LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.4 THEORISING IMPOLITENESS
2.4.1 Theoretical Approaches to Politeness
Fraser (1990) identified four major approaches to theorising politeness. These include, firstly, the social-norm view of politeness which is embedded in societal interpretations of accepted and unaccepted behaviours (Fraser 1990; Ide 1989;
Nwoye 1992). Secondly, the conversational-maxim approach, relying specially on the work of Grice (1975), proposes that interlocutors obey certain principles in their interactions so as to sustain the conversation; works that draw on this approach include Lakoff (1973). Thirdly, the conversational-contract approach to politeness presented by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Nolen (1981), further expanded by Fraser (1990), and which also draws on Grice's work, suggests that individuals enter into conversation with prior understanding of expectations and responsibilities. Finally, most influential is the 'face-saving' approach, as developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), and I shall myself give preference to this view.
The 'face-saving' approach
Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness has influenced almost all theories and analyses of politeness both in mainstream and feminist linguistics. Their framework in turn draws upon Goffman's work on the construction of 'face' (1967).
Brown and Levinson's further development of this theory of 'face' is based on everyday usage of the word in terms of 'losing face' and 'saving face'. Politeness, according to this model, involves the mutual maintaining of 'face' by observing two different kinds of face needs or wants. Brown and Levinson state that '[f]ace is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction' (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 66).
A threat to a person's face is labelled a 'face threatening act' (FTA). Brown and Levinson argue that such threats require some kind of verbal repair (politeness) to avoid a breakdown in communication; and that this is what politeness is. They propose three social variables for consideration: (1) the relative power differential between the speaker and the hearer; (2) the relative social distance between the speaker and the hearer; and (3) the degree of likelihood that an FTA will occur. They argue that these variables determine the strategies that speakers can employ. They divide politeness into two broad categories: positive and negative politeness, which relate to the concepts of positive and negative 'face'.
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.
Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction - i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61).
Positive politeness on the one hand is concerned with showing closeness and affiliation; it speaks of an individual's desire to be liked (for example, the offering of compliments). On the other hand, negative politeness is described as a 'public self- image', and is concerned with distance and formality, which suggests that the individual person becomes territorial, claims rights to non-distraction, and avoids any imposition by another person (for example, deference and avoidance) (Ige, 2000).
In spite of the considerable explanatory power of Brown and Levinson's model, it has increasingly been critiqued by scholars and researchers working on non-Western languages, mainly for its overgeneralisation of eurocentric norms. In particular, its
claim of universality has been the target of rebuttal, from the perspective of languages from the Far East and from Africa. It has been pointed out by researchers such as Ide (1982, 1990), Matsumoto (1988); Gu (1990); Nwoye (1992); de Kadt (1995, 1996); Pan (1995); Strecker (1993) and Ige (2001) that the concept of negative face in particular connotes the notion of an individualistic self, which is considered to be a behavioural paradigm especially typical of western cultures.
Hence the major criticism made against Brown and Levinson is that although they conducted their research into three unrelated languages and cultures (Tamil of South India, Tzeltal spoken in Mexico, and the English of the USA and England), they failed to accommodate adequately the diversities in and of the 'self. A typically Western paradigm is seen as being imposed on these other cultures, especially in the proposition of negative face, which has been faulted for its inability to accommodate notions of the collective self.
In the African context, a main focus of concern has been Brown and Levinson's perceived interpretation of face, which relies on an individualising concept of 'self.
Here again, the construct 'negative face' is considered not to accommodate the concept of 'self in African contexts and has therefore been declared inappropriate.
For instance, Nwoye (1992) finds Brown and Levinson's model unsuitable for describing the phenomena of politeness in the Igbo language. In Igbo society, requests, offers, thanks and criticisms are carried out in accordance with the dictates of the group within which individuals belong, age is revered and achievement is also honoured (Nwoye, 1992).
For similar reasons de Kadt (1994, 995) queries the applicability of Brown and Levinson's theory to the Zulu language, and instead bases her analysis on the concept of face as originally developed by Goffman (1967). Zulu society, like the Japanese and Chinese, strongly emphasises positional status (Raum, 1973). Zulu hierarchies are marked by authority and submission, based on the categories of age, gender and social status. Age groupings are generally maintained throughout life (Krige, 1936); a great deal of authority over the young is vested in the elderly, and
the younger are required to show respect to those who are older. Social relations are largely structured by the resulting group identities (de Kadt, 1998:182; see also Ige 2001, and Ige and de Kadt 2002).