Disagreements Face And Politeness

April 9, 2021

The theory of courtesy proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson focuses on the notion of courtesy, which is interpreted as an effort to correct an affront to a person`s self-esteem by effectively claiming positive social values in social interactions. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Such self-esteem is called the sociological concept of the face (as in “Save face” or “losing face”) to discuss courtesy as a response, to mitigate or avoid facial acts, such as requests or insults. Notable elements of the theory include positive and negative faces, threat actions, FTAs, strategies for implementing free trade agreements, and factors that influence the choice of strategies; described below. The last courtesy strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is indirect strategy; This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to impose. The strategy of expressing something general or anything other than the true meaning of the spokesperson, and relies on the listener`s interpretation to communicate the purpose of the spokesperson. [23] [24] The spokesperson may be recognized for not imposing on the handset, or give the listener a chance to be helpful and generous. [25] [17] This strategy relies heavily on pragmatists to give the desired meaning while using semantic meaning to avoid facial insurrlations (see below, strategy selection). A person may have a model or type of communication that he or she has usually used in the past, which others consider threatening or vice versa. Mood can also lead to how they choose to respond to a situation regardless of courtesy strategies.

[38] Threats to the negative face of denial vary depending on the dimensions of capacity and focus. Focusing away from the requirement allows denial to maintain autonomy while maintaining the relationship; This leads to fewer threats if denial has a high capacity, because it may choose to comply with it or not. [19] The applicant`s focus would threaten their relationship with the applicant and his long-term autonomy (the applicant may not be willing to meet future requirements if roles are reversed); However, if the denial has a low capacity, the focus on the caller can effectively reduce the threats to the negative face by showing that he is not able to do so, even if he wanted to. [19] In his study of the rejection of applications, Johnson et al., assert that refusals can threaten both the positive and negative face of denial (the person who received a request for service) and the positive face of the applicant (the person seeking a favour). Barriers or reasons for not executing a person`s application may vary “in three dimensions: willingness to prepare, inability to be able to, and focus away from the applicant.” [19] Linguists Ute Fischer and Judith Orasanu conducted a study with a group of captains and first officers.