Page 127 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Multidisciplinary perspectives on intercultural conflict 105

– bald on-record performance (clear, unambiguous and concise speech)
– positive politeness (language that is ‘approach-based’ and treats the hearer
as an in-group member)
– negative politeness (language that is ‘avoidance-based’ and respects the
hearer’s desire for freedom and autonomy)
– off-record performance (indirect and comparatively ambiguous speech)
– non-performance of the face-threatening act.

People choose which super-strategy to use by assessing the ‘weightiness’ of
the speech act. According to Brown and Levinson (1987) this entails assessing
the power differential between the interlocutors, the distance–closeness be-
tween them, and the degree of imposition (or face-threat) of the message itself.

3.4. Limitations of Brown and Levinson’s face model

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) face model has been hugely influential. Numer-
ous studies have used it as an analytic framework and many others have inves-
tigated one or more of its elements. Nevertheless, there have also been wide-
spread criticisms of it, and here we consider those that are most pertinent to the
study of conflict.
As explained in section 3.3, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework starts
with the assumption that harmony is the desired option, because we all want
our own face needs to be upheld. Culpeper (2005, Culpeper, Bousfield and
Wichmann 2003), on the other hand, argues that people may sometimes want
to be deliberately offensive or face-threatening, and that Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) framework is not broad enough to cater for this. He therefore proposes
a set of ‘impoliteness’ super-strategies that are mirror images of Brown and
Levinson’s politeness super-strategies. When speakers use these strategies,
their intention is to attack the hearer’s face, rather than to uphold it. Culpeper
(2005, Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann 2003) draws on a variety of data
sources to provide authentic examples of the use of these various super-strat-
egies.
Other researchers have questioned whether Brown and Levinson’s (1987)
focus on the performance of (face-threatening) speech acts provides a broad
enough basis for analysing the complexities of (dis)harmony in interaction.
Spencer-Oatey (2005), for example, argues that rapport is dependent on the par-
ticipants’ dynamic management of three main factors: interactional wants (both
task-related and relational), face sensitivities, and perceived sociality rights and
obligations. She maintains that relational conflict is likely to emerge if the vari-
ous participants’ expectations over each of these factors are not handled appro-
priately, and that a pre-requisite for maintaining positive rapport is thus for each
of the participants to be aware of and/or sensitive to the interactional wants, face