Brown & Levinson's face

How it can-and can't-help us to understand interaction across cultures

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper appraises Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) from a utilitarian perspective. Rather than assess the veracity, validity, or applicability of their model as a whole, or its relevance to politeness, it identifies and examines several of the claims contained in the model individually, to see which ones can help to illuminate interaction across cultures. Its main contention is that the concepts of positive face(work) and negative face(work) are particularly useful in this context, being applicable to a wider range of interactive moves than the model in which B& L cage them allows. (By way of example, one such interactive move is analyzed in detail.) This potential, however, only becomes clear when (1) these concepts are freed from the constraints of the B& L model as a whole, (2) they are defined in a manner which returns to the original inspiration for the positive-negative opposition and (3) it is understood that this opposition is just one among many aspects of face, so that it is not made to do too much, inappropriate, work. (Examples of these limits are also discussed).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)463-492
Number of pages30
JournalIntercultural Pragmatics
Volume4
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007

Fingerprint

interaction
opposition
politeness
Interaction
Face Work
Cage
Politeness

Cite this

@article{135c2310907e494fa3c9e99154fe89d1,
title = "Brown & Levinson's face: How it can-and can't-help us to understand interaction across cultures",
abstract = "This paper appraises Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) from a utilitarian perspective. Rather than assess the veracity, validity, or applicability of their model as a whole, or its relevance to politeness, it identifies and examines several of the claims contained in the model individually, to see which ones can help to illuminate interaction across cultures. Its main contention is that the concepts of positive face(work) and negative face(work) are particularly useful in this context, being applicable to a wider range of interactive moves than the model in which B& L cage them allows. (By way of example, one such interactive move is analyzed in detail.) This potential, however, only becomes clear when (1) these concepts are freed from the constraints of the B& L model as a whole, (2) they are defined in a manner which returns to the original inspiration for the positive-negative opposition and (3) it is understood that this opposition is just one among many aspects of face, so that it is not made to do too much, inappropriate, work. (Examples of these limits are also discussed).",
author = "Jim O'Driscoll",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1515/IP.2007.024",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "463--492",
journal = "Intercultural Pragmatics",
issn = "1612-295X",
publisher = "De Gruyter Mouton",
number = "4",

}

Brown & Levinson's face : How it can-and can't-help us to understand interaction across cultures. / O'Driscoll, Jim.

In: Intercultural Pragmatics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2007, p. 463-492.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brown & Levinson's face

T2 - How it can-and can't-help us to understand interaction across cultures

AU - O'Driscoll, Jim

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - This paper appraises Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) from a utilitarian perspective. Rather than assess the veracity, validity, or applicability of their model as a whole, or its relevance to politeness, it identifies and examines several of the claims contained in the model individually, to see which ones can help to illuminate interaction across cultures. Its main contention is that the concepts of positive face(work) and negative face(work) are particularly useful in this context, being applicable to a wider range of interactive moves than the model in which B& L cage them allows. (By way of example, one such interactive move is analyzed in detail.) This potential, however, only becomes clear when (1) these concepts are freed from the constraints of the B& L model as a whole, (2) they are defined in a manner which returns to the original inspiration for the positive-negative opposition and (3) it is understood that this opposition is just one among many aspects of face, so that it is not made to do too much, inappropriate, work. (Examples of these limits are also discussed).

AB - This paper appraises Brown & Levinson (1987 [1978]) from a utilitarian perspective. Rather than assess the veracity, validity, or applicability of their model as a whole, or its relevance to politeness, it identifies and examines several of the claims contained in the model individually, to see which ones can help to illuminate interaction across cultures. Its main contention is that the concepts of positive face(work) and negative face(work) are particularly useful in this context, being applicable to a wider range of interactive moves than the model in which B& L cage them allows. (By way of example, one such interactive move is analyzed in detail.) This potential, however, only becomes clear when (1) these concepts are freed from the constraints of the B& L model as a whole, (2) they are defined in a manner which returns to the original inspiration for the positive-negative opposition and (3) it is understood that this opposition is just one among many aspects of face, so that it is not made to do too much, inappropriate, work. (Examples of these limits are also discussed).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=51249145429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1515/IP.2007.024

DO - 10.1515/IP.2007.024

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 463

EP - 492

JO - Intercultural Pragmatics

JF - Intercultural Pragmatics

SN - 1612-295X

IS - 4

ER -