Managing Face Concerns in Criticism Integrating Nonverbal Behaviors as a Dimension of Politeness in Female Friendship Dyads

Abstract

This sfudy seeks to expand politeness theory by investigating the influence of nonverbal behaviors on facework in criticism of a friend. As hypothesized, various cues, including variations in vocal tone, facial expressions and brow movements, gestures, body orientation, and touch, influenced participants' perceptions of politeness in a number of ways. First, mitigating nonverbal behaviors added to assessments of politeness when accompanied by bald-on-record linguistic politeness strategies. Second, subjects perceived aggravating nonverbal cues with and without linguistic politeness similarly. Although verbal politeness was still the bigger factor in perceptions of politeness, the results of this study suggest that facework scholars should also consider how something is said as salientfor interpretation of what is said.n our attention to self-presentation, we typically seek to preserve a positive evaluation (i.e., face) for ourselves and others through facework. As the interactive processes used to preserve face, facework acts as one part of the relational function of communication (Penman, 1994;Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Drawing on Goffman's (1967) ideas regarding facework, Brown and Levinson (1987) developed a theory of politeness that recognizes the relational nature of facework as "the principles out of which social relationships, in their interactional aspect, are constructed" (p. 55). Politeness theory presents a comprehensive picture of face as an interpersonal aspect of strategic language use, shaping and being shaped by relationships.Although they focus almost entirely on linguistic manifestations of politeness, Brown and Levinson acknowledge that nonverbal behaviors-particularly prosodics and kinesics-may also play a role in faceApril R. Trees is a doctoral student in the Department of Speech Communication, University of Washington. Valerie Manusov is associate professor in the Department of Speech Communication, University of Washington. This article is based on the first author's master's thesis, produced under the direction of the second author. In 1996, Trees presented the article at the Western States Communication Association, Pasadena, CA. The authors acknowledge the important input provided by thesis committee members Isabelle Bauman and Gerry Philipsen and by the reviewers. Direct correspondence to the authors, Department of Communication, Box 353415, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.

Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language

“…Despite the importance of prosody within spoken communication it has rarely been explored in the literature on (im)politeness (though see Thompson 1995;Trees and Manusov 1998;Wichmann 2004;Culpeper 2005Culpeper , 2012Félix-Brasdefer 2009). Some studies that have incorporated prosody have done so relatively superficially (Trees and Manusov 1998) or as a secondary focus, as in the analysis of requests in different varieties of Central American Spanish (Félix-Brasdefer 2009) and Kasper's (2006) study of oral proficiency interviews.…”

“…However, Thompson (1995) suggests that though falling pitch contours are used in conducive questions in English, ones where the answer can be anticipated, a rising tone may be used instead, for politeness purposes. Cross-modal commonalities are also indicated by Trees and Manusov's (1998) identification of raised eyebrows in speech as an indication of concern for faceneeds.…”

“…In signed language Wilbur and Patschke (1998) identified a forward body lean as indicating inclusiveness with the interlocutor, and various authors suggest that use of smaller signing space conveys politeness (Cokely and Baker-Shenk 1980;Liddell and Johnson 1989;George 2011). Trees and Manusov (1998) suggest that, in speech, verbal and nonverbal elements interact with each other in a complex way, with nonverbal elements shifting in their degree of influence over meaning. Their work may well reflect the complex interaction of multiple non-manual features in signed language (Dachovsky and Sandler 2009;de Vos et al 2009) and highlights a commonality between simultaneity in spoken and signed languages that is overlooked when research excludes paralinguistic communication (Vermeerbergen et al 2007).…”

“…Some studies that have incorporated prosody have done so relatively superficially (Trees and Manusov 1998) or as a secondary focus, as in the analysis of requests in different varieties of Central American Spanish (Félix-Brasdefer 2009) and Kasper's (2006) study of oral proficiency interviews. The reticence to explore prosody for politeness may stem from the practical difficulties involved in this type of research.…”

Improving Oral Fluency of EFL Students with Different Proficiency Levels through Explicit Instruction of Face Threatening Strategies

“…Unsurprisingly, communicative acts evoking criticism or effrontery can threaten receivers' positive face by conveying disapproval or by delimiting the hearers' behaviors and their autonomy. FTAs are often expressed linguistically even though some writers like Trees and Manusov (1998) believe that they can also be conveyed through ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 7, No.…”