Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles

Testing Major Linguistic Politeness Theories against the Marital Relationships of Bilingual (Urdu and Punjabi) Speaking Pakistani Couples

“…Urdu: seedhi seedhi be'izzati kar di; Punjabi: laa paa ke hath parraa'ti) while polite and neutral being appropriate, over-polite, cold and impolite/rude being inappropriate and insulting being offensive. These three findings are similar to those of the discursive theorists Mills (2004), Roloff and Riffee (2004), Bousfield and Locher (2008), Culpeper (2011) and Johnson (2011 etc. So a better explanation, once again, does not come from the face-saving model but from the discursive account.…”

Modal Expressions in Refusals of Friends' Interpersonal Requests: Politeness and Effectiveness

“…These implications are consistent with Johnson et al (2004a), who concluded that refusal messages can threaten positive and negative face needs for both parties within interaction. Although Johnson et al (2004a) did not examine modals, it seems plausible that modal expressions, like other refusal forms, may be used to address positive and negative face concerns of both parties in interaction.…”

“…Folkes (1982), for instance, concluded that impersonal, unstable reasons for date refusal (e.g., ''I have to attend a family event that evening'') are more likely to be stated than negative personal characteristics of the requester (e.g., ''You are physically unattractive''). Johnson et al (2004a) found that combinations of dimensions of the reasons given for refusal (willingness-unwillingness, ability-inability, and focus-on-focus away from the requester) were associated with different types of face threats such that, for example, the interaction of the willingness and focus on requester dimensions predicted threat to a refuser's positive face.…”

“…(e.g., Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990), and communication (e.g., Johnson, Roloff, & Riffee, 2004a;Kline & Floyd, 1990).…”

“…Within the framework of politeness theory, Brown and Levinson identified the types of messages that create threats to an interactant's face needs and strategies for redressing face threats. Particular concern has focused on speech acts that are inherently face threatening, such as requests (e.g., Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998) and refusals (e.g., Johnson et al, 2004a;Van Wie & Gross, 2001). Although the magnitude of face threat presented by a given speech act varies, interactants often engage in facework designed to minimize the threat to face that occurs when performing one of these acts.…”