The concept of face and individual interaction attached to it was claimed to be universally valid by Brown and Levinson (1978, p. 249). However, many scholars challenge its universality. The conceptualisation of positive and negative face and the
64
notion of ‘imposition’ are critically viewed by scholars as culture-bound (Bargiela- Chiappini, 2003, p. 1460). Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) notes that non-Anglophone researchers have found that the concept of face from Brown and Levinson (1978) is not appropriate to their cultures. Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick (2014, p. 273) maintains that their conceptualisation doesn’t embrace the features of face in East Asian cultures that relate the individual’s face to group face. Similarly, the notion of face is not easy to utilise in a Japanese language context and does not represent the Japanese concept of wakimae (discernment) since Japanese social interactions do not allow interactional choice due to the cultural norms that stress a person’s place in society (Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1989). Furthermore, their findings did not correspond to Brown and Levinson’s view of honorifics as a direct index, but rather indirectly index the contextual features (Hudson, 2011; Okamoto, 2011). Gu (1990, pp. 241 - 242) claims that Brown and Levinson’s model does not match Chinese data as the concept of face in Chinese seems to be divergent from that of Brown and Levinson’s. Face is regarded as wants rather than norms, but ignoring the normative aspect of politeness is considered to be a serious misunderstanding. In addition, politeness infringement will elicit social sanctions.
Yu’s (2011, pp. 404 - 405) study showed that non-conventional indirectness cannot be universal or polite and maintains the notion that the degree and the perception of politeness can be culture specific. Thus, the notion and degree of politeness in Korean, Hebrew, and English are different. Consequently, they should be explicated in terms of a culture-specific system of politeness. Furthermore, it is maintained that while the notion of face is valid for (some) Western languages, it is not relevant to Eastern languages (Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1989). Brown and Levinson’s face framework can be insignificant when it is applied in cultures in which the individual is required to obey the norms rather than to maximise self-identity (Song, 2012, p. 35). Moreover, the individualistic notion of face is not relevant to collectivist cultures where individuals identify themselves with reference to their social group (Gu, 1990; Matsumoto, 1989)). The social norms govern the way people use the language. For example, expressing intimacy and deference at the same time is not allowed in the Japanese honorific system. Violating the social norms result in demerit for the speaker (Hasegawa, 2012).
65
While the notion of universality has been critically assessed by other scholars, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) have continued to maintain that politeness operates consistently in all languages, and it is universal. Their model is claimed to be universally valid (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 249). Ogiermann (2009) stated that its application to diverse languages presents counter-evidence to their claim. Wierzbicka (1985) claims that features of English, argued to be universal principles of politeness, are proven to be language specific and culture specific based on her study of the differences between English and Polish in the area of speech acts.
Another critique of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory comes from the three social variables: social distance, relative power, and ranking of imposition. Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) suggested that these are available in all cultures and speakers seem to experience them with the same value. Their model presumes that the perception of distance and the relative power ratio between the speaker and the hearer are the same despite the culture (Song, 2012, p. 33). Song (2012, pp. 32 – 33) argues that the perceptions of distance between interlocutors are affected by cultural differences. Similarly, the relative power ratio between the interlocutors is also different across cultures. Besides, many scholars maintain that the three social variables are not universal, and in any case not well-developed enough to portray all the situations affecting the production of politeness (Pérez de Ayala, 2001). Moreover, none of the three variables can be chosen as a constant between interactants since there is the possibility of change even over short periods of time in relative power and social distance (Fraser, 1990).
In spite of the criticisms, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory is supported by many scholars. Wilson and Feng (2007, cited in Feng, Hang, & Holt, 2011, P. 304) argued that Brown and Levinson’s theory persists in research on communication because it emphasises a speaker’s construction of meaning: the reason people verbalise when they engage in everyday communication. Similarly, Ogiermann (2009, p. 20) stated that the theory continues to operate as the conceptual framework for most studies carried out in cross-cultural pragmatics. In addition, Feng et al. (2011) claimed that the theory is relevant to the way people communicate across cultures since the social variables that are fundamental to the theory exist in many cultures. O’Driscoll (1996) also maintained that Brown and Levinson’s theory preserves its pan-cultural
66
validity and, therefore, is applicable as a basis for cross-cultural comparison. Moreover, Grainger (2011) argues that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory continues to provide a valuable contribution to the examination of verbal strategies that facilitate human interaction. In response to the notion of Japanese honorifics, Fukada and Asato (2004) provide a counter argument saying that Japanese honorifics are closely attached to face maintenance, and an explanation using the face conception is more assuring than using the discernment conception.
The challenges directed to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory primarily concentrate on the issues of face, universality and social variables. These aspects have been questioned or advocated in terms of their applicability related to the types of society such as individual or collectivist society and languages such as western or eastern languages. Though there have been disputes over the theory, this study employs Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory as it is still considered to be the most relevant and the most universal to date.
From the four theoretical views of politeness discussed in the previous sections, it can be said that the social-norm view perceives polite behaviour in terms of common sense notions of politeness. The conversational-contract view does not seem to provide a tangible method to evaluate how rights and obligations change and operate in the real interactions. The conversational-maxim views that involves Grice’s CP, Lakoff’s rules of politeness, and Leech’s PP do not provide a well-articulated method and problems may be encountered when they are applied to analysing talk in interaction. Of the four theoretical views, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory has mostly been applied in politeness research. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory “satisfies the criteria for empirical theories, such as explicitness, parsimony, and predictiveness,” (Kasper, 1994: 3208). Their theory remains a feasible alternative and provides explicit formulated linguistic politeness which is not available in the other politeness theory and that provides a foundation for conducting cross-cultural research. Besides, there has not been any comprehensive, alternative theoretical approach provided in place of Brown and Levinson’s theory. For those reasons, this study employs Brown and Levinson’s theory as a theoretical basis for this study.
67