WHERE THE "FACE" CONCEPT COMES FROM IN THE CONTEXT OF LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
The notion of "face" dates back to the Roman period with the concept of "dramatis personae", which is the mask worn by each person during social interactions since the Romans were interested in the universal side present in each person. In Levinson's works (2007) it was highlighted how this concept of "face" was already present in Chinese culture where there are 98 lexical forms to conceptualize the "face": we talk about physical, psychological, lost, returned, opportunity of face, face in terms of material goods.
For Brown and Levinson, communication is a role-playing game linked to the concept of "face" intended as the place where is located the bridge between language and social psychology.
For Brown and Levinson, communication is a role-playing game linked to the concept of "face" intended as the place where is located the bridge between language and social psychology.
For Goffman (1967), the face is our public identity always at stake when the speakers find themselves in a situation of relationship with others. For this reason we are motivated to defend our face and we are interested in attributing face to the other interlocutor. To carry out this work, a "face-work" on the part of the speaker is needed, with strategies to avoid violating the territory of others and with "approach" strategies such as greetings and thanks. These are the mechanisms for regulating social relations for Goffman. Brown and Levinson (1987), take up the concepts of "negative-face" and "positive-face" from Durkeim in the light of the idea that every speech act is potentially a threat to the listener's face and therefore the "negative face" it represents a way not to violate the territory of others while the "positive-face" represents a way to create solidarity and closeness with the other interlocutor.
The use of linguistic politeness is in fact an expedient for not respecting Grice's (1975) maxims of cooperation "be short, be clear, be relevant, be sincere".
In many studies, the fact that the "negative-face" was better than the "positive-face" was taken for granted and desirable because of an approach completely modelled on the Anglo-Saxon communicative model.
For Holtgraves the ability to value the positive side is a polite act and attacking the negative side is a impolite act. The variations in the production of a speech act depend on factors such as the degree of imposition of the act (possible in that given culture), the social distance in the relations between the interlocutors and the relative power between the listener and the speaker.
In Brown and Levinson's vision, in addition to maintaining the "face" through linguistic politeness, we have humour, sarcasm and irony as a way of not respecting Grice's principles of cooperation (1975).
In fact, the face during a meeting can be lost, maintained or strengthened during the conversation. For Kebrat-Orecchioni it is an overly pessimistic view that is offered of the inter-exchange but which finds more and more consensus also in countries like France or Italy.
For Brown and Levinson we have threatening acts in themselves for the face (disagreement, protest, criticizing, complaining, talking about taboo subjects) and therefore must be mitigated.
For Wierzbicka, language strategies such as those of politeness depend on the communication norms present in a given social group.
The choice of a given linguistic form must be seen as a specific realization of a courtesy strategy in the light of the evaluation of the context of the sentence.The assessment of the weight of our linguistic act is strongly connected to the factors mentioned above such as the degree of imposition of the act, the social distance in the relations between the interlocutors and the relative power between the listener and the speaker.
Finally, an important element is to understand that the choice of a linguistic form is determined by the responsibility of the speaker towards his interlocutor during the interaction.
In many studies, the fact that the "negative-face" was better than the "positive-face" was taken for granted and desirable because of an approach completely modelled on the Anglo-Saxon communicative model.
For Holtgraves the ability to value the positive side is a polite act and attacking the negative side is a impolite act. The variations in the production of a speech act depend on factors such as the degree of imposition of the act (possible in that given culture), the social distance in the relations between the interlocutors and the relative power between the listener and the speaker.
In Brown and Levinson's vision, in addition to maintaining the "face" through linguistic politeness, we have humour, sarcasm and irony as a way of not respecting Grice's principles of cooperation (1975).
In fact, the face during a meeting can be lost, maintained or strengthened during the conversation. For Kebrat-Orecchioni it is an overly pessimistic view that is offered of the inter-exchange but which finds more and more consensus also in countries like France or Italy.
For Brown and Levinson we have threatening acts in themselves for the face (disagreement, protest, criticizing, complaining, talking about taboo subjects) and therefore must be mitigated.
For Wierzbicka, language strategies such as those of politeness depend on the communication norms present in a given social group.
The choice of a given linguistic form must be seen as a specific realization of a courtesy strategy in the light of the evaluation of the context of the sentence.The assessment of the weight of our linguistic act is strongly connected to the factors mentioned above such as the degree of imposition of the act, the social distance in the relations between the interlocutors and the relative power between the listener and the speaker.
Finally, an important element is to understand that the choice of a linguistic form is determined by the responsibility of the speaker towards his interlocutor during the interaction.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento