BROWN AND LEVINSON'S OFF-RECORD FACE THREATENING ACTS AS A POLITE STRATEGY TO DISCREDIT THE OPONENT'S FACE AT A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

Franklin De la Cruz.

Universidad de Chile Facultad de Filosofa y Humanidades Departamento de Lingustica Master of Arts in English Linguistics

In partial fulfillment of the Semantics Seminar 2012

Professor Carlos Zenteno

1 Objectives

1.1 General objective To provide a brief study on Brown and Levinson's Politeness Principles, specifically, about 'off-record' face threatening acts and their relation to the first presidential debate held in 2012 in the USA.

1.2 Specific objectives.

1.2.1 to provide appropriate definitions to understand the distinction of on/off record, in the context of the politeness principle and face threatening acts, in order to detect them in utterances. 1.2.2 to check the lexical items that build up off-record threatening acts. 1.2.3 to look for lexical patterns in the occurrence of this strategy. 1.2.4 to provide some numbers regarding the use of this strategy and the overall linguistic behavior of the participants.

2 Hypotheses 2.1 Main hypothesis

That, above all, we as speakers adapt our conversational strategies in order to save our own positive and negative face. 2.2 Secondary hypotheses

2.2.1 That the politeness principle is a continuum that goes from 'very polite' up to 'very impolite' conversational behavior. 2.2.2 That that particular behavior depends on the speaker's conversational strategy(ies) used in order to save his/her positive and negative face.

2.2.3 That our conversational behavior is always ego-oriented. 2.2.4 That in contexts such as public presidential debates, there is a tendency to discredit the opponent's face by means of off-record face threatening acts, because of their polite nature rather than bald on-record threatening acts due to their impolite nature.

3. Introduction The aim of this paper is twofold, at one end, I would like to provide appropriate definitions to understand the nature of the concept of politeness, specifically, relative to the main differences existing between Leech and, Brown and Levinson's treatment about the nature of politeness in our linguistic behaviour, and on the other hand, to work with Brown and Levinson's theory on face, specifically, with off-record face threatening acts in the context of a presidential debate.

First some very broad explanations and definitions will be provided to contrast Leech and Brown view on this subject. After that, a closer look will be given to Brown and Levinson's ,off-record (i.e. indirect) face-threatening acts, FTAs. Then, the methodology will be explained. Next to that, an analysis will be provided and finally, appropriate conclusions and observations will be given.

4. The Politeness Principlei Besides cooperation, most interactions are governed by politeness, that is to say by what is considered a polite social behavior within a certain culture. The Politeness Principle is a series of maxims, which Geoffrey Leech has proposed as a way of explaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges. 4.1 Leech's politeness. Leech defines politeness as a type of behaviour that allows the participants to engage in a social interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. In stating his

maxims Leech uses his own terms for two kinds of illocutionary acts. He calls representatives assertives, and calls directives impositives. Each maxim is

accompanied by a sub-maxim, which is of less importance. They all support the idea that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is more important than positive politeness (seeking concord)ii. Here we find the main difference between Leech and Brown's (1978) nature for the principle of politeness: while for Leech it constitutes a must in order to engage cooperatively in social interaction, for Brown and Levinson, all interchanges (i.e. utterances) are threatening in nature, thus politeness stands as a very important strategy in order to diminish any possible (and unavoidable) face threatening act.

4.2 Brown and Levinson 's theory In their model, politeness is defined as redressive (i.e. self controlled) action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of potential face-threatening acts (FTAs). In their theory, communication is seen as potentially dangerous and antagonistic. The basic notion of their model is face. This is defined as the public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself. In their framework, face consists of two related aspectsiii:

One is negative face, or the rights to territories, freedom of action and freedom from imposition - wanting your actions not to be constrained or inhibited by others. The other is positive face, the positive consistent self-image that people have and their desire to be appreciated and approved of by at least some other people. (University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica: online content. 2012)

They correspond to the rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for themselves and the people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson also argue that in human communication, either spoken or written, people tend to maintain one another's face continuously. (University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica: online content. 2012) In everyday conversation, we adapt our utterances to different situations. Among friends we take liberties or say things that would seem discourteous among strangers. In both situations we try to avoid making the hearer embarrassed or uncomfortable. Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self-esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs.

4.3 Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson sum up human politeness behaviour in four strategies: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record-indirect strategy. The bald on-record strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer's face (I want that, give me those) . The positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that your hearer has a face to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly. (Is it ok for me to have a beer?) On the other end, the negative politeness strategy recognizes the hearer's face. but it also admits that you are in some way imposing on him/her. (I don't want to bother you but, would it be possible for me to have a beer?) Off-record indirect strategies take some of the pressure off. You are trying to avoid the direct FTA of asking for a beer. You would rather it be offered to you once your hearer sees that you want one. (It so hot, it makes you really thirsty)

In this paper we are going to focus on off-record face threating acts in the context of the last presidential debate hold between the president of the United States, Barack Obama, and the former governor Mitt Romney. It is believed that, being such a formal instance, and the tenor, of a high formal meeting, and the main purpose of it, that of clearly stating the main differences of thought (i.e. political actions), I believe that off-record (i.e. indirect) face threatening acts, will be one of the main strategies to discredit the oponent's views and opinions. All of this, because they have to -at all costs- reinforce their positive and negative face to the audience, the future electors.

5 Methodology. The sample was taken from the official commission of elections of the United States of America and consists of the full transcription of the debate. We examined the first quarter of it, the one regarding economy. It consists of 20 minutes of opinions in which each person spoke for about 10 minutes. We focus on the definition given above to discover those possible off-record face threatening acts.

6 Analysis

6.1. Obama starts his presentation making a systematic use of the pronoun we. He is inclusive: the question here tonight is not where we've been, but where we're going.

Then, to state a difference between him and his oponent, he says: Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations, that we'll be better off. I've got a different view. The last statement clearly is an off-record face-threatening act: he does not states directly that Romney's view are not the best but his own, he just leaves open to the public that at least his own are different, followed up by: I think we've got to... Now, it ultimately is going to be up to the voters -- to you -- which path we should take. A mechanism that both, includes the audience -they are going to be the responsibles of his futuree actions if they fell Obama represents them- and takes Obama's ultimate actions responsibility.

6.1.2. Generally speaking, Obama is inclusive, prefers to built up arguments starting with the pronoun we and most of the time leaves open to the audience the last word by means of their support in the election day.

6.2. Rommney While Romney seems to be including the audience, he performs two off-record face-threatening acts, first to the audience, and another one to Obama. Then he is exclusive by means of the persistent use of the pronoun I:

...the answer is, yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path. Not the one we've been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That's not what I'm going to do.

6.2.1 One clear difference is that, while Obama includes and leaves open to the audience the last word, Romney leaves the audience just any other spectator and he takes the lead of action (without a concern for the other's negative face): My plan has five basic parts. I'm concerned that... The president has a view... That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore

the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.

7 Conclusions 7.1. There is evidence that off-record face threatening acts. Actually if you go along, there is no

instance of agreement between the speakers. 7.2. 7.3 Direct face threatening acts are avoided as possible. Obama tends to be inclusive in the proposal of ideas and leaves, ultimately, open the question

on main issues to the public, specifically to the medial class. 7.4. Romney tends to exclude others from his proposals and presents himself directly taxative in

relation to ultimate decisions. Repetitive use of 'I? And 'my'. 7.5. It seems to be true that politen and off-record statements, respond to the nature of utterances: in the end, by uttering, the status quo of reality is threatened.

8. Bibliography.

- Hubler, A. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Pragmatics and Beyond. IV:6 -Commission on Presidential Debates. October 3, 2012 Debate Transcript - Murakami, M. 2011 A Study of Compensation for Face-Threatening Acts in Service Encounters in Japan and the United States . Portland State University. - Pinker, S.The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. - Rosenbaum, M. The three functions of self-control behaviour: redressive, reformative and experiential. Tel Aviv University. -Tsuda, s.1993. Indirectness in Discourse: What Does It Do in Conversation? Intercultural Communication Studies III:1. Tokaigakuen Women's College. - http://www.mona.uwi.edu/dllp/linguistics/politeness.htm

No reference back to any author in particular: here is the web source http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAB&url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.uniroma2.it%2Fdidattica%2Fling_ing1_linfo%2Fdeposito %2FPOLITENESS.doc&ei=kRzTUOa5HarV0gHMnYAo&usg=AFQjCNG2n_dMyOyhyxK0_-A-ARZsIzkO8Q&sig2 =wzbKcmBaxHIPykpZiVOBXg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ

ii See i iii http://www.mona.uwi.edu/dllp/linguistics/politeness.ht