Penelope Brown and Stephen C.

Levinson
POLITENESS: SOME UNIVERSALS IN LANGUAGE USAGE
Assumptions: properties of interactants
We make the following assumptions: that all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have): 1 'Face', the public sell image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non distraction i!e!, to freedom of action and freedom from imposition (b) positive face: the positive consistent self image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this sell image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants! #ertain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends!

"

Face
$ur notion of 'lace' is derived from that of %offman (1&'() (see #hapter 1*+) and from the ,nglish folk term, which ties lace up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or 'losing face'! -hus lace is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction! .n general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face! -hat is, normally everyone's face depends on everyone else's being maintained, and since
1 O

people can be e/pected to defend their faces if threatened, and in defending their own to threaten others' faces, it is in general in every participant's best interest to maintain each other's face, that is to act in ways that assure the other participants that the agent is heedful of the assumptions concerning face given under ( 1 ) above! 0! ! !+ Furthermore, while the content of face will differ in different cultures (what the e/act limits are to personal territories, and what the publicly relevant content of personality consists in), we are assuming that the mutual knowledge of members' public self image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal!

Face as wants
0! ! !+ We treat the aspects of face as basic wants, which every member knows every other member desires, and which in general it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy! .n other words, we take in Weberian terms the more strongly rational 1weck rational model of individual action, because the

. understood.n the special sense of 'wanting' that we develop. a system of practical reasoning must allow one to pass from ends to means and further means while preserving the 'satisfactoriness' of those means! 0! ! !+ Intrinsic FTAs %iven these assumptions of the universality of face and rationality. it includes the desire to be ratified. and in so doing put some pressure on : to do (or retrain from doing) the act >: (a) orders and re2uests (3 indicates that he wants . we can then arrive at positive face as here defined! -o give this some intuitive flesh. and its derivative forms of positive politeness. consider an e/ample! 8rs 7 is a fervent gardener! 8uch of her time and effort are e/pended on her roses! 3he is proud of her roses. or in the interests of efficiency! -herefore. a mere bow to face acts like a diplomatic declaration of good intentions) it is not in general re2uired that an actor fully satisfy another's face wants! 3econd. implying that they want 4ust what she has wanted and achieved! Rationality We here define 'rationality' as the application of a specific mode of reasoning 0! ! !+ which guarantees inferences from ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends! <ust as standard logics have a conse2uence relation that will take us from one proposition to another while preserving truth. wish ours looked like that9 :ow do you do i t . to do. namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and=or of the speaker! 7y 'act' we have in mind what is intended to be done by a verbal or non verbal communication. and routinely is.wertrational model (which would treat face respect as an un2uestionable value or norm) f ai l s to account for the fact that face respect is not an une2uivocal right! . are less obvious! -he reduction of a person's public self image or personality to a want that one's wants be desirable to at least some others can be 4ustified in this way! -he most salient aspect of a person's personality in interaction is what that personality re2uires of other interactants in particular. not 4ust in cases of social breakdown (affronterv) but also in cases of urgent cooperation.' . it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face. or refrain from doing.n particular. include: 1 -hose acts that predicate some future act > of :. and she likes others to admire them! 3he is gratified when visitors say 'What lovely roses) . the components of face given above may be restated as follows! We define: negative face: the want of everv 5competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others) positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others! 6egative face. with its derivative politeness of non imposition. ignored. is familiar as the formal politeness that the notion 'politeness' immediately con4ures up! 7ut positive face. liked or admired! -he ne/t step is to represent this desire as the want to have one's goals thought of as desirable! . some act >) (b) suggestions. by indicating (potentially) that the speaker (3) does not intend to avoid impeding :'s freedom of action. advice (3 indicates that he thinks : ought to (perhaps) do some act >) . lace can be. approved of. 4ust as one or more 'speech acts' can be assigned to an utterance! First distinction: kinds of face threatened We may make a first distinction between acts that threaten negative face and those that threaten positive face! -hose acts that primarily threaten the addressee's (:'s) negative face want.

beliefs or values) (b) contradictions or disagreements. threats. 3 creates a dangerous to face atmosphere) (c) blatant non cooperation in an activity e!g!. e !g !. wants. and in so doing put some pressure on : to accept or re4ect them. disruptively interrupt ing :'s talk. or some thing ? will instigate sanctions against : unless he does >) -hose acts that predicate some positive future act of 3 toward :. lust (3 indicates possible motivation for harming : or :'s goods) -hose acts that threaten the positive face want. hatred. and possibly to incur a debt: (a) offers (3 indicates that he wants : to commit himself to whether or not he wants 3 to do some act for :. or good news (boasting) about 3 (3 indicates that he is willing to cause distress to :. acts. religion. criticism. by indicating (poten tially) that the speaker does not care about the addressee's feelings. accusations. complaints and reprimands. anger. including those that are inap propriate in the conte/t (3 indicates that he doesn't value :'s values and doesn't fear :'s fears) (c) bringing of bad news about :. contempt or ridicule.>s intrinsically threaten both negative and positive face (e!g!. such wrongness being associated with disapproval) -hose that show that 3 doesn't care about (or is indifferent to) :'s positive face: (a) e/pressions of violent (out of control) emotions (3 gives : possible reason to fear him or be embarrassed by him) (b) irreverence. with : thereby incurring a possible debt) (b) promises (3 commits himself to a future act for :'s benefit) -hose acts that predicate some desire of 3 toward : or :'s goods. goods. politics. giving : reason to think that he may have to take action to protect the ob4ect of 3's desire. making non se2uiturs or showing non attention (3 indicates that he doesn't care about :'s negative or positive face wants) (f) use of address terms and other status marked identifications in initial encounters (3 may misidentify : in an offensive or embarrassing way. personal char acteristics. and=or doesn't care about :'s feelings) (d) raising of dangerously emotional or divisive topics. interruptions. intentionally or accidentally) " 6ote that there is an overlap in this classification of F->s. re2uests for personal information)! . warnings. insults (3 indicates that he doesn't like=want one or more of :'s wants. complaints. strong e/pressions of emotion. dares (3 indicates that he or someone. e/pressions of envy or admiration (3 indicates that he likes or would like something of :'s) (b) e/pression of strong (negative) emotions toward : e!g!. because some F. women's liberation (3 raises the possibility or like lihood of face threatening acts (such as the above) occurring) i !e!. challenges (3 indicates that he thinks : is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue. or give it to 3: (a) compliments. race. mention of taboo topics." @ (c) remindings (3 indicates that : should remember to do some >) (d) threats. etc! that in some important respect he doesn't want :'s wants include: 1 -hose that show that 3 has a negative evaluation of some aspect of :'s positive face: (a) e/pressions of disapproval.

t was nothing. we may distinguish between acts that primarily threaten H's face (as in the above list) and those that threaten primarily S's face! -o the e/tent that 3 and : are cooperating to maintain face. thus damaging his own face) or he may feel constrained to compliment : in turn) (c) breakdown of physical control over body.n the conte/t of the mutual vulnerability of face. or for ignorance of something that 3 is e/pected to know ( t ) emotion leakage. or by whether it is mainly positive face or negative face that is at stake) give rise to a four way grid which offers the possibility of cross classifying at least some of the above F->s! :owever. don't mention i t !') e/cuses (3 indicates that he thinks he had good reason to do. he may be discomfited himself) (f) unwilling promises and offers (3 commits himself to some future action although he doesn't want to) therefore. admissions of guilt or responsibility e!g!. he may cause embarrassment to :) if he pretends not to. such a cross classification has a comple/ relation to the ways in which F->s are handled! Strategies for doing FTAs . or at least cause a confrontation between :'s view of things and 3's view) (d) acceptance of offers (3 is constrained to accept a debt. self contra dicting (e) confessions. 3 will want to minimi1e the threat of his F->! -he possible sets of strategies may be schemati1ed e/haustively as in Figure 1&! in this schema. any rational agent will seek to avoid these face threatening acts. and the F-> thus conveys bad news) (b) acceptance of a compliment (3 may feel constrained to denigrate the ob4ect of :'s prior compliment. and (c) the want to maintain :'s face to any degree! Anless (b) is greater than (c). if his unwillingness shows. or will employ certain strategies to minimi1e the threat! . etc! (d) self humiliation. or fail to do. humbles his own face) (b) acceptance of :'s thanks or :'s apology (3 may feel constrained to minimi1e :'s debt or transgression. shuffling or cowering. the latter F->s also potentially threaten :'s face! F->s that are threatening to 3 include: 1 -hose that offend 3's negative face: (a) e/pressing thanks (3 accepts a debt. (b) the want to be efficient or urgent. for having done or not done an act. we have in mind the following definitions! >n actor goes on record in doing an act > if it is clear to participants what communicative intention led the actor to do > (i !e !. he may also offend :'s positive face) " -hose that directly damage 3's positive face: (a) apologies (3 indicates that he regrets doing a prior F->.Second distinction: threats to H's face versus threats to S's 3econd. stum bling or falling clown. bodily leakage. he will take into consideration the relative weightings of (at least) three wants: (a) the want to communicate the content of the F->. thereby damaging his own face to some degree especially if the apology is at the same time a confession with : learning about the trans gression through it. acting stupid. there is 4ust one unambiguously attributable intention with which witnesses . and to encroach upon :'s negative face) (e) responses to :'s faux pax ( i f 3 visibly notices a prior faux pas. an act which : has 4ust critici1ed) this may constitute in turn a criticism of :. as in '.n other words. non control of laughter or tears -hese two ways of classifying F->s (by whether 3's face or :'s face is mainly threatened.

would concur)! For instance. . for e/ample in circumstances where (a) 3 and : both 1. so that the meaning is to some degree negotiable! Boing an act aldly! without redress! invokes doing it in the most direct. then in our terminology . cannot be held to have committed myself to that intent (as you would discover were you to challenge me with '-his is the seventeenth time you've asked me to lend you money')! Cinguistic reali1ations of off record strategies include metaphor and irony. that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired. . '#ome in' or 'Bo sit down')) and (c) where 3 is vastly superior in power :. if an actor goes off record in doing >. as in offers. went 'on record' as promising to do so! . (hereby) promise to come tomorrow' and if partic ipants would concur that. but . 'the same' as he. formality and restraint. unambiguous and concise way possible (for e/ample. . for a re2uest. is essentially avoidance based. rhetorical 2uestions.t do the (TA Figure Possi"#e strate.n contrast. that is. or can enlist audience support to destroy :'s face without losing his own! "y redressive action we mean action that 'gives face' to the addressee. without redressive actio ! "a#d#$ o record %. 6ormally. 3 wants :'s wants ( e ! g ! .ative &o#ite ess -. then there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent! 3o. it . that 3 considers : to be in important respects. understatement. if 1 say '. (TA tacitly agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency) (b) where the danger to :'s face is very small.ies *or doi . suggestions that are clearly in :'s interest and do not re2uire great sacrifices of 3 (e!g!. his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self determination! 6egative politeness. &ositive &o#ite ess 'o the (TA ). re2uests. an F-> will be done in this wav only if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressee. say 'Bamn. clear. e. . 'o . or by the implication that 3 likes : so that the F-> doesn't mean a negative evaluation in general of :'s face! $egative politeness! on the other hand. thus. tautologies. all kinds of hints as to what a speaker wants or means to communicate. with in group rights and duties and e/pectations of reciprocity. a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked)! -he potential face threat of an act is minimi1ed in this case by the assurance that in general 3 wants at least some of :'s wants) for e/ample. or with such modifications or additions. may be intending to get you to lend me some cash. a friend. for instance. and that 3 in general recogni1es :'s face wants and himself wants them to be achieved! 3uch redressive action takes one of two forms. is orientated mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) :'s negative face. with attention to very restricted aspects of :'s . did unambiguously e/press the intention of committing myself to that future act. o** record with redressive actio +. ' m out of cash. forgot to go to the bank today'. saying 'Bo D9 ') ! -his we shall identify roughly with following the specifications of %rice's ma/ims of cooperation 0#hapter @+. the positive self image that he claims for himself! Eositive politeness is approach based) it 'anoints' the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects. that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the F-> by doing it in such a way. and reali1ations of negative politeness strategies consist in assurances that the speaker recogni1es and respects the addressee's negative face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee's freedom of action! :ence negative politeness is characteri1ed by self effacement. without doing so directly. by treating him as a member of an in group. in saying that. depending on which aspect of face (negative or positive) is being stressed! #ositive politeness is orientated toward the positive face of :.

t's hot in here' and you say '$h.n this latter case. however. are fully conventionali1ed in . ' l l open the window then9'. once fully conventionali1ed as a way of doing that F-> it is no longer off record! -hus many indirect re2uests. if : chooses to pick up and respond to the potentially threatening interpretation of the act. with linguistic and non linguistic deference. either by referring (indi rectly) to the reciprocity and on going relationship between the addressee and himself (as in the reference to a pseudo prior agreement with then in ':ow about a cookie. the fact that the speaker bothers to phrase his F-> in a conventionally indirect way shows that he is aware of and honours the negative face wants of :! Factors influencing the choice of strategies 0! ! !+ . avoid the potential threat of ordering you around! For going on record with positive politeness.' would be read as a re2uest by all participants) there is no longer a viable alternative interpretation of the utterance e/cept in very special circumstances)! >nd between any two (or more) individuals.self image. '#an you pass the salt. for e/ample. centring on his want to be unimpeded! Face threatening acts are redressed with apologies for interfering or transgressing. permitting him to feel that his response is not coerced! -here is a natural tension in negative politeness. avoiding the danger of being seen to be a manipulator) he can avoid the danger of being misunderstood) and he can have the opportunity to pay back in face whatever he potentially takes away by the F->! 7y going off record. with an inclusive 'we'. and (b) the desire to go off record to avoid imposing! > compromise is reached in conventionali%ed indirectness! for whatever the indirect mechanism used to do an F->.nglish so that they are on record (e!g!. he can give (non overtlv) the addressee an opportunity to be seen to care for 3 (and thus he can test :'s feelings towards him)! . with the assertion of mutual friendship. derived on a priori grounds! 7y going on record. any utterance may become conventionali1ed and therefore on record. with impersonali1ing mechanisms (such as passives) that distance 3 and : from the act. say '. . may lose much of its sting indeed. and the relevant circumstances are those in which one of these payoffs would be more advantageous than any other! We consider these in turn ? first the intrinsic payoffs and then the relevant circumstances and then relate the two! The payoffs: a priori considerations :ere we present a fairly complete list of the payoffs associated with each of the strategies. as is the case with passwords and codes! > purely conventional 'out' works as redressive action in negative politeness because it pays a token bow to the negative face wants of the addressee! -hat is. a speaker can minimi1e the face threatening aspects of an act by assuring the addressee that 3 considers himself to be 'of the same kind'. with hedges on the illocutionarv force of the act. then') or by including the addressee and himself e2ually as participants in or as benefitors from the re2uest or offer (for e/ample.n this section we argue that any rational agent will tend to choose the same genus of strategy under the same conditions that is. a face saving line of escape. you may get credit for being generous and cooperative. between (a) $ 1 ' the desire to go on record as a prere2uisite to being seen to pay face. a speaker can potentially get any of the following advantages: he can enlist public pressure against the addressee or in support of himself) he can get credit for honesty. that he likes him and wants his wants! -hus a criticism. in the assumption of a friendly conte/t it often becomes a game and possibly even a compliment (as between opposite se/ed teenagers)! >nother possible payoff is that 3 can avoid or minimi1e the debt implications of F->s such as re2uests and offers. as in 'Cet's get on with dinner' from the husband glued to the -F)! . if . on the other hand. he can give a 'gift' to the original speaker! -hus. a speaker can profit in the following ways: he can get credit for being tactful. for indicating that he trusts the addressee) he can get credit for outspokenness. non coercive) he can run less risk of his act entering the 'gossip biography' that others keep of him) and he can avoid responsibilitv for the potentially face damaging interpretation! Furthermore. make the same moves as any other would make under the circumstances! -his is by virtue of the fact that the particular strategies intrinsically afford certain payoffs or advantages. and . and with other softening mechanisms that give the addressee an 'out'.

in some respect (b) negative politeness to satisfy :'s negative face. and avoid the threat (or the potential face loss) of advancing familiarity towards the addressee) he can give a real 'out' to the addressee (for e/ample. is simply that 3 avoids offending : at all with this particular F->! $f course 3 also fails to achieve his desired communication. assumed to be mutually assumed. 'Bon't do the F->'. these payoffs may be simplified to the following summary) $n record payoffs: (a) clarity. thereby minimi1ing the mutual face loss incurred if : has to say '6o')) and he can give conventional 'outs' to the addressee as opposed to real 'outs'. we will ignore it in our discussion henceforth! For our purpose. or that the act is not an F-> at all) Elus redress payoff: 3 has the opportunity to give face (a) positive politeness to satisfy :'s positive face. to some degree $ff record payoffs: (a) (b) 3 can satisfy negative face to a degree greater than that afforded by the negative politeness strategy 3 can avoid the inescapable accountability. that is. thereby indicating that he has the other person's face wants in mind! Finally. and as there are naturally no interesting linguistic refle/es of this last ditch strategy. and we make the argument in as strong a form as our ethnographic data will allow! . a speaker can benefit in the following ways: he can pay respect. that on record strategies entail! The circumstances: sociological varia les . etc!.For going on record with negative politeness. the payoff for the fifth strategic choice. to the addressee in return for the F->. the calculations that members actually seem to make) involves the following factors in many and perhaps all cultures: 1 " @ -he 'social distance' (B) of 3 and : (a symmetric relation)! -he relative 'power' (F) of 3 and : (an asymmetric relation)! -he absolute ranking (H) of impositions in the particular culture! >n immediate clarification is in order! We are interested in B. at least within certain limits! $ur argument here has an empirical basis. distance. and can thereby avoid incurring (or can thereby lessen) a future debt) he can maintain social distance. and H only to the e/tent that the actors think it is mutual knowledge between them that these variables have some particular values! -hus these are not intended as sociologists' ratings of actual power. deference. E.n this section we argue that the assessment of the seriousness of an F-> (that is. perspicuousness (b) demonstrable non manipulativeness 7ald on record (non redressed) payoff: efficiency (3 can claim that other things are more important than face. the responsibility for his action. with a re2uest or an offer. pretend to offer an escape route without really doing so. by making it clear that he doesn't reallv e/pect : to say 'Ges' unless he wants to. but only as actors' assumptions of such ratings.

a witch. an F-> will be communicated! First. and H v is a value that measures the degree to which the F-> > is rated an imposition in that culture! We assume that each of these values can be measured on a scale of 1 to n. the function must capture the fact that all three dimensions F. a thug.Computing the weightiness of an FTA For each F->.n general there are two sources of E.n most cases an individual's power is drawn from both these sources.3) J H v where W G is the numerical value that measures the weightiness of the F-> > . or is a prince. in a proportion relative to the nature of the F->! -hus apologies and confessions are essentially threats to 3's face (as we have seen). other things being e2ual. E(:. B(3.3) rnay be assessed as being great because : is elo2uent and influential. even the rank order is sub4ect to a set of operations that shuffles the impositions according to whether actors have specific rights or obligations to perform the act.n many cases (but not all). and whether actors are known to actually en joy being imposed upon in some way! 3o an outline of the rankings of negative face impositions for a particular domain of F->s in a particular culture invokes a comple/ description like the following: 1 (a) rank order of impositions re2uiring services (b) rank order of impositions re2uiring goods . E(:.3) is a measure of the power that : has over 3. and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which. the way in which the seriousness of a particular F . we must clarify our intent! 7y B and E we intend very general pan cultural social dimensions which nevertheless probably have 'emic' correlates! We are not here interested in what factors are compounded to estimate these comple/ parameters) such factors are certainly culture specific! For instance.3) is the degree to which : can impose his own plans and his own self evaluation (face) at the e/pense of 3's plans and self evaluation! . whether they have specific reasons (ritual or physical) for not performing them. or in what proportion! 3o let us say that the weightiness of an F-> is calculated thus: W v I B(3. but we allow that in fact some more comple/ composition of values may be involved! .:) J E(:. generally. E(:.:) as great because : speaks another dialect or language.n any case. as well as the e/pression of regard and other face payments)! -hese intra culturally defined costings of impositions on an individual's preserve are in general constant only in their rank order from one situation to another! :owever. the reciprocal giving and receiving of positive face! E is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power. as discussed below! H is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent's wants of self determination or of approval (his negative and positive face wants)! . while re2uests and offers are likely to threaten the face of both participants! :owever. the seriousness or weightiness of a particular F-> x is compounded of both risk to 3's face and risk to :'s lace. or is thought to overlap them! -he refle/ of a great E differential is perhaps archetypally 'deference'. where n is some small number! $ur formula assumes that the function that assigns a value to W v on the basis of the three social parameters does so on a simple summative basis! 3uch an assumption seems to work surprisingly well. or lives in the ne/t valley. it is based on an assessment of the fre2uency of interaction and the kinds of material or non material goods (including face) e/changed between 3 and : (or parties representing 3 or :.:) is the value that measures the social distance between 3 and :. or a priest) B(3. and advice and orders are basically threats to :'s face. and H contribute to the seriousness of an F->. roughly in Weber's sense! -hat is. either of which may be authori1ed or unauthori1ed ? material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others.n general there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically iden tifiable for negative face F->s: a ranking of impositions in proportion to the e/penditure (a) of services (including the provision of time) and (b) of goods (including non material goods like information. or is not a kinsman! 8ore specifically. or for whom 3 and : are representatives)! >n important part of the assessment of B will usually be measures of social distance based on stable social attributes! -he refle/ of social closeness is. B. by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others)! .> is weighed seems to be neutral as to whether it is 3's or :'s face that is threatened. we can describe these factors as follows! B is a symmetric social dimension of similarity=difference within which 3 and : stand for the purposes of this act! .

svmpathy with :) .nclude both 3 and : in the activity %ive (or ask for) reasons >ssume or assert reciprocity %ive gifts to Fl (goods. cooperation) $egative politeness strategies: 7e direct=conventionally indirect Kuestion. attend to F. %ive deference . which can be re ranked in particular circumstances. or 'poise'! We associate with each of these variables B. svmpathy. 'niceness'. the weightiness of the F-> diminishes! $ne interesting side effect of this numerical representation is that it can describe these intuitive facts: the threshold value of risk which triggers the choice of another strategy is a constant. and reasons why the actor couldn't (easily) do them For F->s against positive face. 'charm'. promise 7e optimistic . morally. and the circumstances in which they vary. based on the discrepancy between :'s own desired self image and that presented (blatantly or tacitly) in the F->! -here will be cultural rankings of aspects of positive face (for e/ample.ntensify interest to : Ase in group identity markers 3eek agreement >void disagreement Eresuppose=raise=assert common ground <oke >ssert or presuppose 3's knowledge of and concern for :'s wants $ffer. independent of the way in which the value is composed and assessed! -hus one goes off record where an imposition is small but relative 3 : distance and :'s power are great. hedge 7e pessimistic 8inimise the si1e of imposition on . goods) . (his=her interests. is considered to be graced with 'tact'. needs. approval. 'beauty'. wants." Functions on (1): (a) the lessening of certain impositions on a given actor determined by the obligation (legally. F.. 'generosity'). a value from 1 to n assigned by an actor in particular circumstances! 6o special substantial claim is intended) the valuation simply represents the way in which (for instance) as 3's power over : increases. etc!) to do the act >) and also by the en4oyment that the actor gets out of performing the re2uired act (b) the increasing of certain impositions determined by reasons why the actor shouldn't do them. understanding. by virtue of employment. the ranking involves an assessment of the amount of 'pain' given to :'s face. and H. and also where : is an intimate e2ual of 3's but the imposition is very great! &ditors' appendi': list of politeness strategies Eositive politeness strategies: 6otice./aggerate (interest. 'success'. 4ust as can negative face rankings! >nd there are personal (idiosyncratic) functions on these rankings) some people ob4ect to certain kinds of F->s more than others! > person who is skilled at assessing such rankings.

mpersonalise 3 and A: avoid pronouns . :! (1&'() $nteraction !itual. or as not indebting : (ff)record strategies: -hose violating %rice's (conversational ma/ims. 6ew Gork: >nchor 7ooks! . use ellipsis Reference %offman.>pologise . see #hapter @! iolate maxim of !elevance %ive hints=clues %ive association clues Eresuppose iolate maxim of "uality Anderstate $verstate Ase tautologies Ase contradictions 7e ironic Ase metaphors Ase rhetorical 2uestions iolate maxim of #anner 7e ambiguous 7e vague $ver generalise Bisplace : 7e incomplete.and 'you' 3tate the F 1 > as a general rule 6ominalise %o on record as incurring) a debt.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful