Brown and Levinson (1987) define 'face' as "the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself/herself"(p.311). While Goffman define 'face' as "positive social value that a person claims for himself" (Pinker, 2007, p.380). In general, people help each other in maintaining face through interaction, because they depend on each other. Furthermore, the content of face differs in different cultures because of the difference of personalities (pp.311-12), Brown and Levinson assume that "the mutual knowledge of members' public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal"
Although the politeness mainly is considered in cross-cultural and interlanguage studies as a main point in indirect speech acts, but this theory is still developing. Therefore, it seems that there is necessity to a short description of the most influential models of politeness theory which was adopted as a framework theory in the current research. Leech’s Politeness Principle (1983) may be seen as a continuation of Grice’s Cooperative Principle in the way it provided a model of politeness within conversation. While in contrast to Grice, Leech attempted to explain, what the real means of indirect speech act in people’s interactions . Since, he proposed that some independent variables “social distance, authority, costs and benefits of an act”
2.3. Lakoff’s rules of politeness Robin Tolmach Lakoff is a linguist who is famous from her work ‘Language and Woman’s Place’, and in this part of the chapter his rules of politeness will be presented. She was analyzing, the Co-operative Principles by Grice, which have been described in the previous part. Moreover, Lakoff claims that Grice’s maxims are too general. The words “relevance” and “amount of information” used by Grice in his theory, needs a better explanation.
Face is an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes- albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good for himself” (Goffma,1967, p. 5). This means that everyone has self-public image which is related to emotional and social sense of self and expects other people to recognize. This image can be damaged through interaction with others. Face has two main aspects: Positive face and negative
Goffman believed that speakers maintain face through face-work, which is “actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face. Face-work serves to counteract incidents” (Goffman, 1967: 12). In other words, when an action threatens face, the speaker uses face saving practices to balance his embarrassment and hence the embarrassment that he and others might have over his embarrassment. These face saving practices often become habitual and standardized; each person, group, and society have their own repertoire of practices. Interactants make their selection of possible practices, but it does not mean that they are identical for every individual, group, or society.
Moreover, he observes, politeness is culturally bounded as every culture possesses its own concept and degrees of politeness in language use. Leech, however, decides to consider politeness not as inherently connected with these concepts, but rather as
Appiah accepts the importance of relationships and identities in constituting our individuality and criticizes the schizophrenic obsession with choice that can be found among existentialist thinkers. He defines collective identity as "the collective dimensions of our individual identities" -- and these collective dimensions of our individual identities "are
It was noted by some authors, e.g. R. Watts, and K. Ehlich (1992), Wilamová (2003), that politeness research has submitted hardly any explicit definitions of the term itself. The main direction is towards the function of politeness in overseeing interpersonal relations. The perspective expressed by Watts, and Ehlich (1992) is especially illuminating in revealing the way in which politeness is dealt with by theorists: .... the term “politeness” itself is either not explicitly defined at all or else taken to be a consequence of rational social goals such as maximizing the benefit to self and other, minimizing the face-threatening nature of a social act, displaying adequate proficiency in the accepted standards of social etiquette, avoiding conflict, making sure that the social interaction runs smoothly, etc. Linguistic politeness is then taken to be the various forms of language structure and usage which allow the members of a socio-cultural group to achieve these goals.
Otherwise, in an attempt to simplify or idealize the language they result in creating a artificial kind of communication, thereby depriving the learners of contextual indexes such as dialect, social relationship between the participants, or social function/definition of the communicative situation, which the community make or use in everyday social encounters. The pedagogic consequence which results from this is that the best way to contextualize language is simply to use real instances of language use, in which the full Potential of language can be appreciated by looking at its social
Judgment (J) vs Perception (P). The judgement-perception preferences were devised by Briggs and Myers to indicate if rational or irrational judgments are dominant after a person is interacting alongside the environment. The judgmental person uses a combination of thinking and feelings after making decision, whereas the understanding person uses the sensing and intuition processes. Because the MBTI is a theory of kinds, a person can have merely one preference. Even though it is probable for people to develop the complimentary style (an introvert, for example, might discover to be extra extroverted after articulating in groups) the main preference will always law the person 's personality.