VII. 面子论Face Theory.ppt

Face Theory Face Theory In 1978, Brown and Levinson put forward Face Theory in Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. The notion of face is derived from that of Goffman (1967) and from the English folk term, which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or losing face. Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. Stephen C. Levinson Status: Director of The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Germany-based) Group Affiliation: Language and Cognition Group Email: Stephen.Levinsonmpi.nl Professional background: Linguistics, anthropology, cognitive anthropologyPenelope Brown Phone: +31 24 352 1441 Fax: +31 24 3521213 E-mail: pbrownmpi.nl Status: researcher Group affiliation: Acquisition Group Professional background: Linguistic Anthropology, Language Acquisition, Mayan（玛雅语） Indians（印第安人） In their view, politeness was the various rational behaviors of a Model Person (MP) to satisfy his face wants. A Model Person has two special properties rationality and face. Rationality: the application of a specific mode of reasoning-what Aristotle(1969) called practical reasoning which guarantees inferences from ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends.1. Face Face is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. l Face consists of two related aspects: Negative face Positive faceBrown & Levinson 1987: 61Negative face(a) Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves（个人领地）, rights to non-distraction（不被干扰） i.e. to the freedom of action and freedom from impositionl Negative face refers to an individuals right of freedom of action and his/her need not to be imposed upon by others.Brown & Levinson 1987: 61Positive face(b) Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactantsl Positive face represents an individuals desire to be accepted and liked by others. Negative face positive faceBrown & Levinson 1987: 61 2. Face- threatening Acts2.1 Definition A speech act presenting a threat to the hearers expectation regarding his self-image is described as face threatening act (FTA). The opposite of the FTA is face -saving act (FSA),which is performed by the speaker to lessen the threat if the speaker interprets the action as threatening the hearers face. Speech acts as FTAs:Representatives (assertives) Directives (impositives) requests, commands, adviceExpressives criticisms, blamesCommissives promises, refusalsDeclarations dismissals, namingFace enhancing acts (FEAs) Expressives praising, complimenting 2.2 Three social varibles for weightiness of FTAl Brown and Levinson think that many speech acts essentially pose threats to people face, either to speakers face or to hearers face. l So there is a question as to the calculation of the weightiness of an FTA. lAccording to Brown and Levinson, the calculation of the weightiness of an FTA involves the following three factors: (i) the social distance(D) of S and H (a symmetric relation)(ii) the relative power (P) of S and H (an asymmetric relation)(iii) the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture.l The strength of an FTA is measured by adding together the three variables D, P and R on the basis of which the amount of face work needed or the degree of politeness required can be worked out. lThe calculating formula of the weightiness of an FTA as follows: WX = D(S, H) + P(H, S) + RXl WX is the numerial value that measures the weightiness of the FTA; l D(S,H) is thr value that measures the social distance between the speaker and the hearer; l P(H,S) is a measure of the power that the hearer has over the speaker; l RX is a value that measures the degree to which the FTA is rated an imposition in that culture.l D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference. It is the degree of familiarity and solidarity the speaker and the hearer share .l P is “an asymmetric social dimension of relative power,” and it involves the degree to which the hearer can impose his will on the speaker. l R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an MPs wants of self-determination or of approval(his negative-and positive-face wants). lImpositions are basically ranked according to the expenditure of the hearer services (including the provision of time) and/or goods (including non-material goods like information and the expression of regard and other face wants)Lets look at some examples: (1) A1: Excuse me, would you by the chance have the time? A2: Got the time, mate? lThis example concerns the D variable; the relative power of the speaker and the hearer (P variable) is more or less equ。