Vista previa parcial del texto
¡Descarga pragmatica inglesa y más Apuntes en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity!
di 320 ERVING GOFFMAN other rules ad understandings, Similarly,. the human nature of a particular set of persons may be specially designed for the special kind of undertakings án which they participate, but still each of these persons must have within him something of the balance of characteristics required of a usable partick pant in any ritually organized system of social activity. Chapter 19. "Ta de usorsler A Conplosal e 4993 CON Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson POLITENESS: SOME UNIVERSALS IN LANGUAGE USAGE Assumptions: properties of interactants We make the following assumptions: that all competent adult members of a society have (and know cach other to have): 1 “Face”, thc public selíimage that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a) negativo face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction -- 1,e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition (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 interactants. 2 Certain rational capacitics, in particular consistent modes of reasoning Iront ends to the means that will achieve Urose ends, Face Our notion of ace? is derived from that of Goffiman (1967; [sce Chapter 18) and from the English folk term, which tics face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or losing lace”. Thus face is something that is Source: Penclope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Paliteness: Some Univarsals in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, NS E cc 322 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN C. LEVINSON maintained, or enhanced, and n. Jn general, people cooperate intaining face in interaction, such “Chat is, normally dico emotionally invested, and that can be lost, must be constantly attended to in interactio (end assume cach other's cooperation) in mal cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. ne else's being maintained, and everyonis face depends on everyon iy faces ¡Fabreatened, and in defending Lán every participants best people can bo expected to defend the their own to threaten others faces, it is in gencral st to maintain cach other's face, that is to act in ways that assure the agent is heedful ol the assumptions concerning inter other participants that (he lace given únder (1) above. Ll urthermoro, while (he content of lace (what the exact límits are to personal territories, vant content of personality consists in), we are knowledge of members” public selfsimago or Éaco, to orient oneself to it ín interaction, are universal. will difler in diflerent cultures and what thc publicly re assuming that the mutual and the social necessity Face as wants [. . .] We treat the aspects of face as basic wants, which every member knows and which in general it is in the interests of every member to partially satisfy. ln other words, we take in Weberian terms the more strongly rational aweckrational model of individual action, because the wertrational model (which would treat face respect as an unguestionable vávue or norm) fails to account for the fact that face respect is not an unequiv- ocal right. In particular, a merce bow to face acts like a diplomatie declaration of good intentions; it is not in general required that an actor fully saisty onother's face wants. Second, face can be, and routincly is, ignored, not just in cases of social breakdowa Gafírontery) but also in cases of urgent cooperation, or in the interests of efficiency. “Therefore, the components of face given abov every other member desires, + may be restated as follows. We defines negative lace: the want of every “competent adult member” that his actions be unimpeded by others; positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desir able to at least some others. Negative face, with jts derivative politeness of mon-imposition, is familiar as the formal politeness that the notion *politeness” immediately conjures Up. But positive face, and its derivative forms of positive politeness, ate less POLITENESS 323 obvious. The reduction ol a person's public sell'image or personality 4 want that one's wants be desirable to at least some others can be ptiñod in this way. The most salient aspect of a person's personality in interacon is what that personality requires of other interactants — in particular, it indus e desie£ be sti, undertond, approved ol, ed or adenired a da 40 represent (his desire as the want to have one's goals osirable. ln the special sense ol "wanting' that we develop we can then arrive al positivo face as h : o defined. To give this some sm ao . , this some Íntu- iive flesh, consider an example, Mrs 8 ás a forvent gardenor. Much of hor time and effort are expended os her roses, She ís proud of her re sho likes others e 3 a ses, ame admire then She is gratilicd when visitors say * . ! a rs say "What lovely toses; 1 wish ours looked like thatl How do you do it?” spin y All they want just what she has wanted and achieved, E LJ Rationality e here dee rationality” as the application of a specific mode of reasoning 0 J which guaantcos inferences lrom ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends. Just as standard logi t . e as $ gics have a consequence relati well take us [rom one propo » DNA DN o on to another wbile preserving truth, a system practical reasoning must allow one to pass from ends to means and further means while preserving tho 'satisfactoriness” of those means, [. . .] Intrinsic FTAs en deso assumptions of the universality of face and rationality, it is intu- itively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face, namel those acts thaCby the dress and/or ol the speakes nature run contrar o fact J are run contrary te the face wants of 1he addressee By “act we have its ind sehtat is intended to be done by a verbal or non-verbal communication, just as one or more “speech act can be assigned to an utterance, : First distinctio: ds af face threatened We ma A 'e may make a first distinction between acts that thrcaten negative face and those that threaten positive face. i E E a cr pts cd eee pS as 326 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN C. LEVINSON in turn a criticism of B, or al Ícast cause a confrontation between Hs view of things and S's view) (d) acceptance of offers (S is constrained to accept a debt, and: to encroach upon H's negative face) . (e) responses to Hs faux pas (if $ visibly notices a prior Jaux pus, he ment to 1; dl he pretends not to, he may be may cause emba discomfited himself) ! umvwilling promises ancl olfers (5 commits himself to, some futuro action althengh he doesn't want o; therefore, if his unwillingness tive face) y shows, he may also offend 1Ps por 2 Those that directly damage S's positive face: Z (a) apologios ($ indicatos that he regrots doing a prior FIA, thercby damaging his own face to some degreo — especially il the apology is al the same time a confession with IE learning about the trans: gression through it, and the FTA thus conveys bad news) acceptance of a compliment ($ may feel constrained to denigrate the object of H's prior compliment, thus damaging his own Íaco; or he may [ce] con: rained to compliment H in turn) (c) breakdown of physical control over body, bodily leakege, stum- bling or falling down, eto, (d) self-humiliation, shuffiing or cowering, acting stupid, self-contra- dicting (e) confessions, admissions of guilt or responsibility — e. done or not done an act, or for ignorance of something that $ is (b , for having expected to know () emotión leakage, non-control of laughter or tears These two ways of lassifying FTAs (by whether S's face or H's face is mainly threatened, or by whether it is mainly positive face or negative face that is at stoko) give rise to a four-way grid which offers the possibility of eross- lasstfing at least some 6 the above PTAS, However, sucha eross-classilication has a complex relation to the ways in which ETÁs are handled, Strategies for doing FTAs In thé context ol the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seck to avoid these face-threatening acts, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat. In other words, he will take into consideration the relative weightings of (at least) thrce wants: (a) the want to communicate the content of the FTA x, (b) the want to be efficient or urgent, and (c) the POLITENESS 327 want to maintain H's face to any degree. Unless (b) ís greater than (e), S will want to minimizo Ue threat of his FFA. The possible sets of strategies may be schematizcd exhaustively as in Figure 19.1 in ts An actor goes on record in doing an act A if it is clear to participants what commaunicativo intention led tbe actor to do A (i,e., there is just one unambiguously atiributable intention with which wita For instance, ¡Fl say “1 (hereby) promise to come tomorrow” and áf par schema, we have in mind (he following definitions. esses would concur). ss the ipants would concur that, in saying that, 1 did imambiguously expre inolopy intention of comuaitting myself lo that future act, ben in our te Uwwvent Com record" as promisiog to do so. In contrast, if an actor gocs Off record in doing A, then there is more than one. anambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to une particular intent. instance, il Usay Damn, Pav out of cash, E forgoCto go to the bank today”, T may be intending to get you to lend me some cash, but 1 cannot be held to have committed myself to ihat intent (as you would di lenge me with “This is (he seventeenth lime yowve asked me to lend you money"). Linguistic reali record strategí irony, rhetorical questions, understatement, tautologies, all kinds of hints as o, Tor over were you to chal- ions ol ofl include metaphor and to what a speaker wants or means to commenicate, without doing so directly, so that the meaning is to some degree negotiable, Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most dircet, clear, unambiguous and conciso way possible (for example, for a request, saying Do XP"). This we shall identify roughly with following the specilications of Grice's maxims ol! coopcratión [Chapter 3]. Normally, an ETA will be done in this way only if the speaker does not fear retribution from the addressec, for example in circumstances where (a) S and H both 1. wilhout redressive action, baldly on record 2. positive politeness Do the FTA weilh redressive action 4, off record 3. negative politendss 5. Don't do the FTA Figure 19.1 — Possiblo strategies for doing FTAs 328 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN C. LEVINSON tacitly agree that (he relevance of face demands may be suspendod in the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b) where the danger to T's face is very small, as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly in Fl' interest and do not require great sacrifices of $ (e.g., “Come in” or Do sit down'); and (e) where $ is vastly superior ín power H, or can enlist audience support to destroy Els face without losing his own, By redressive action we mean action that “giv (hat is, that attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the ETA by di ng it in such a way, or with such modifications or adilitions, that indicate intended or desired, and (hat S du general Such lace* to Uhe addressee, clearly that no such face threat recognizos EU'x face wants and Diimselí wants thera to dre achieved. redressive action takes une of two forms, depending on which aspect of fa (negative or positive) is being stressed. Positive politeness is orientated toward (he positive face of H, the positive selí-image that be claims for himself. Positive politeness is approach- based; it “anoints” the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S wants J's wants (c.g., by treating him as a member of an in-group, a Iriend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked). The potential face threat of an act is minimized in this casc by the assurance that in. general $ wants at least some of H's wants for example, that S considers H to be in important respects, “the same' as he, with in-group rights and duties and expectations of reciprocity, or by the implication that S likes H so that the FTA docsn't mean a negative evaluation in general of Hs face. Negative politeness, on the other hand, is orientated mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H's negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self determination. Negative politeness, thus, is essen- tially avoidance based, and realizations of negative-politeness strategies consist in assurances that the spcaker recognizes and respects the addressce's negativo-face wants and will not (or will only minimally) intetfere with the freedom of action. Hence negative politeness is characterized hy aint, with attention to very restricted addresseo soll-ellacement, formality and re aspects of IPs selfzimage, centring on bis want to be tnimpeded, Face-thecal ening acts are redressed with apologies for intorfering or transgressing, with linguistic and non-Einguistic deferenco, with hedges on the illocutionary force of the act, with impersonalizing mechanisms (such as passivcs) that distance S and H from the act, and with other softening mechanisms that give the addressee an “out', a face-saving line of escape, permitting him to feel that his response is not coerced, There is a natural tension in negative politeness, however, between (a) the desire to go on record as a prerequisite to being seen to pay face, and POLITENESS 329 (b) the desire to go olf record to avoid imposing. A compromise is reached in conventionalized indirectness, for whatever the indirect mechanism used to do an FTA, once fully conventionalized as a way of doing that ETA it is no longer off record. Thus many indirect requests, for example, are fully conventionalizod in English so that they are on record (e.g., Can you pass the salt? would he read as a request by all participants; there is no longer a viable alternativo interpretation of the utterance except in very special circumstances). And between any two (or more) individuals, any utterance may become conventionalized and therefore on record, as is the case with passwords and codos. A purely conventional Soul” works as vedressive action in negativo polite- ss because it pays a token bow to the negative-face wants of the acres That is, the fact that the speaker bothors to phrase his "UA in a conventionally inclirect way shows that he is aware ofand honours the negative-face wants of H, Je. Factors influencing the choice of strategies [-.. .] In Ahis section we argué that any rational agent will tend to choose the same genus of strategy under the same conditions -- that is, make the same movos as any other would make under the circumstances. This is by virtue of the fact that the particular strategies intrinsicaliy afford certain payoffs or advantages, and the relevant circumstances are those in which one of these payolfs would be more advantageous than any other. We consider these in turn — first the intrinsic payoffs and then the rele- vant circumstances — and then relate the two. The payolfs: a priori considerations Here we present a la the strategies, derived on « priori grounds, ely complete list ol the payollk associated with each of By going on record, a speaker can potentially get any of he following advantages: he can enlist public pressur as the aderessec or in support ol himself; he can get credit for honesty, for indicating that he trusts the addrossce; ho can got credit for outspokenness, avoiding the danger of being seen to be a manipulator; ho can avoid the danger of being misunderstood; and he can have the opportunity to pay back in face whatever he potentially takes away by the FIA. By going of record, on the other hand, a speaker can profit in Uhe following ways: he can get credit for being tactful, non-cocrcive; he can run less risk 332 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN €. LEVINSON Our argument here has an empirical basis, and we make the argument in as strong a form as ur cthmographic data will allow. Computing the weigbtiness of an FTA . o Ml . For cach FTA, the seriousness or. weightinoss of a particular FTA x is compounded of both risk to S's lace and risk to Hs face, in a proportion relative Lo the nature ol the ETA, Thos apologies and confessions are ess tíally threats to S's face (as we have seen), and advice and orders are basically ¡cats to Hs Tac, while requests and olfers are likely to tbreaten the [acc ol both participants, However, the way in which (he ser insert ol a pe ular ETA is weighod is Sis or Is loco thal is threatened, or in whal proportion. So let us say thal the weightin of an FTA is calculated thus: ems to be neutral as to whetlre W, = D8,H) + P(5,S) +R, where W, is the numerical value that measures the weightiness of the FTA x, D(S,H) is the value that measures the social distance between S and a P(H,5) is a measure af the power that El has over $, and R, isa value that measures the degree to which the FTA x ús rated an imposition ín that culture, We assume thal each of these values can be measured on a scale ot 1 tom, where n is some small number. Our formula assumes that the function that assigns a value to W, on the basis of the three social parameters does so o a simple summativo basis. Such an assumption seems to veork surprisingly vell, but we allow that in fact somo more complex composition of values may be involved. In any case, tbe function must capture the fact that all three dimensions P, D, and R contribute to the seriousness of an FTA, and thus to a determination of the Jevel of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated. . , First, we must clarify our intent, By D and P we intend very general social dimensions which nevertheless probably have “emic? corro» ¡mate pan cultural ce ii ¡ factors are dto e lates. We are not here interested in wbat. factors are compounde: stimate are cortainly culture-specióic, For ihiese complex parameters; such factor " 0 instance, P(H,S) may be assessed as being great because H is eloquent and influential, or is a prince, a witeh, a tbug, or a priest; D(S,H) as great because H speaks another díalect or language, or lives in the next valley, or is nota be these factors as follows. kinsman. More specifically, we can descr Lor o. 1D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/ difference withia which S and H stand for the purposes of this act. ln many cases (but not ab, it is based on an assessment 'ol the frequency of interaction and the kinds of imaterial or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between $ and H POLITENESS 333 (or parties representing S or H, or for whom S and H are representatives). An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of social distance based on stable social attributés. The rellex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving and receiving of positive face. Pisan asyrametric socíal dimension of relativo power, roughly in Weber's That is, P(H,5) is the degree to which H can impose his own plans and hís own selfevaluation (face) at the expense of S's plans and self- evaluation. ln general there are two sources ol P, cither ol which may be authorized or unau- thorized -- material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and metaphiysical control fover the actions af others, hy virtue al metaphysical for s subseribed to by those otliers). lo most cases an individuals power drawn from both these sources, or is rought Lo over great P dife: lap them. The rellex ola ontial ís perhaps archetypally “eference”, as discussed below. R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent's wants of self-determination or ol approval (his negative- and positive-face wants). In general there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically iden- tifñable for negativo-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in proportion to (he expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time) and (b) of goods (including non-material goods like information, as well as the expression of regard and other face payments). These intra-culturally defined costings of impositions on an individual's preserve are in general constant only in (cir rank order from one situation to another. However, even the rank order is subject to a set ol operations that shufiles the impositions according to whether actors have specific rights or obligations to perform the act, whether they have specific reasons (ritual or physical) for not performing them, and whether actors are'known to actually enjoy being imposed upon in some way. So an outline of the rankings of negative-face impositions for a particular domain of FTAs ín a particular culture involves a complex description like the following: 1 (a) rank order of impositions requiring services (b) rank order ol impositions requiring goods 2 Functions on (1): (a) Une Jessening ol certain impositions on a given actor determined by the obligation (legally, morally, by virtue ol employment, etc.) to do the act Az and also by (he enjoyment (hat the actor gets out ol performing the required act (b) the increasing of certain impositions determined hy reasons why the actor shouldn't do them, and reasons why the actor couldn't (casily) do them 334 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN C. LEVINSON For FTAs against positive face, the ranking involves an assessment of the amount of “pain” given to H's face, based on the discrepancy between Hs own desired self-image and that presented (blatantly or tacitly) in the PTA, There will he cultural rankings of aspects of positive face (for example, “heauty", 'generosity”), which can be re-ranked in partic- ce rankings. And there are personal some people object to certain “success”, nicene ular circumstances, just as can negativ (icliosyneratic) Functions on these rankings kinds ol FTAs more than others. A person who is skillod at assessing such 1 which (hey vary, is considered to be graced sankings, and the circumstances wit act”, “eharm!, or “pol We associate wit: each ol ihese variables D, 1, an R, a value from 1 Lo 1 assigned by an actor in particular circumstances. No. special substantial claim is intendod; the valuation simply represents the way in which (for instance) as S's power over H increases, the weightiness of the FTA dirain- ishes. One interesting sido effect of this numerical representation is that it can describe these intuitive facts: the threshold value of risk which triggers the choice of another strategy is a constant, independent of the way in which the value is composed and assessed. Thus one goes off record where an impo- sítion is small but relative S-H distance and H?s power are great, and also where H is an intimate equal of $'s but the imposition is very great. Editors” appendix: list of politeness strategies Positive politeness strategies: Notice, attend to H (his/her interests, wants, needs, goods) Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) Intensify interest to H Use in-group identity markers Seek agreement Ayoid disagrecment Presuppose?/raise/a Joke Assert or presuppose S's knowledge of and concern for lP's wants Offer, promise Be optimistic include both S and H in the activity Give (or ask for) reasons Assume or assért reciprocity Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) rtcommon ground POLITENESS Negative politeness strategies: Be direct/conventionally indirect Question, hedge Be pessimistic Minimise the size of imposition on H Give de Apologi impersonalise $ and Hi avoid pronouns U and “you State he FTA as a general rule Nominali: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting El Offrecord strateg; Those violating Grice's conversational maxims, see Chapter 3. Violate maxim of Relerance Give hints/clucs Give association clues Presuppose Violate maxim of Quality Understate Overstate Use tautologies Use contradictions Be ironic Use metaphors Use rhetorical questions Violuce masim of Manner Be ambiguous Be vague Over-generalise Displace H Be incomplete, use ellipsis Reference Gofíman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual, New York: Anchor Books. 335 
