UNIT 3: POLITENESS

3.1 PIECE OF SUMMARY

Keys on the analysis:

(1) Realizations of Politeness Strategies in Language:

• Bald on Record: Direct and straightforward communication without the use of politeness
strategies.
• Positive Politeness: Using language to emphasize friendliness, solidarity, and rapport.
• Negative Politeness: Using language to avoid imposing on others' freedom or autonomy.
• Off-Record Strategies: Indirect ways of communicating intentions or requests.

(2) Derivative Hypotheses:

• Exploitation of Strategies: How individuals may strategically use different politeness

strategies based on social dynamics and context.
• Mixture of Strategies: The blending of various politeness strategies within a single interaction.
• FTAs and Conversational Structure: Exploring how Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) and
conversational structure influence the choice and effectiveness of politeness strategies.

(3) Sociological Implications:

• Social Theory and Study of Interaction: Examining how politeness strategies reflect and shape
social norms, power dynamics, and cultural practices.
• Sociological Applications: Applying insights from politeness theory to understand social
phenomena and dynamics in various contexts.

(4) Implications for Language Studies:

• Face Wants as Functional Pressures on Language: Considering how individuals' desires to

maintain positive face (self-esteem) and negative face (autonomy) influence language use.
• Implications for Sociolinguistics: Understanding how sociolinguistic factors, such as social
identity, gender, and culture, intersect with politeness strategies.

3.2 POLITENESS AS A PRAGMATIC PHENOMENON

Politeness theory studies how we use language to be polite and avoid conflict in communication. We
don’t always say things directly because we want to sound kind, respectful, or maintain good
relationships with others.

Politeness in language depends on three key factors:

• Linguistic form: The words and structures we use. -> "Give me water" is not the same as "Could
you give me a glass of water, please?".
 • The context of the situation: Who is speaking, to whom, and in what circumstances. -> If
you're talking to a friend, you might say "Hey, get me some water!", but with your boss, you
would be more polite.
• The relationship between the speaker and the hearer: Level of familiarity, hierarchy, age, etc.
-> When asking a professor for a favor, you would be more polite than when asking your
younger sibling.

Politeness in Requests

When we want to ask for something, there are many ways to do it. Some are more polite than others.
There are different ways to make the same request, with varying levels of politeness:

• "Would you open the door?" -> Uses the conditional "would", which makes it more polite.
Indirect, so it sounds softer and more respectful.
• "Could you open the door?" -> Also polite, as "could" emphasizes possibility rather than
command.
• "Can you open the door?" -> A bit less formal, more direct. Common in casual speech.
• "Open the door!" -> A direct imperative (command). This can sound rude or bossy if there’s
no familiarity between the speakers.

Conclusion: The more indirect the request, the more polite it sounds.

Politeness in Decision-Making

When a married couple is deciding where to eat, the husband says: "You choose."

Here, the husband is being polite by giving the decision to his partner instead of imposing his own
choice. This type of language shows deference (letting the other person decide). In other words,
when we let someone else decide, we are being polite and showing respect.

Politeness in Commands and Suggestions

When we want someone to hurry up, we can say it in a more or less polite way:

• "Would you be so kind as to hurry up a little?" -> Very polite and formal. Expressions like
"Would you be so kind as to..." make the request sound more respectful.
• "Hurry up!" -> A direct command. Can sound impatient or rude if there's no familiarity
between the speakers.

Conclusion: In general, longer requests with polite words ("Would you be so kind as to...") sound
more respectful than direct imperatives ("Hurry up!").

Politeness in Criticism or Awkward Requests

When we want to tell someone to stop doing something unpleasant, we can do it in different ways.
 • Very polite form: Uses indirect language to avoid sounding aggressive. Words like "I wonder",
"possibly", and "might" make the sentence softer. -> Example: "I wonder if you might possibly
stop picking your nose?"
• Direct and less polite form: A direct command, which can sound rude. -> Example: "Stop
picking your nose!"

Conclusion: We use longer expressions and softening words to make our criticism sound less harsh.

3.3 POLITENESS AS A PRAGMATIC PRINCIPLE IN LEECH (1983)

A New Approach to Politeness: Theory

(1) Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle:

• The Cooperative Principle, proposed by Grice, states that people in a conversation strive to
cooperate by making contributions that are relevant, informative, truthful, and clear.
• The Politeness Principle, proposed by Brown and Levinson, describes how people use
politeness strategies to maintain social harmony and save face in communication, even if
it means violating the maxims of the Cooperative Principle.

(2) Hinting Strategy and Anticipatory Illocutions:

• The Hinting Strategy involves indirectly conveying a message or request by hinting at it

rather than stating it explicitly.
• Anticipatory Illocutions refer to the speaker's anticipation of the listener's potential
responses and the adjustment of their utterance accordingly to achieve a desired effect.

(3) Tact Maxim: A New Kind of Politeness:

The Tact Maxim emphasizes the importance of sensitivity and consideration for others' feelings
and self-esteem in communication. It suggests that being tactful involves knowing when and how
to convey information or opinions in a way that minimizes offense or embarrassment.

(4) Pragmatic Paradoxes of Politeness:

Pragmatic paradoxes of politeness refer to situations where being overly polite or indirect can lead
to miscommunication or misunderstanding. For example, excessive politeness might obscure the
speaker's intentions or make the message ambiguous.

(5) Interpretation of Impositives:

Impositives are utterances that impose obligations, requests, or directives on the listener. The
interpretation of impositives depends on contextual factors, including the relationship between
the speaker and listener, cultural norms, and the politeness strategies employed.
 (6) Pragmatic Scales:

Pragmatic scales represent the varying degrees of politeness or directness in communication.

These scales can be influenced by cultural norms, social hierarchies, and individual communication
styles.

(7) Tact and Condescension:

• Tact involves delicacy and sensitivity in communication, whereas condescension involves a

patronizing or superior attitude.
• Tactful communication aims to maintain respect and dignity for all parties involved,
whereas condescending communication can undermine rapport and mutual
understanding.

(8) Maxims of Politeness:

• The Generosity Maxim encourages giving others the benefit of the doubt and being
generous in interpreting their actions or intentions.
• The Approbation Maxim involves expressing approval or praise to enhance positive social
interactions.
• The Modesty Maxim suggests downplaying one's achievements or qualities to avoid
appearing boastful or arrogant.

(9) Metalinguistic Aspects of Politeness:

Metalinguistic aspects involve language-related comments or discussions about politeness, such

as explicitly stating politeness strategies or negotiating politeness norms within a conversation.

Politeness is a fundamental aspect of human communication, ensuring smooth and harmonious

social interactions. Geoffrey Leech (1983) introduced the Politeness Principle, a key concept in
pragmatics, which serves as a complement to Grice’s Cooperative Principle. While Grice’s model
focuses on truthfulness and informativeness, Leech emphasizes the social aspect of language use,
aiming to minimize conflict and maximize social harmony. The core of Leech’s principle can be
summarized in two maxims: (1) minimize the expression of impolite beliefs and (2) maximize the
expression of polite beliefs. This essay explores Leech’s politeness principle, its maxims, and its
significance in pragmatic and cross-cultural communication.

The Politeness Principle

Leech’s politeness principle is designed to regulate interpersonal relationships by promoting positive

social interaction. It works alongside the Cooperative Principle but focuses on how speakers mitigate
face-threatening acts (FTAs), which are statements or actions that could potentially damage the
hearer’s self-esteem or social standing. According to Leech, politeness is essential for maintaining
cooperative discourse, particularly in societies where indirectness and politeness are valued as
markers of respect.

The two main components of Leech’s principle are:

 • Minimizing (as far as possible) the expression of impolite beliefs. This means avoiding
statements that could be offensive or rude, thereby reducing the likelihood of social tension.
• Maximizing (as far as possible) the expression of polite beliefs. This encourages speakers to
use language that fosters goodwill and positive social relationships.

These components operate on a gradient rather than as absolute rules, meaning that their
application depends on context, culture, and the relationship between the speakers.

Leech’s Six Maxims of Politeness

Leech further refines his theory by introducing six maxims of politeness, which provide specific
guidelines on how speakers can adjust their language to maintain harmony in communication.

• Tact Maxim: Minimize cost and maximize benefit to the listener. -> Example: Instead of saying,
“Lend me your book,” one could say, “Would you mind if I borrowed your book?”
• Generosity Maxim: Minimize benefit to self and maximize benefit to others. -> Example:
Rather than saying, “I’ll let you borrow my book,” one might say, “You are welcome to use my
book if you need it.”
• Approbation Maxim: Minimize dispraise and maximize praise of the listener. -> Example:
Instead of “That was a terrible performance,” one could say, “I can see you put a lot of effort
into that performance.”
• Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise and maximize self-deprecation. -> Example: Rather
than “I did a great job,” one might say, “I was just lucky to be part of the team.”
• Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement and maximize agreement. -> Example: Instead of
“I completely disagree,” one might say, “I see your point, but I have a slightly different
perspective.”
• Sympathy Maxim: Minimize indifference and maximize sympathy toward the listener. ->
Example: Rather than “Too bad that happened,” one could say, “I’m really sorry you had to go
through that.”

The Relationship Between Leech and Grice

Leech’s politeness principle does not replace Grice’s Cooperative Principle but rather complements
it. While Grice’s maxims (quality, quantity, relation, and manner) focus on ensuring clear and
effective communication, Leech’s politeness principle ensures that communication is socially
appropriate. For example, violating Grice’s maxims can sometimes be necessary to uphold politeness.
If a direct answer is too blunt or rude, a speaker may deliberately be vague to avoid offense.

For instance, if asked, “Do you like my new haircut?” and the speaker does not like it, a Gricean
response (truthful but direct) would be, “Not really.” However, a polite response following Leech’s
model would be, “It’s very unique; it really suits your style!” This response maintains harmony without
violating social norms.
3.4 THE BROWN AND LEVINSON´S MODEL OF POLITENESS
The concept of “face”

Politeness is a fundamental aspect of social interaction. It is not just about being kind but also about
using communicative strategies to manage interpersonal relationships effectively, minimizing conflict
and protecting the social image of interlocutors. Brown and Levinson (1987) developed a model
based on the concept of “face”, originally introduced by Goffman (1967), which refers to the public
image a person projects and expects others to respect. In this sense, politeness acts as a mechanism
to avoid face-threatening situations and maintain harmonious communication.

The term “face” refers to the social image that individuals construct and seek to maintain in their
interactions with others. Goffman defines it as the positive value a person claims for themselves in a
given social context. In simple terms, “face” is how we want to be perceived by others, and as a result,
we act in ways that protect it from potential damage.

Two dimensions to face

Brown and Levinson distinguish between two types of “face”:

Negative face represents the desire for autonomy and independence, meaning the need not to be
interrupted, pressured, or restricted in decision-making. For instance, if someone is focused on their
work and another person interrupts them abruptly, their negative face is threatened.

In contrast, positive face relates to the need for acceptance and appreciation from others. It involves
the desire to belong to a group and to receive approval. An example of a threat to positive face would
be when someone rejects an idea presented in a meeting without acknowledging the effort behind
it.

Face wants

In daily interactions, people assume that their face will be respected and expect that communication
with others will not pose a threat to it. However, face can be maintained, threatened, or even
enhanced depending on how we communicate. When a person receives a compliment or is
recognized for their achievements, their positive face is reinforced. Conversely, when they are
interrupted rudely or given an order without consideration, their negative face is affected.

Politeness as a social strategy (language as a form of social behavior)

According to Brown and Levinson, politeness is a key tool for managing others’ face and avoiding
conflict. George Yule (1996) defines politeness as the strategies used in interaction to show
awareness of another person’s face. Thus, politeness is not merely about good manners but rather a
strategy that softens potentially conflictive situations and ensures cooperation in communication.

Different cultures express politeness in various ways. For example, in British English, it is common to
use highly indirect expressions such as “Would you mind opening the window?” to make a polite
request. In Spanish, a similarly polite but slightly less indirect form could be “¿Podrías abrir la
ventana?”, while in Japanese, even more elaborate expressions are used to avoid any potential face-
threatening implications.

Face threatening acts (FTAs) VS. Face saving acts (FSAs)

Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) are actions or words that may put a person’s social image at risk. These
acts can threaten both negative and positive face. For instance, a direct order like “Give me your
book” threatens negative face by imposing an obligation on the listener. Similarly, a harsh critique
such as “Your presentation was terrible” threatens positive face by disregarding someone’s effort and
self-esteem.

To counteract these situations, Face-Saving Acts (FSAs) are used as strategies to mitigate the impact
of FTAs, making communication smoother. For example, instead of issuing a direct order, one could
phrase a request more politely: “Would you mind lending me your book for a moment?” Likewise,
instead of offering blunt criticism, one could provide constructive feedback: “I think your presentation
had some great points, but perhaps the structure could be improved.”

Imagine a scenario where a young neighbor is playing loud music late at night, preventing an older
couple from sleeping. If one of the neighbors decides to handle the situation aggressively and says,
“Turn that music off right now!”, they are performing an FTA that threatens the young person’s
negative face by imposing an action upon them. However, if they choose a more polite strategy and
say, “Excuse me, would you mind turning the music down a little? It’s getting late, and some of us are
trying to sleep”, they employ an FSA that protects the interlocutor’s face and reduces the likelihood
of a negative reaction.

3.5 FACE THREATENING ACTS

"Face Threatening Acts" (FTAs) are actions that threaten a person’s social image, also known as their
"face." The "face" refers to the public image or social status an individual wants to project. FTAs can
be either indirect or direct and vary in intensity. They are used in everyday communication, both in
formal and informal situations.

• Direct and strong FTA: Accusing someone of being a liar threatens their social image, as it
publicly denigrates them, affecting their reputation and credibility. -> "You're a liar!"
• Softer FTA: The direct command (imperative) can be perceived as a threat to the other
person's autonomy, as it imposes an action without much regard for their desire or ability to
 decide when to do it. However, the use of "will you?" at the end softens the command
somewhat. -> "Tidy up your room now, will you?"
• Self-critical FTA: By admitting a mistake, the person threatens their own image, as they are
publicly acknowledging a flaw or weakness. It is a recognition of losing "face," but it can be
used strategically to show humility or an apology. -> "You're right, I made a mess of the whole
thing."
• Mitigated FTA: Offering help softens the possibility of discomfort when asking something
from the other person. The expression "shall I" is a polite way to offer assistance, which
minimizes the threat to the interlocutor’s autonomy. -> "Shall I help you carry the bags
upstairs?"

FTAs are interactions that challenge a person’s public image, either directly or indirectly. They can be
softened through language or communicative strategies, such as using questions instead of direct
orders or acknowledging one's own mistakes.

3.6 FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF A POLITENESS STRATEGY

Politeness strategies depend on power, distance, and rate of imposition in the interaction,
determining how direct or indirect a request will be in order to minimize the threat to the "face" of
those involved.

• Power (P): Power refers to the hierarchy or control one person has over another in an
interaction. The more power one person has over another, the more direct requests can be,
as the relationship allows for fewer mitigations of threats to the interlocutor's "face."
• Distance (D): Distance refers to the social, emotional, or relational closeness between the
people involved. The greater the distance (less familiarity or closeness), the more mitigated
the politeness strategy should be to avoid threatening the other person's "face."
• Rate of Imposition (R): Rate of imposition refers to the degree of effort or sacrifice required
for the person being asked to comply. The greater the effort or sacrifice required, the more
softened and mitigated the politeness strategy used should be.

Examples of requests and how P, D, and R affect them

"Lend me your car."

• P: Low power, as it is a direct command.

• D: Close relationship, as it uses an imperative without any softening.
• R: High imposition, since asking for a car is a significant favor.

This strategy is very direct, suggesting a close relationship and similar power between the
interlocutors.

"Can I borrow your car?"

• P: Similar power between the interlocutors, but it uses a question that softens the request.
 • D: The relationship could be more formal than in the previous case.
• R: High imposition, as it is still an important request.

The question makes the request less direct and more polite.

"Could I borrow your car?"

• P: Maintains the same power level as the previous one, but "could" is softer than "can."
• D: The relationship is likely more respectful or somewhat distant.
• R: High imposition, but the politeness of the wording reduces the weight of the request.

The use of "could" softens the request, showing respect for the interlocutor's autonomy.

"Do you think it would be possible for me to borrow your car?"

• P: More distant or formal relationship, as it is a highly mitigated request.

• D: More distant or respectful relationship.
• R: High imposition, but it is considerably softened.

The use of a conditional structure, indirect phrasing, and a very softened request shows greater
respect for the other person.

"I was wondering if I could possibly borrow your car."

• P: Respectful relationship with a highly softened request.

• D: Considerable distance, as the phrasing is extremely mitigated.
• R: High imposition, but with significant softening.

The use of "I was wondering" and "possibly" greatly softens the request, showing deference and
avoiding any pressure.

"There's no way I can get there without a car..."

• P: Close relationship, but this is not a direct request.

• D: Could imply a familiar or trusting relationship.
• R: High imposition, as it implies significant effort on the part of the interlocutor.

While it doesn't explicitly ask for the car, the phrase indirectly suggests a request, making it less direct
but still significant.

"I'm terribly sorry to bother you. I wonder if you could possibly lend me your pen."

• P: Respectful relationship, showing humility and consideration for the other person’s power.
• D: More formal or distant relationship.
• R: Low imposition, as asking for a pen is not a major sacrifice for the other person.
The use of apologies ("I'm terribly sorry to bother you") and indirect phrasing ("I wonder if") shows
great politeness and softens the request, which is appropriate in a respectful and distant context.

3.7 ADVANTAGES OF DIRECTENESS AND INDIRECTENESS (PAYOFFS OF DIFFERENT

STRATEGIES)

When we communicate, we can choose between being direct or indirect when expressing our ideas,
requests, or emotions. The choice of strategy depends on several factors, such as our relationship
with the other person, the context, and cultural norms.

• Directness: The message is communicated clearly and explicitly. There is no ambiguity about
what we want to express -> Example: "Lend me your hat tomorrow."
• Indirectness: The message is communicated implicitly or suggested. The listener is expected
to infer the meaning -> Example: "That’s a beautiful hat! I wish I had one like it." (hinting at
wanting to borrow it).

Each strategy has benefits depending on the situation and the relationship between the speakers.
Example:

-> Situation: A wants to borrow B’s hat.

-> Direct version

-> Indirect version

When to use each strategy:

→ Direct: When there is trust. When a quick, efficient and clare response is needed.
→ Indirect: When avoiding potential confrontation or abrupt rejection; or simply when you want
to give the other person space.

Factors Influencing the Choice Between Directness and Indirectness

3.8 STRATEGIES FOR PERFORMING FTAs

Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) are actions or speech that may damage a person's social image in a
conversation. In simple terms, these are situations where what we say might make the other person
feel uncomfortable, criticized, pressured, or attacked.

The concept of "face" was proposed by linguists Brown and Levinson (1987). It refers to how people
want to be perceived in society. There are two main types of face:

• Positive face -> The desire to be liked, accepted, and valued by others.
• Negative face -> The desire to have autonomy and not be imposed upon.

FTAs threaten one or both types of face, depending on the situation.

• Example of a positive face threat: Criticizing someone -> "I don't like the way you talk."
• Example of a negative face threat: Giving a direct order -> "Do this right now."

To minimize the impact of FTAs, we use different politeness strategies.

1. Not Performing the FTA:

The safest option is simply to say nothing if we think it might create conflict or damage our
relationship with the other person. -> Example: Instead of criticizing a coworker's work, we choose
to remain silent to avoid problems.

2. Performing the FTA:

If we decide to perform the FTA, we can do so in different ways.

• On Record (Direct and Clear Communication): This means we express our message explicitly,
in a way that is clear to the other person. Within this category, there are two approaches:

→ Bald (Without Mitigation, No Softening): The message is direct, without filters or softening. It
may sound rude or aggressive, depending on tone and relationship. -> Examples: "Give me
the money”, "Close the door”, "You made a mistake."

→ With Mitigation (Softening the Message): Here, we reduce the impact of the threat so the
other person does not feel attacked. There are two types of mitigation:
 • Off Record (Indirect Communication, Hints and Implications): Here, we don’t say directly
what we want, but we give hints so the other person can infer it. -> Examples: "Ugh, I
forgot my wallet at home..." (Hoping the other person will offer to pay), or "It’s really hot
in here, isn’t it?" (Hoping someone will open the window).

Characteristics of off-record communication: Used when we don’t want to be too direct. The
other person can interpret the message in different ways. Useful when we want to avoid
confrontation or give the other person an easy way out (if they don’t want to do what we’re
suggesting, they can simply ignore the hint).

The choice of strategy depends on the relationship and the situation:

• With friends → Positive politeness.

• With strangers or in formal settings → Negative politeness.
• In emergencies or authority situations → Bald (without mitigation).
• When we want to let the other person decide without pressure → Off record.

3.9 REALISATIONS OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

The way we communicate is not just about the words we use, but also about how we say them. In
daily life, there are moments when we need to be direct and others when it is better to soften what
we say to avoid sounding rude or authoritarian.

Politeness strategies help us communicate effectively without hurting others’ feelings or appearing
too aggressive. According to Politeness Theory, there are three main ways to achieve this:

1. Being completely direct (Bald, On-Record)

2. Being direct but with softening strategies (On-Record, with positive or negative politeness)
3. Being indirect and letting the listener infer what we mean (Off-Record)

Each of these strategies is used depending on our relationship with the other person, the
conversation context, and what we want to achieve.

Bald, on-record

This is the clearest and most straightforward way of saying something. There are no softening phrases
to reduce the impact of the message, nor any attempt to disguise the intention with indirectness.
When is this type of communication useful?

• When there is no risk of offending the listener (e.g., if there is a big power difference, like a
boss talking to an employee).
• When efficiency is more important than politeness (e.g., in emergency situations).
• When the context is informal and the message is expected (e.g., giving a short command in a
group activity).

⚠ Warning: This type of communication may sound harsh or rude if not used in the right context, so
it must be handled carefully.

Examples:

On-record, with mitigation strategies

Even though the speaker is still direct, they use strategies to make the message sound more polite or
friendly. This can be done in two main ways:
On-record, with positive politeness (solidarity strategy)

This type of politeness is used when we want to reinforce the relationship with the other person,
show that we appreciate them, or emphasize shared interests. It is common among friends, family,
and in warm, informal environments. How is it done?:

-> Showing interest in the other person

-> Praising or exaggerating to reinforce closeness
-> Using affectionate language or group identity words
-> Avoiding direct disagreement
-> Using humor to soften a request
-> Being optimistic about the other person’s response

On-record, using negative politeness (deference strategy)

This type of politeness is used when we want to be polite without sounding intrusive. Instead of
assuming the other person is willing to help, we leave room for them to refuse without feeling
uncomfortable. How is it done?
-> Using questions instead of direct commands: Could you post this letter for me?
-> Using softening phrases (hedging): I rather think it’s hopeless. / I suppose you’re right.
-> Being pessimistic so the request doesn’t sound demanding: I don’t suppose you could lend me your
car tonight...
-> Minimizing imposition: I just wanted to ask if I could borrow a bit of paper.
-> Using titles and respectful forms of address: Sir, could you help me?
-> Avoiding the direct use of the pronoun "I": It is expected that the decision will be made soon.
-> Apologizing before making a request: I’m terribly sorry to have to tell you this, but...

Off record

In this case, the speaker does not say directly what they want, but instead leaves clues for the listener
to infer the message. This strategy is useful when we want to avoid taking direct responsibility for
what we say or when we want to be subtle. Examples:

-> Making an observation instead of a direct request: It’s hot in here... (Suggesting that someone
should open a window)
-> Using exaggeration: There were a million people in the supermarket.
-> Giving ambiguous answers to avoid saying “yes” or “no” directly: Do you agree? (Well, yes and
no...)
3.10 LIMITATIONS OF BROWN AND LEVINSON´S MODEL OF POLITENESS AND
CRITICISM TO THE MODEL

Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness model has been one of the most influential theories in the
study of pragmatics and interpersonal communication. Their proposal is based on the concept of
"face" (or social image), which is divided into "positive face" (the desire to be accepted and
appreciated by others) and "negative face" (the desire to maintain autonomy and not be coerced).
However, over time, several studies have identified significant limitations in this model. These
criticisms focus on its Western perspective, its individualistic approach to "face," its incomplete
definition of "positive face," and its lack of consideration for the social and interpersonal dimension
of politeness.

1. Western Perspective of "Face" and Its Strategies

One of the main issues with Brown and Levinson's model is that it is based on a Western perspective
of communication and politeness. Their ideas about "face" are inspired by individualistic societies,
where personal autonomy and freedom are central values. In collectivist cultures, such as many
Asian, African, and Latin American societies, social image is not merely an individual concept but is
strongly linked to the community and interpersonal relationships. Researchers like Matsumoto
(1988) have argued that the model cannot be universally applied, as in collectivist societies,
politeness is based more on group harmony than on protecting individual autonomy.

2. Emphasis on "Face" as an Individual Rather than a Social Concept

Another fundamental criticism is that Brown and Levinson treat "face" as something purely individual
when, in reality, social image is deeply influenced by social and cultural factors. "Face" is not only a
personal concern but also depends on validation and acceptance by the community. Spencer-Oatey
(2000) points out that the model ignores how social interactions and cultural expectations affect the
management of politeness. This individualistic approach limits the model’s applicability in contexts
where "face" is more related to social status and maintaining harmonious relationships.

3. Incomplete Definition of "Positive Face" and Misinterpretation of "Negative Face"

The concept of "positive face" in Brown and Levinson's model is not clearly defined. While they
identify "positive face" as the desire to be approved and appreciated, they do not adequately explain
the different nuances of this concept in various cultural contexts. Additionally, they have been
criticized for including in "negative face" elements that are not actually related to social image. In
particular, some aspects of "negative face" seem to be more related to politeness as a strategy for
mitigating threats rather than a direct concern for individual autonomy. This ambiguity in definition
makes the model less precise and hinders its application in different communicative contexts.

4. Need to Expand the Concept of "Face-Work"

The concept of "face-work" developed by Goffman (1967) is fundamental to understanding how

people manage their image in social interactions. However, Brown and Levinson do not delve into
the complexity of this process, limiting themselves to categorizing politeness strategies without
exploring how social image is negotiated in real communication. This has led to a reductionist view
of politeness, focusing more on specific linguistic strategies than on the social dynamics of
interaction.

Finally, Brown and Levinson have been criticized for their excessive focus on individual autonomy and
freedom, ignoring the importance of the social and interpersonal dimension of "face." As mentioned
by Matsumoto (1988) and Spencer-Oatey (2000), politeness is not only about avoiding threats to
individual autonomy but also about strengthening social relationships and maintaining harmony
within a group. By not including this perspective, Brown and Levinson’s model overlooks key aspects
of interpersonal communication, making it less useful in cultures where politeness is more oriented
toward group maintenance rather than individual protection.

Brown and Levinson's politeness model has been a reference in pragmatic studies, but it presents
significant limitations. Its Western and individualistic perspective reduces its applicability in
collectivist contexts, its definition of "face" is incomplete, and its focus on linguistic strategies ignores
the social complexity of "face-work." For a more comprehensive understanding of politeness, it is
necessary to consider broader approaches that integrate the social and cultural dimension of human
interaction.