Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

face-threatening behaviour. Indeed, it has been suggested that, in respect of
negative face threats (in the conventional sense), it is perhaps the imposition
indirectness itself - requiring longer inferential roots on the part of the hearer to
understand what the nature of the speaker's utterance is - rather than the
imposition of the act itself which is perceived as less polite in German (see
Pavlidou 1994). Thus in the realisation specific speech acts at least, it may be
the case that the 'more direct the more polite' runs as a norm of politeness.
A salient characteristic to emerge from the studies reviewed over the
preceding pages is also the apparent variations with which what was classed
earlier as positive face (Brown and Levinson 1987) is handled. It appears that -
in the achievement of equilibrium at a relational level positive face can be
frequently threatened across a range of discourse types. This is best
exemplified by the German tendency to routinely and normatively attack or
undermine interlocutors' positions whilst going about what has been invariably
framed by scholars as equilibric or even harmonious interaction (e. g. Byrnes
1986; Watts 1989). Thus, although the positive - negative conceptual i sati on of
face advanced by Brown and Levinson is not itself brought into question by
English - German comparative studies (as was shown to be the case by Asian
based studies) reveal obvious cultural differences as to how these aspects of
face are oriented to in and through actual discourse practices. Importantly,
these practices seem to run contra to the mitigation of imposition and avoidance
of threats to positive face characteristic of English communicative style and
underlying the rather Anglo-centric work of Brown and Levinson (1987).
The apparent tendency for an avoidance of conversational lip-service in
conversational interaction in the pursuit of some wider equilibrium also appears
to undermine somewhat Goffman's comments on the nature of facework as a
type of working consensus in talk. As with the premises on which politeness
theory was based (Lakoff 1973,1979; Leech 1983; and Brown and Levinson
1987) Goffman's (1967) notion of ritual equilibrium was posited on the
assumption that this was achieved by harmonic and non-conflictual behaviour at
the level of conversation. Work on German data has somewhat contradicted
this equation of ritual equilibrium with 'lip-service' (ibid. ). Ritual equilibrium has
been shown to be achieved in German conversation not necessarily by lip-
AR