Politeness Theory - Choice of Strategy

Choice of Strategy

Paul Grice argues that all conversationalists are rational beings who are primarily interested in the efficient conveying of messages. Brown and Levinson use this argument in their politeness theory by saying that rational agents will choose the same politeness strategy as any other would under the same circumstances to try to mitigate face. They show the available range of verbal politeness strategies to redress loss of face. Face-threatening acts have the ability to mutually threaten face, therefore rational agents seek to avoid face-threatening acts or will try to use certain strategies to minimize the threat.

Speaker (S) will weigh:

1. the want to communicate the content of the face-threatening act in question
2. the want to be efficient or urgent
3. the want to maintain H's face to any degree

In most cooperative circumstances where 3. is greater than 2., S will want to minimize the face-threatening act.

The greater potential for loss of face requires greater redressive action. If the potential for loss of face is too great, the speaker may make the decision to abandon the face-threatening acts completely and say nothing.

The number next to each strategy corresponds to the danger-level of the particular face-threatening act. The more dangerous the particular face-threatening act is, the more S will tend to use a higher numbered strategy.

1. No redressive action

   • Bald On-Record- leaves no way for H to minimize the face-threatening act.

2. Positive Redressive action

   • S satisfies a wide range of H’s desires not necessarily related to the face-threatening act.
     • Shows interest in H
     • Claims common ground with H
     • Seeks agreement
     • Gives sympathy

3. Negative Redressive action

   • S satisfies H’s desires to be unimpeded—the want that is directly challenged by the face-threatening act.
     • Be conventionally indirect
     • Minimize imposition on H
     • Beg forgiveness
     • Give deference
   • This implies that the matter is important enough for S to disturb H

4. Off-Record

   • S has the opportunity to evade responsibility by claiming that H’s interpretation of the utterance as a face-threatening act is wrong

5. Don't do the face-threatening act.