Politeness Theory

Politeness theory explains how small variations in how we say things are linked to broader features of social relationships and social contexts. This helps us understand how individuals create and interpret messages and also offers an account for speech communities' use of language.

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson are sociolinguists who proposed politeness theory in 1978 based on their observations of similar patterns of language forms in three different cultures. They noticed that we frequently depart from the most direct, efficient way of performing some [Page 755]action. For example, I could request a drink by saying, “Get me a glass of water,” but I might choose, instead, to say something like “Sweetie, some water?” or “Could I trouble you for a little drink, please?” or even “I sure am parched!” A similar range of options for making requests was found among British speakers of English, Indian speakers of Tamil, and Mexican speakers of Tzeltal, leading Brown and Levinson to speculate that some cross-cultural feature of social life motivated these forms. They suggested face was the social force behind these language forms.

Erving Goffman defined face as the publicly approved identity we claim in a particular interaction. Unlike a self-image grounded in internal cognition or a role granted by the social structure, face is the public performance of our identity. Our actions convey who we are trying to be and what we are trying to do; to be successful, others' actions must not invalidate our persona. So, for example, when one enacts professor in a class, this person's actions and those of the students need to be consistent with that identity. A professor could lose face if he or she is not prepared to give a lecture or lead a discussion. Students could threaten the professor's face if they ignore attempts to lead the class or openly challenge the professor's knowledge, authority, or competence. This person is still the professor, but he or she would have lost face in an attempt to act out the self-image and fulfill this social role.

Goffman differentiated two ways to show honor for another's face: We might enthusiastically approach her or him and show approval, or we might maintain a respectful distance to show deference. Brown and Levinson adapted this distinction into two kinds of face wants. Positive face includes our desire to have others in an interaction approve our identity and validate it as a common enterprise. Returning to the professor example, positive face wants are met when students treat the professor as interesting, knowledgeable, fair, and eager to help them learn. In contrast, negative face is our wish not to be imposed upon in ways that disrespect our identity. In a professor identity, students honor negative face by respecting time, honoring personal boundaries, and avoiding unreasonable requests. Positive face is about solidarity, whereas negative face is about respect.

Many ordinary actions have the potential to be face threatening acts (FTAs). For example, criticizing or disagreeing threatens positive face, whereas making requests or enforcing obligations threatens negative face. Because we all have face wants and because they may only be granted in interaction with others, there is usually a cooperative motivation to honor one another's face (individuals or situations with face threat as a goal are the exception in this view of the social world). Avoiding any FT A would honor face, but this would severely inhibit our ability to act! Politeness theory enumerates various strategies for committing FTAs.

...