Cabezas and Real 2member wants to claim for himself, and consists in two related aspects. On the one hand we havethe
, which is the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, and rights to non-distraction—in other words, freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Meanwhile, on theother hand the
consists of the self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including thedesire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. (Brown andLevinson 61)Therefore, “face” is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost,maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction.
Couples and face
As it can be seen, face is of the utmost importance for effective communication. In thecase of problematic couples—as presented in Gray’s study—the couples’ integrants express their face needs over and over again, but fail in recognizing the other needs. Furthermore, they fail inachieving any satisfaction of their face as a result of the communicative exchange. When thisoccurs, the communication breakdown produced affects the relationship as a whole, producingfrustration and disappointment in the couples’ components.Examples of this are corpora #2, #4, #5 & #6, when the frustration and disappointmentcan be perceived in the final utterance in each corpus: “Why do I even bother?” (Corpus #2);“What do you mean I don't listen. I can tell you everything you said.” (Corpus #4); “Of course Icare about you. Why do you think I am trying to solve this problem?” (Corpus #5) and “"Howcan you treat me like this? You never talk to me anymore. How am I supposed to know what youare feeling? You don't love me. I feel so rejected by you.” (Corpus #6)
Face-threatening act (FTA)
The problem is that couples’ members tend to commit face threatening acts (FTA)without consciousness of it, over and over again. In other words, even if they did not intend to,