Calculating the seriousness of an FTA
• Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
![Page 10: Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022071806/56649daf5503460f94a9d557/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Is it bomb-proof?• Criticisms that it’s too west-centric.
• Even within Europe, politeness is not universal.- turn-taking (France)- thanking (Spain)
• Values of D, P and R not fixed, but can change according to context.
• Other factors – such as prosody – can prompt perceptions of difference in politeness.