英语论文网

e to be maintained andthus it’ s every one’ s general interest t o defend his/her facewhen it is threatened in the interaction . Brown and Levins ondivide face int o positive face and negative face in terms of theparticipant’ s wants⑤. Positive face, similar to Goffman’s“face” , is a pers on’ s wish that others can app reciate or ap2p r ove of his thinking or his pers onality . In trying t o satisfy theother’ s positive face wants, the solidarity bet ween the t wopartici pants is built up. Negative face refers to the partici2pant’ s desire t o be not impeded or the desire not t o be i m2posed upon by others .
I n fact, it is the negative face they p r o2posed that makes Br own and Levins on’ s face theory distinctsince the positive face is similar t o Goffman’ s“face” .In Brown and Levins on’ s theory, certain acts are intrin2sically face2threatening acts either to the hearer or s peaker .Brown and Levins on regard face2threatening acts ( FTAs) asthose actswhich run contrary t o the addressee’ s and /or thes peaker’ s positive or negative face⑥.To make this concep t much clearer, he classifies theseacts as foll ows :(1) Acts threatening the hearer’ s Negative face: e . g .ordering, advising, threatening, warning .(2) Acts threatening the hearer’ s Positive face: e . g . ,comp laining, criticizing, disagreeing, and raising taboo top2ics .(3)Acts threatening the s peaker’ sNegative face: e . g . ,accep ting an offer, accep ting thanks, p r omising unwillingly .(4)Acts threatening the s peaker’ s Positive face: e . g . ,apologizing, accep ting comp liments, confessing .For the sake of maintaining face and smoothening thecommunicati on, a set of strategies in B&L are found t o be a2vailable for the s peakers by avoiding orminimizing the FTA.According to Br own and Levins on, every interact takesthe risk of intruding upon other’ s face or has the likelihood t obe impeded . To be polite, the s peaker has five choices ( fivestrategies) . One can choose t o avoid the act ( keep silent,(5) don’ t do the FTA) , for the p r obability of too much riskto be involved or choose to do it . I f there is still going t o begreat risk left after perfor ming the act, one can choose to givehints or s peak indirectly (4) off record) ; if there is little like2lihood to be risky—this is particularly common for the partici2pants of intimate relations, one can choose to s peak directly,and clearly ( on record: 1 . without redressive acti on, bald2ly) ; if there is a possibility of being risky ( e . g . a conversa2tion bet ween t wo colleagues) , one can choose either to main2tain the other’ s face as much as possible (2) positive polite2ness) or t o mitigate the threatening act to the addressee ( 3)negative politeness) or to perform both . Negative politenessaims to p reserve the negative face of the s peaker by means ofshowing deference of the hearer’ s op tions . Positive politenessaims to maintain the positive face of the hearer thr ough build2ing the s olidarity, claiming the common ground, showing sym2pathy towards the hearer .But how do the linguistic for ms help to satisfy the hearer’s face wants, i . e . t o be polite to the hearer? A case here is a2vailable t o illustrate the point in questi on .
A s peaker intendsto borr ow a stap ler fr om someone . He may simp ly fumble a2round in a drawerwithout saying a word, awaiting the offer ofhel p fr om others . (5) don’ t do the FTA) ; he