Face
Face is the public self-image that every individual claims in social interaction. The concept originates in Goffman (1967), who defined it as "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact." Brown and Levinson (1987) developed it into the central construct of Politeness Theory.
Two Aspects of Face
| Type | Definition | Examples of threat |
|---|---|---|
| Positive face | The desire to be liked, approved of, admired, and valued | Criticism, disagreement, ignoring someone, showing disinterest |
| Negative face | The desire for autonomy — not to be imposed upon, told what to do, or have one's freedom restricted | Requests, orders, unsolicited advice, obligations, intrusive questions |
Every competent speaker simultaneously maintains their own face and attends to the face of others. This mutual face-maintenance is what makes social interaction possible.
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Many Speech Acts inherently threaten face. A request threatens the hearer's negative face (imposes on their autonomy). A criticism threatens the hearer's positive face (suggests disapproval). An apology threatens the speaker's positive face (admits fault).
Brown and Levinson's framework predicts that speakers will choose politeness strategies proportional to the severity of the face threat — more severe threats require more elaborate mitigation. See Politeness Theory for the full strategy hierarchy.
Face in Different Cultures
The Brown and Levinson model assumes individual face wants, but face operates differently across cultures:
- Chinese face distinguishes miànzi (面子, social prestige, reputation) from liǎn (臉, moral character). Losing liǎn is more serious than losing miànzi.
- Japanese face — Matsumoto (1988) argued that Japanese speakers prioritise maintaining social position within a group over individual autonomy, challenging the universality of "negative face."
- Vietnamese face — thể diện and mặt mũi reflect concern with social standing and group harmony, often prioritising collective face over individual wants.
These cultural differences mean that what counts as a face-threatening act — and how severe it is — varies significantly.
Face in ELT
Face management is pervasive in language use and critical for Pragmatic Competence:
- Hedging devices (sort of, I think, perhaps) soften face threats in academic and professional discourse
- Indirect Speech Acts ("I was wondering if...") protect negative face
- Compliment responses, disagreement strategies, and refusal patterns all involve face work
- Classroom dynamics involve face: error correction is a face-threatening act; students may avoid speaking to protect face
- Understanding face helps explain why learners from different cultural backgrounds behave differently in group work, feedback sessions, and speaking tasks
Key Reference
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. The foundational text on face as a sociological concept, later adapted by Brown and Levinson for linguistic politeness.