ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Politeness and Face Threatening Acts in Iraqi EFL learners’ Conversations
Hussien Salah Slman Prof. Dr. Mohammed Jasim Betti
Thi Qar Univrsity, College of Educations Thi Qar University, College of
For Humanities, English Department Educations for Humanities, English
[email protected] Department
[email protected]
Received in 2019/11/01 Published in 2020/02/30
___________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study examines the use of face threatening acts and politeness of the Iraqi EFL learners in their
conversations. Depending on an eclectic model which consists from Brown and Levinson (1978), Roberts (1992)
and Hoebe (2001), one hundred of Iraqi university students’ conversations are analysed and discussed. It
hypothesized that: (i) most politeness strategy used by the students is negative politeness and there is a misuse
of the face threatening g acts by Iraqi EFL learners; (ii) Brown and Levinson’s model work with the Iraqi EFL
learners’ politeness strategies and the value of the politeness expected in any conversation is higher than politeness
observed by using brown and Levinson’s Equation. It aims at producing a quantitative and qualitative analysis
of face-threatening acts FTA and politeness strategies used by Iraqi EFL learners’ in their conversations; and
finding out the effect of the participants and the situations on the choice of the face threatening acts.
Keywords: Face and Face-Threatening Act, Politeness, Negative and Positive Politeness.
1. Introduction
'face' is a linguistic term that is used in semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, as well as sociology,
psychology, and political science (Lonel, 2011: 76). The term is now used in different cultures in a metaphorical
sense to mean the reputation or the standing in the society (ibid.). Goffman (1955:338) defines the term as ''the
positive image you seek to establish in social interactions''.
Brown and Levinson (1987:65) believe that in performing a particular speech act in a particular context, the
face-wants of the participants are threatened and politeness takes place to modify these face threatening acts.
Furthermore, The counteractions that the participants make when they fail to perform a self-image competently
are called 'face-work' (ibid.). Thomas (1995: 158) indicates that politeness makes an equality in any social
interaction. Politeness is a pragmatic theory that means '' saying the socially correct thing…(and) is developed by
societies in order to reduce friction in personal interaction'' (Lakoff, 1975: 53,64). Brown and Levinson's (1987)
221
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
theory of politeness is still the basis for the latter theoretical and empirical works on this theory (i.e. Kasper,
1990; Harris, 2003 and Ellis, 2008).
2.Literature Review
Brown and Levinson (1987:61) define face as a linguistic term with an emotional effect that can be lost, saved,
or improved. When speakers interact, they try to maintain face in interaction; they do so by relying on 'mutual
vulnerability of face' (ibid.). They also state that the notion of face has a dual nature: positive and negative face.
The positive face is the positive desire of members for approval; the negative face, on the other hand, is the
participants' desire for freedom of action and from imposition (ibid.:62).
Politeness is viewed in relation to face by different scholars; For instance, Brown and Levinson (1987: n.p.)
define it as the process of maintaining the hearer's face. likely, Mills (2003: 6) connects politeness to face
believing that: ''politeness is refers to the declaration of the speakers' intention to lessen face threats carried by
certain face threatening acts toward another''.
Brown and Levinson (1978) approach for politeness is called the Management of Face or the Face Saving
Approach. “This theory depends on three main notions: face, face threatening acts, and politeness strategies”
(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 58). Their model is called the Model Person and it has two main properties:
rationality and face. They define 'rationality' as ''the application of a specific mode of reasoning…which
guarantees inferences from ends or goals to means that will satisfy those ends'' (ibid: 313). They mention four
main strategies for politeness: the direct bald on record strategy, positive politeness, negative politeness and off
record (ibid: 60). Moreover, there is a direct correlation between the use of politeness and the increase in the
following three variables: distance, power and threat or extremity (1978: 60). Distance is the social familiarity
of the participants; power is social statues of them (Roberts, 1992: 288); and threat, as discussed in previous items,
is of central significance for what is being said by the speaker (Grehan and Grimmett, 1990: 215).
2.1Politeness
Thomas (1995: 158) indicates that politeness makes an equality in any social interaction. Politeness is a
pragmatic theory that means '' saying the socially correct thing…(and) is developed by societies in order to reduce
friction in personal interaction'' (Lakoff, 1975: 53,64). Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness is still
the basis for the latter theoretical and empirical works on this theory (i.e. Kasper, 1990; Harris, 2003 and Ellis,
2008).
222
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
The term 'polite' is fundamentally derived from the Latin word 'poiltus' meaning 'to smooth' (Sifianou, 1992:81).
Subsequently, the term is now used to mean: 'refined', 'cultivated' and so on, when describing people; and
'courteous', 'urban', etc., when describing manners (ibid.).
Leech (1980:19) defines the politeness as ''strategic conflict avoidance''. It refers to those types of
behaviour that are used to make and support the cooperation of participants in a comity environment (ibid.). Hill
et al (1986: 349) produce a similar definition: ''politeness is one of the imperatives on human connection, whose
reason for existing is to think about others' sentiments, build up levels of shared solace, and advances
compatibility''. Many different fields of study are involved in the study of politeness such as pragmatics, stylistics,
and conversational analysis (El-Samir, 2014: 4).
2.2 Face- Threatening Acts
Face Threatening Act (FTA) refers to the communication act that causes a threat to the individual's
expectations regarding self-image (Yule, 1996: 61). Goffman (1955:215) uses different terms to describe such
situations; for instance, ''in the wrong face'', ''to be out of face'', ''shamefaced'', and ''threats to face''.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 65) mention that these acts are used as a keynote for the politeness theory.
They define these acts as '' acts that by their very nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the
speaker '' (ibid.). Depending on the hearer's perception, the act itself forms a threat that violates both, hearer’s and
speaker’s face (Murakami, 2011: 7).
Such acts can also be threats not only to the hearer's face ,but also to the speaker's face if the speaker performs
acts that are opposites to his or her wants and desires (Nasution and Ariyanti, 2013: 3).
Brown and Levinson (1987: 65) define face threatening acts according to two main elements: ''Whose face is
being threatened (the speaker's or the addressee's), and which type of face is being threatened (positive- or
negative- face)''. “A hearer’s positive face threatening acts are complaints, criticisms, accusations, mention of
taboo topics, interruptions”. Acts that threaten an addressee's negative face include offers, promises. “Examples
of face threatening acts to the speaker's positive face include confessions, apologies, acceptance of a compliment,
and self humiliations”. Some of the face threatening acts that are threatening to the speaker's negative face include
''expressing gratitude, accepting a thank-you, an apology or an offer, and making promises''(ibid.).
3.Research Methodology
223
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
The model chosen for the analysis is an eclectic one taken from Brown and Levinson (1987), Hoebe (2001)
and Roberts (1998).
Linguistic analysis can be either qualitative or quantitative. The former can be conducted politeness-wise
according to the following procedure: In every conversation, there is an immediate purpose which represents a
specific end an interlocutor tries to approach in a specific moment. This is a step forward to reach the intermediate
goal which represents the objective of the overall situation of the conversation. The medium used to approach the
instant goal is called “strategy”. Brown and Levinson” suggest four types of politeness strategies:
1. Bald on record (BOR)
2. “Positive politeness” (+P)
3. “Negative politeness” (-P)
4. “Off record” (OR)
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), “there are three factors that affect the choice of politeness strategy
and the degree of seriousness of the face threatening action, the social distance between S and H, the power
difference between S and H, and the ranking of imposition” .
Distance values (D):
“0 => extra close”
“1 => low distance”
“2 => medium distance”
“3 => high distance”
Distance here will be weighed following the degree of non-intimacy between (S) and (H). the distance will
be extra close If there is big intimacy between them and vice versa .
Power values (P):
“0 => equal power”
“1 => low power”
“2 => medium power”
“3 => high power”
The power (P) refers to the physical power between (S) and (H) when the conversation takes place.
224
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Ranking of the imposition values (R):
1 => low rating of imposition
2 => medium rating
3 => high rating
Imposition value (R): refers to the purpose, which is the absolute rating of the imposition of the circumstances
and of the speaker upon the hearer in a particular conversation.
Because each utterance will be face-threatening to a certain extent,
consequently, there is no (0) value
The previous components of the equation are given values per conversation for every speaker. However,
before (R) is given value, it has to be determined what a speaker purpose is.
(W) => weight of face threatening act that a person is performing in a conversation. “It refers to the level of
politeness that the performer of FTA is expected to use in the conversation in question, so it is the weight expected
or We henceforth, value of which should be from 1 – 9 as we are dealing with three variables the maximum value
of each is 3. Now, one should find the degree of politeness actually used in a any conversation or the weight
observed or Wo henceforth” . Then a comparison should be made between the values of We and Wo to check the
validity of the theory.
To find Wo, all speakers should be taken into account. The four strategies; BOR, +P, -P, and OR are ranked
on a scale from 1 – 9. According to Brown and Levinson (1987:71), “the more an act threatens the H’s/S’s face,
the more the S wants to choose a higher numbered strategy as these strategies afford payoffs of increasingly
minimized risk” . So, according to the payoffs, BOR ranks 1 on the scale, +P ranks 4, -P ranks 6 and OR ranks
9.
As the scale for both We and Wo is from 1 – 9, “it is possible to see whether there is a correlation between
them. The higher the speaker’s We, the higher Wo should be. If a speaker produces 10 utterances in a conversation
of which 4 are done BOR, 3 +P and 3 OR, then the values given are 4*1 + 3*4 + 3*9 and the sum of these values
is be divided by S’s number of utterances in that conversation. The resulting We and Wo values are then compared
to check if there is a significant relation between them” .
The results represent the qualitative analysis of the conversation which leads us to determine which politeness
sub-strategy is employed and consequently which politeness strategy is used and what face threatening acts
employed depending on the relationship between the participants in the situations.
225
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Brown and Levinson suggest the equation: Wx = D (s, h) + P (h, s) + Rx, Where (W) stands for Weightiness
and (x) for the face threatening act; so (Wx) “means the weightiness of the face threatening act or politeness”.
(D) stands for Distance; (P) for Power; (R) for Ranking of imposition; (Rx) for ranking of imposition of the face
threatening act; (S) for speaker and (H) for hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 76).
On the other hand, in order to be dealt with, the quantitative analysis, distance, power and ranking of
imposition must be given numerical values and these numerical values have to be applied into the equation:
“Wx = D (s, h) + P (h, s) + Rx” .
4.The Selection of Informants
The participants are students in the “department of English / College of Education for Humanities, University
of Thi-Qar” academic year (2018-2019). The test is applied to one hundred students of the third and the fourth
stage since they are considered to be advanced EFL learners. All the students are Iraqi and there is no native
speakers among them.
5.Data Analysis and Discussion
According to the values stated by Brown and Levinson, politeness expected is easy to be measured. Three
items (1, 5, 14) of the test are chosen to be analysed in which the ranking of imposition rates from 1 to 3 according
to the purpose of the conversation itself.
The analysis of the three items is done for the reason that they have they the highest and the lowest value
of ranking of imposition. The first item has the highest value of (R), thus, the highest value of WE and the fifth
item has the lowest value of (R). These values are used in comparing the differences between WE and WO.
In the first item of the test, the distance between the participant and his teacher is fixed value high distance
= 3 because of the high non-intimacy between them. The power here is high power = 3 and since the purpose of
the conversation here is seeking forgiveness, the ranking of imposition of the participant over the teacher is high
rating of imposition = 3 .
In the fifth item of the test the distance between the participant and his colleague is a fixed value medium
distance = 2. The power here is high power = 3 and the ranking of imposition of the participant over his colleague
is low rating of imposition = 1, because the purpose in this conversation benefits both the speaker and the hearer.
In the fourteenth item of the test the distance between the participant and his colleague is fixed value
medium distance = 2. The power here is high power = 3 and the ranking of imposition of the participant over his
colleague is medium rating of imposition = 2 (as shown in table 1).
226
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Table (1): Distance, power and ranking of imposition between speaker and
Hearer in items (1, 5, 14)
Item Distance power Ranking of
number imposition
1 3 3 3
5 2 3 1
14 2 3 2
According to the values given for each one of the three items above in table (1), it is possible to apply Brown
and Levinson’s equation to measure the WE for each item:
WE = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx
The WE in the first item = 3 +3 + 3 = 9 degrees is considered as a high value for the expected politeness since
it is a formal style of conversation, i.e. When it occurs between students and their teacher.
The WE in the fifth item = 2 + 3 + 1 = 6 degrees is less value than in the first item since it is not a formal
conversation, i.e. When it occurs between students and their colleagues.
The WE in the fourteenth item = 2 + 3 + 2 = 7 degrees represents a rather high value of expected politeness
between the speaker and the hearer who are both colleagues
The results of the analysis show that in all of the fifteen items of the test, students choose the negative
politeness (447) times, (398) Bald on record, (354) positive politeness and (301) off record strategy out of the
1500 utterances. Thus, the first hypothesis, which states that negative politeness is the most frequent politeness
strategy used by Iraqi EFL learners in their conversations, is accepted (as shown in chart 1).
227
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Chart (1): Number of Politeness Strategies Employed by Students
The
analysis also
reveals that the
highest value of
Wo is in item
five of the test
(5.5) degrees
and the lowest
value of Wo is in item four of the test (4.3) degrees, thus the second hypothesis which states that the value of
politeness expected is always higher than the value of politeness observed in any conversation is accepted.
The students use more politeness in informal conversations, whereas they use less polite face threatening act
in formal conversations with their teacher and the head of the department. Thus, the third hypothesis which states
that there is a misuse of the face threatening acts by Iraqi EFL learners is accepted.
The analysis also shows that Iraqi EFL learners differentiate between the word colleague, friend, and a close
friend in their culture. Thus, students use more polite strategies and less face threatening acts with their
colleagues, something which (Brown and Levinson, 1978) refer to in their model. They state that the social
distance refers to the different relationships between S and H such as close and distant relationships. It can be
considered a continuum with two ends, one of which is the closest such as parents and relatives, while the other
is just the opposite such as strangers.
____________________________________________
Parents best friend acquaintance stranger
Thus, the fourth hypothesis which states the following: ( Brown and Levinson’s model work with Iraqi
EFL learners’ politeness strategies) is accepted.
228
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
The following tables show the numbers of face threatening acts and politeness strategies employed by
students in their conversation with their teacher, the head of the department and colleagues.
Table (2) : Numbers of Politeness Strategies Employed by Students in their Conversations with their
Teacher
number of
politeness
Bald Positive Negative Off Total
strategies
on politeness politeness Record
employed
record
No. 33 53 83 30 199
Negative and positive politeness are the most frequent used politeness strategies used by students in their
conversations with their teacher.
Table (3) : Numbers of Politeness Strategies Employed by Students in their Conversations with the Head
of the Department
number of
politeness
Bald Positive Negative Off Total
strategies
on politeness politeness Record
employed
record
No. 33 17 39 11 100
229
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Negative is the most frequent used politeness strategy used by students in their conversations with their head
of the department.
Table (4) : Numbers of Politeness Strategies Employed by Students in their Conversations with their
Colleagues
number of
politeness
Bald Positive Negative Off
strategies
on politeness politeness Record
Total
employed
record
No. 332 284 325 260 1201
Bald on record is the most frequent used politeness strategy used by students in their conversations with
their teacher.
6.Conclusion
After surveying the review of literature and the students’ responces by using Brown and Levison’s (1987),
Roberts(1992) and Hoebe (200) models, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1- Negative politeness is the most frequent politeness strategy used by the university students’ in the
conversations with their teacher. This shows that students pay more attention in using politeness strategies during
formal conversations using expressions like “ I am sorry” “excuse me” “please” which expresses a lot of
awareness to H’s face.
2- Bald on record is the most frequent politeness strategy used by university students’ conversations with
their colleagues. This shows that politeness also exists in students’ informal conversations with their colleagues,
but in a smaller degree because the conversation is informal, though some bald on record sub-strategies are for
the interest of H i.e. with redressive action.
3- Politeness expected is higher than the politeness observed in the students’ conversations, both with their
teachers and colleagues.
230
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
4- Although the students show a lot of respect and politeness to their teachers, the disparity between WO and
WE is still big in some of the students’ conversations due to their lack of knowledge of using politeness strategies.
5- There is a misuse concerning using FTA and politeness strategies by EFL learners due to their lack of
training i.e. students use more polite strategies in an informal conversations and they use less polite strategies in
formal conversations.
6- The most sub-strategies and face threatening acts used by the students with bald on record strategy are:
Orders, offers, great urgency, task oriented interaction and warnings.
7- The most sub-strategies and face threatening acts used by the students with positive politeness are:
Suggestions, compliments, advice, asking for reasons, using jokes.
8- The most sub-strategies and face threatening acts used by the students with negative politeness strategy
are: Apology, using hedges, giving deference and being optimistic.
9- The most sub-strategies and face threatening acts used by the students with off record strategy are:
reminding, contradictions, being ironic, giving hints and giving association clues.
10-According to their culture, the Iraqi EFL learners differentiate between the social relationship of friends and
colleagues and they use more politeness with their colleagues.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks and sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Mohammed Jasim
Betti, who provides me with all the assistance for writing this thesis. He helps me a lot in doing this thesis, and
provides me with all the relevant materials that I need. His assistance proves invaluable in producing this thesis.
Honestly, my work could not be done in the right way without his guidance, support and assistance.
I also would like to thank my teachers in the MA courses in the college of Education for Humanities for
their efforts in teaching me during the course.
Special thanks go to my parents who supported me emotionally throughout writing the thesis.
References
Brown, P., & S. C. Levinson. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. E. N. Goody (ed.).In Questions in politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
________________ (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn.). Oxford:
231
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Oxford
University Press. Gruyter, pp 68-73.
Goffman, E. (1955).'' On Face- Work: an analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction''. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18,213-
231.
Grimmett, P.and E. Crehan. (1990). ''Barry: A Case Study of Teacher Reflection in
Clinical Supervision''. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision.v5 n3,214-35.
Harris, S. (2003). ''Politeness and power” : Making and responding to ‘requests’ in
institutional settings''. Text, 23 (1). p. 27− 52.
Hill, B., S. Ide, S. Ikuta, A. Kawasaki, and T.Ogino. (1986).'' Universals of
linguistic politeness'': Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American
English. Journal of Pragmatics10: 347–371.
Hoebe, S. (2001). ''Predicting Politeness Strategies in English Conversation''. ELIA.
2,181-197
Ionel, S. (2011). Explicit Teaching of the Pragmatic Concept of Face. The
Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Youth on the move. Teaching languages for international
study and career-building.
Kasper, G. (1990).'' Linguistic politeness'': Current research issues. Journal of
Pragmatics, 14(2). p. 193−pp. 218
Lakoff, R. (1972). “Language in Context”. Pragmatics. Linguistic Society of
America 48, 907-927.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.
Mill, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robert, Jo (1992). ''Face- Threatening Acts and Politeness Theory: Contrasting
Speeches from Supervisory Conferences''. In Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision. Vol. 7, pp 287-301..
232
ISSN: 223-5849 (Paper) ISSN: 224-4323 (Online)
Vol. 3, No 8, 2020
Murakami, M.( 2011). A Study of Compensation for Face-Threatening Acts in
Service Encounters in Japan and the United States. Portland:
Portland State University .
Nasution, A. and A. Lisetyo. (2013). ''The Usage of Face Threatening Acts in
Princess Diary 1 and Princess Diary 2:The Royal Engagement Movie''.
Language Horizon Journal, vol.1, p.3.
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece : a
Crosscultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics.
London-New York: Longman.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
222
233
