3。 Theoretical Bases

As a universal phenomenon, address form can be observed in all languages and cultures and it is one of the aspects of pragmatics。 There are many outstanding scholars have discussed the relationship among address form, politeness, and pragmatics。 In general, the use of address forms is governed by politeness consideration, and people usually choose a particular address form for showing their politeness。

This chapter aims to analyze the relevant politeness theories and the writer will focus on two important politeness theories: Brown & Levison’s face theory and Leech’s politeness principle。

3。1 Face Theory by Brown and Levinson

To date, the most influential politeness model is the Face Theory by Brown and Levinson (1978)。 In the paper, Brown and Levinson proposed that “human communication is rational, effective and purposeful”。 And there is an important element in the paper -- the notion of “face”, which is put forwarded by Goffman。 In Brown and Levinson’s theory, they define “face” as an “inpidual’s self-esteem” or “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown & Levinson 1987)。 And they claim that “face” is something that can “be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction”。 They thinks that there are two “face” in people’s interactions, “negative face” and “positive face”。 The former is a person’s desire to be unimpeded by others, to be free to act; the latter is a person’s wish to be liked or approved of (Brown & Levinson 1987: 61-62)。 文献综述

In daily life, people want to be respected by concerning their face。 If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another inpidual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face-threatening act (FTA)。 And if a person behaves or says something to lessen the threat to others’ face, it is called a face-saving act (FSA)。 In Brown and Levison’s term, most speech acts are "face-threatening (FTA)。 Some threaten hearer’s negative face by imposing on hearer (e。g。 orders, requests); other FTA threaten hearer’s positive face by indicating speaker’s lack of concern for hearer’s self-image (e。g。 disagreement and criticism), and some acts even threaten speaker’s own negative face (e。g。 thanking) or positive face (e。g。 apologies) (Brown & Levison 1987: 65-68)。

They have proposed five strategies to save face, which are called politeness strategies。 Strategies of polite behavior are distinguished in accordance with the differentiation of face wants (Brown & Levison, 1987: 68-70): (1) Bald-on-record: Without redressive action; (2) Positive politeness: being subjected to redressive action, do the FTA on record; (3) Negative politeness: being subjected to redressive action, do the FTA on record; (4) Off record: indirect strategies that avoid making any explicit or unequivocal imposition on H; and (5) Don’t do the FTA。 These five strategies may be ordered from most to least risky, that is, from most to least threatening to face。 The most risky strategy is bald-on-record; the FTA is carried out in the most direct possible way, without attention to face。 Positive and negative politeness strategies are the next most risky; the FTA is carried out with redressive action addressed respectively to positive and negative face。 The off-record strategy is the next most risky; the threat of the FTA is reduced by making the speaker’s intention ambiguous。 The least risky strategy is simply not to do the face-threatening act at all。