Читать книгу The Politeness/Impoliteness Divide. English-Based Theories and Speech Acts Practice in Moroccan Arabic онлайн

25 страница из 36

Brown and Levinson also classified verbal or non-verbal acts, which contradict or “run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or speaker” as Face-Threatening-Acts (FTA) (1987: 70). Requests for instance, are considered as FTAs to the hearer’s (H) negative face in so far that the speaker (S) is impeding H by asking H to do what S wants and not what H wants. On the other hand, any “contradiction or expression of disagreement, which means the speaker thinks that there is something wrong with an opinion held by the hearer” is a FTA to H’s positive face. There are also acts that threaten both positive and negative face of the H, as is the case when H complies with S’s wants but not necessarily his or her own” (Fasold 1990: 161).

Some other acts are liable to affect S’s positive face, such as expressing thanks, excuses, acceptance of offers and apologies, acceptance of compliments, confessions, etc.; meanwhile, others affect S’s negative face, as with the acceptance of compliments, confessions, admission of guilt, or apologies where S recognises that his or her act contradicts H’s expectations. According to Brown and Levinson’s politeness hypothesis, MP (a Model person) would resort to different strategies to keep his/her face intact and at the same time to reduce the possibility of damaging the positive or negative face of H.