Weightiness of face-threatening acts

32 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

33 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

the interlocutors. Brown and Levinson (1987:77) classify ranks of imposition into two grades: a ranking of impositions in proportion to the expenditure (a) of services (…) and (b) of goods (…). Scollon and Scollon distinguish between routine daily business activities and unusual actions (1995:43). If a man talks to his boss about a routine business matter, a routine activity is carried out, and its face strategy is quite predictable. However, when a person approaches his boss to ask for a promotion, which is unusual, a much more indirect strategy is used (1995: 43). Some linguists include rights and obligations in imposition, whereas some do not (Fukushima, 2000:

84). Imposition decreases when S has a right to make and H an obligation to comply with a request. If the participants have no rights or obligations to make or comply with the request, imposition increases. Rights and obligations are included in Brown and Levinson’s definition of imposition (1987: 77).

Imposition is influenced by situational reasonableness. It is situationally reasonable to ask for a dime when standing beside a telephone booth, but unreasonable to ask for a dime in the middle of a street for no apparent reason (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 79).

Reasonableness diminishes imposition, whereas unreasonableness increases imposition (Fukushima, 2000: 89). Situational reasonableness is sometimes associated with standard situations. House (1989: 106) distinguishes between standard situations and non-standard situations. In standard situations, H has a high obligation to comply with the request, S a strong right to make the request, and the degree of difficulty in performing the requested act is low. Non-standard situation is just the opposite. In standard situations, imperative requests occur relatively frequently, and they are apparently socially licensed. A number of other factors also influence the rank of imposition. In different cultures, the same request may be perceived in markedly different ways in terms of the degree of difficulty in performing the act and the participants’ rights and obligations to make and comply with the request (House, 2005). Employment factors lessen the degree of imposition, which is also decreased when the requested act is to comply with the law or regulations.

34 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

2.3.2.2. Power

Power is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987: 77) as “the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self evaluation (face) at the expense of S’s plan and self-evaluation”. In other words, power is the strength to control. Brown and Levinson point out that “the reflex of a great P differential is perhaps archetypally

‘deference’ ” (1987:77), and people in general are much more indirect towards others who enjoy higher social status and tend to be more direct towards people who have lower social status. Scollon and Scollon (1995: 45-46) observe three politeness systems consisting of two variables: power and social distance. The first is the deference politeness system, in which the participants are equal but distant. The second is the solidarity politeness system, in which the participants are equal and close. The third is the hierarchical politeness system, in which the participants are unequal and can be either distant or close. In international business communication, the hierarchical politeness system is common when the demand relation is asymmetrical. Scollon and Scollon (1995: 46) claim that in hierarchical politeness system the superior will use positive politeness strategies and the subordinate negative politeness strategies, i.e. be indirect, as is shown in the following examples:

(a) Excuse me sir, would it be all right if I smoke?

(b) Mind if I smoke?

(a) is more likely to be said by an employee to his/her boss, and (b) by the boss to his/her employee, since (a) is more indirect and deferent while (b) is more direct due to its simplicity (Levinson, 2000: 33). A number of power bases are identified:

physical strength, wealth, education, membership in particular families, or alliance, etc. (Brown & Gilman, 1960: 155; Scollon & Scollon, 1995: 46). Brown and Levinson maintain that the value of power is attached not to individuals but to roles or role-sets (1987: 78). Connor (1999: 125) observes that brokers use more polite and more correct language when assuming the seller role than when they assume the buyer role.

35 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

2.3.2.3. Social Distance

Social distance is defined by Brown and Levinson (1987: 76 - 77) as “a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purposes of this act”, and it is frequently accessed by the frequency of interaction between S and H. Distance is described by Thomas as (1995: 128):

If you feel close to someone, because that person is related to you, or you know him or her well or are similar in terms of age, social class, occupation, sex, ethnicity, etc., you feel less need to employ indirectness in, say, making a request than you would if you were making the same request to a complete stranger.

This definition suggests that directness may signify closer social distance. Holmes suggests that directness rises when social distance is shortened, and decreases when social distance is increased (1992: 290). Social distance has been mainly defined by others in the following ways:

• Familiarity or closeness (Fukushima, 2000)

• Frequency of contact (Slugoski & Turnbull, 1988)

• Familiarity or how well people know each other (Holmes, 1990)

In American English, mutual exchange of first names can claim solidarity. Switch from the use of mutual title plus last name to mutual first name denotes shortened distance between the interactants (Fasold, 1990: 8). Social distance between speakers and hearers may change from moment to moment. A case in point is shrinking and widening distance between sellers and buyers during negotiation due to conflicting desires (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 231). Another example is given by Brown and Gilman (1960: 261). Social distance between French mountaineers who are not close at the bottom of the mountain shortens a great deal at a certain altitude where their forms of address switch from V to T, since their lives hang by a single thread at that point.

36 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

2.3.2.4. Power, Distance and Imposition as Independent Variables

According to Brown and Levinson’s theory, the three parameters in the weightiness formula are related (1987: 78-81). Imposition diminishes when S’s power is greater than H’s. When distance and H’s power are greater, imposition increases, and an Off-record strategy will be used even when imposition is small. An Off-Off-record strategy will be chosen when imposition is very great even when S and H are intimates. If power (H over S), distance and imposition are all small, a more direct strategy will be applied. People are graced with charm and are considered tactful if they are skilled at assessing the proportions of the three parameters in communicative interaction and the circumstances in which they vary (1987: 78). Brown and Levinson claim that power, distance and imposition are not the only elements deciding the degree of weightiness of an FTA, but that they subsume all other factors that have a principled effect on such assessment.

2.3.2.5. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s Theory

Brown and Levinson’s theory is criticized mainly for its over-generalization of British norms and neglect of cultural differences. Their claim “the bigger the face threat, the more indirect the strategy becomes” is disagreed by most linguists. Eelen maintains that culture plays a determinant role in the field of politeness (2001, ch. 5).

In most cultures of European origin, directness is viewed as a virtue and indirectness considered a waste of time for H (House, 2005). Nonetheless, in most Asian cultures such as China and Japan, directness is considered rude and offensive (Victor, 1992:139). This issue is dealt with by Leech (1983), who argues that different cultures have different ways of expressing politeness.

The Chinese linguist Gu (1990) disagrees with Brown and Levinson on the notion of negative face. He points out that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory cannot account for Chinese politeness phenomena, because impeding the freedom to act does not threaten Chinese negative face, but rather the failure to live up to what is claimed by the person and what the person has done is likely to incur ill fame or reputation

37 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

(Gu, 1990: 242). Gu introduces four unique Chinese politeness maxims; two of them are relevant to this dissertation. The first is the Self-denigration Maxim, which consists of two notions: denigrating oneself and honoring other. A case in point is introducing-each-other interaction, in which one denigrates oneself and elevates other. The second maxim unique to Chinese is the Address Maxim, which requires the interactants to use appropriate terms of address based on the notion of respectfulness and attitudinal warmth.

Ide (1989), another Eastern linguist, objects to Brown and Levinson’s claim that the selection of a linguistic strategy is motivated by the weightiness of an FTA, and that the selection of linguistic strategies is volitional, i.e., active, in all languages. She (1989: 230) states that “The practice of polite behavior according to social conventions is known as walimae in Japanese. To behave according to wakimae is to show verbally and non-verbally one’s sense of place or role in a given situation according to social conventions”. She suggests that in Japanese it is discernment (walimae) rather than face that underlies politeness, and the choice of linguistic strategies is selected according to the speaker’s social obligations in conformity to his/her ascribed roles and positions in relation to the hearer’s. Eelen (2001:21) agrees with Ide and states that “what is socially appropriate depends on the speaker’s social position (in relation to hearer)”.

Radically deviating from Brown and Levinson, Watts (2005) distinguishes politeness into politic verbal behavior and politeness. In his theory, many of the strategies of positive and negative politeness suggested by Brown and Levinson are understood as politic behavior, or socio-culturally appropriate behavior. He states that politeness is a subset of politic behavior that makes other people have a better opinion of oneself, which is more than merely politic (2005: 51). Watts argues that many of the so-called polite linguistic strategies such as indirect speech acts and honorifics “do not in themselves constitute politeness” (2005: 56). Inappropriate use may be interpreted as non-politic behavior. These strategies become polite only “if they go beyond their normal usage as socio-culturally constrained forms of politic behavior” (2005: 52).

38 Chapter 2. Theoretical Background

Although every one criticizes Brown and Levinson’s model, every one is still working with their framework. This phenomenon might be accounted for by House (2005), who proposes a model of politeness operating on four levels: 1) a biological, psycho-social level, 2) a philosophical level, 3) a level of culture-specific norms of behavior, and 4) a level of linguistic phenomena. According to this model, all cultures share certain basic politeness principles due to the same human nature, while possibly differ in the surface forms of politeness due to different cultural values and languages. Brown and Levinson’s “universal stance can be upheld if it refers to levels 1 and 2 only” (House, 2005: 18). Relating to directness, some cultures value directness and some indirectness. As such, the claimed universal phenomenon of politeness – the more indirect the strategy, the more polite – does not hold. Despite all these critiques, Brown and Levinson’s theory is a good starting point to investigate politeness. Their weightiness formula will be used in this dissertation to examine how varying levels of directness are used to accomplish business requests.