4. Penelope Brown & Stephen Levinson’s model of face is too anglocentric PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay...

Description

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076)

4. Penelope Brown & Stephen Levinson’s model of face is too anglocentric.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss some of the criticisms that Brown and Levinson’s model of face has received, specifically for being too anglocentric and not being applicable in other cultures. I will be going through a number of these criticisms and discussing whether they are accurate or not, as well as looking at some counterarguments.

Brown and Levinson’s model of face is a part of their Politeness theory, and it consists of two desires or faces, which are negative face and positive face. Negative face refers to one’s desire to be unimpeded by others as well as one’s desire of freedom of action, whilst positive face is about one’s want for appreciation and approval of others (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Brown and Levinson claim that the two basic desires in their model of face are universal (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

Many have criticised this claim of universality of the constituents of face, one of which is Yo Matsumoto, a Professor of Linguistics, who talks about interactions in Japanese culture and how they differ from interactions in Anglocentric cultures among other Western cultures. He discusses the desires of an individual in a European culture, who is someone who wants to defend their own territory from others, and compares it to Japanese culture and claims that ‘such a notion cannot be considered as basic to human relations in Japanese culture and

Page1of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076) society’ (Matsumoto, 1988: 405). Matsumoto then goes on to explain how Japanese culture differs from this type of interaction with other individuals:

What is of paramount concern to a Japanese is not his/her own territory, but the position in relation to the others in the group and his/her acceptance by those others (1988: 405).

Matsumoto’s argument shows that Japanese culture is more centred around group dynamics, the collective and one’s position in relation to others, whereas Anglocentric cultures as well as Brown and Levinson’s model of face, and specifically negative face, is centred around individuality, independence and the desire not to be impeded by others. It is clear that it is difficult to apply Brown and Levinson’s theory to Japanese culture because of said group mentality, because the model of face does not specifically include this group mentality in its theory.

It seems however that positive face has a closer relation to Japanese culture than negative face. Being accepted and approved by others is a desire that can be related to the group mentality in Japanese culture, because in order to be a part of a group, you have to be accepted in it. Because of this, we can say that Brown and Levinson’s model of ice is still somewhat applicable to Japanese culture.

Matsumoto is not the only one who has criticised Brown and Levinson’s model of face. LuMing Robert Mao also argues that their model of face is centred around Western and Anglocentric cultures where individualism is valued, and that this may be problematic when it comes to other cultures where group identity is more important. According to Mao ‘Brown and Levinson’s face is an individualistic, Page2of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076) ‘self’-oriented image’ (Mao, 1993: 455). Mao claims that this is because of Western interactional dynamics, and he argues that this dynamic will not work in non-Western cultures. Brown and Levinson’s ‘claim to provide a universally valid model of face is empirically inadequate’ (Mao, 1993: 451), and Mao argues that Brown and Levinson’s claim is inaccurate specifically in relation to the Chinese face, which differs from Brown and Levinson’s model of face.

The Chinese model of face consists of two Chinese characters that are used to explain the meaning of face, which are miànzi and liǎn. According to Hsien Chin Hu (1944, cited in Mao 1993), Miànzi stands for prestige or reputation, and is achieved through successes in one’s life such as a good career and so on. It can also be achieved by members of the community ascribing you with that status of prestigiousness. Hu (1944, quoted in Mao 1993: 457) defines Liǎn as ‘the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation’. In other words, liǎn stands for honesty and morality. Overall, Chinese face is about obtaining a good reputation or face.

According to Mao (1993), there are two main differences between Chinese face and Brown and Levinson’s face. The first difference is how Brown and Levinson centre their definition around the individual by defining face as ‘the public selfimage that ever member wants to claim for himself’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61). Rather than this individual point of view, the Chinese face centres around building up a reputable image through interactions with others in a community, and is linked to the community’s views and perceptions of the individual’s character and how they act (Mao, 1993). In summary, the Chinese face is an

Page3of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076) individual’s public image or reputation that is dependent on and built up by interactions with others.

The other main difference between the two faces is what they consist of. In Brown and Levinson’s model, there are two parts, negative face and positive face. As mentioned before, negative face is about values and freedom, whereas miànzi is the want to ‘secure public acknowledgement of one’s prestige or reputation’ (Mao, 1993: 460). It is not about the desire of freedom or the want of your own territory, but more so about seeking respect from the people in your community. This perfectly showcases the difference between the individuality in Brown and Levinson’s face and the need for group identity in the Chinese face.

Whilst miànzi and negative face bear little to no resemblance, liǎn has some similarities to positive face as they both describe a desire to be liked and approved by others in the community. However, according to Mao (1993), that is the extent of it, since the moral overtone that is distinct in liǎn can not be found in positive face. Moreover, liǎn has no personal intimacy or closeness attached to it, whilst positive face often does. However, similar to Japanese culture, positive face can be said to be used in Chinese culture on some level, again because one has to be accepted by a group in order to be in it. Even though the focus is on respect more than likability, positive face is still not completely different from liǎn. We can conclude that both Japanese culture and Chinese culture differ from Anglocentric cultures because of their focus on group identity, and that because of this, Brown and Levinson’s model of face is not very suitable for neither Japanese nor Chinese cultures, but that he model of face is still not completely unusable when it comes to both Japanese and Chinese culture. Page4of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076)

There are some that go against these criticisms of face and claim that Brown and Levinson’s theory is in fact universal. One example is Barbara Pizziconi, who has criticised Matsumoto’s research. She argues that even though some cultures have different norms when it comes to interaction, they still implement negative face and positive face in their interactions on some level, and because of this, Brown and Levinson’s model of face does actually work across different cultures. She claims that ‘An individuals underlying ideology, attitudes, or disposition, even ideas of self, are assessed via the orientations shown with regard to one’s own and others’ positive and negative face’ (Pizziconi, 2003: 1499). To simplify, as Brown and Levinson (1987) have claimed themselves, culturally specific interaction vary, but the underlying components, which are negative face and positive face, are universal.

To conclude, whilst some cultures have different norms when it comes to interaction, they still implement negative face and positive face is some way, even though it may not be in the exact same way as Brown and Levinson originally theorised with their model of face. Pizziconi's argument further shows that even though our interactions differ culturally, face is still the foundation of all human interaction. We can see that Brown and Levinson’s model of face caters more towards interactions in Anglocentric cultures, however, their model of face does not exclude interactions in other cultures, hence living up to its original claim of universality.

1356 words Page5of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076)

References 1. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Mao, L. R. 1993. Beyond Politeness Theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. North-Holland: Journal of Pragmatics 21. 3. Matsumoto, Y. 1988. ‘Re-examination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese’. Journal of Pragmatics 12: pp. 405. 4. Pizziconi, B. 2003. ‘Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language’. Journal of Pragmatics 35: pp. 1499.

Page6of7

CandNo: 164973, Investigating Language in Context (Q1076)

Appendix A: Essay plan

ESSAY STRUCTURE 1. Introduction 2. Criticisms of Brown & Levinson’s model of face (who, too anglocentric, face in other cultures (China & Japan) etc.) 3. Conclusion

1. Introduction to what the essay is about 4. Go through three (or less?) different criticisms the theory has received in regards to it being too anglocentric; Robert LuMing Mao: argues that the politeness theory is centred around Western cultures where individualism is valued, and that the politeness theory doesn’t include other cultures where group identity is more important Matsumoto: Japanese culture and interactions differ from the Western way to interact (group vs individuality) Discuss these criticisms and go through wether they are accurate or not, counterarguments? 5. A conclusion on everything discussed in the essay Page7of7...