[16] Negative face was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e.
Face threatening acts can be verbal (using words/language), paraverbal (conveyed in the characteristics of speech such as tone, inflection, etc.
Focus on-focus away from requester differentiates between, "It's your problem, so you take care of it" and "It's terrible that your mom won't give you the money.
[18] In contrast, focusing attention on the requester can increase threat to positive face since it highlights the refuser's unwillingness.
[18] *Note: the requester and refuser would be analogous to the "speaker" and "hearer" roles discussed earlier in the section "Face-threatening acts".
Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer's positive and negative face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired.
[20][21] Several factors contribute to the differences in the use of (im)politeness strategies, including work experience, writing skills, and familiarity with appropriate levels of formality.
These strategies are used to make the hearer feel good about themselves, their interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well, or an individual's positive face needs, or self-worth, have to be met.
For example, Charlotte Rees and Lynn Knight[24] have explored the role politeness theory plays in general practice consultations.
Rees and Knight concluded that politeness strategies in the medical field can inhibit patients from providing complete and accurate information.
Paul Grice argues that all conversationalists are rational beings who are primarily interested in the efficient conveying of messages.
In certain situations, an over application of any particular strategy may actually achieve the opposite of the intended effect, as "certain speakers consistently evaluate polite behavior as unnecessary and offensive.
If the potential for loss of face is too great, the speaker may make the decision to abandon the face-threatening acts completely and say nothing.
[16] Although the politeness theory originated from the curiosity of linguistics and language forming, scholars are beginning to see its other benefits: its ability to not only help with interpersonal relationships, workplace environments, and beyond.
[30] Employees were taught the company's definition of politeness; they were expected to incorporate these beliefs into their day-to-day behavior, such as "kindness," "consideration for others," and "deference and respect".
However, a study conducted by Jurgita Sribaitė looked at politeness theory as it applied to written art reviews.
[32][35] In a study conducted by Marta Dynel in 2016, different occasions of humor used in the television show House were assessed and analyzed as polite or impolite.
"[36] In 2002, an oncologist by the name of Jerome Groopman wrote an article entitled, Dying Words; How should doctors deliver bad news?.
"[37] This statement reads similarly to the Sirota and Juanchich study; bad news is very frequently sugar-coated in attempt to save face.
In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a chapter entitled "The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes."
One of the most prominent reasons, Gladwell points out, is the lack of effective communication due to the power dynamic between the captain and the first officer.
Overwhelmingly the captains used commands, or what Brown and Levinson would consider bald on-record politeness strategy, to communicate with their first officer.
[6] Tanaka and Kawade found differences in the usage pattern of politeness strategies among native English speakers and ESL learners.
[41] Some of this intracultural difference is, in part, due to diverse "knowledge and values" within a particular society,[40] but Brown and Levinson argue that their theory is universal.
[40] An individual may have a pattern or way of communicating that they have habitually used in the past that others may consider face threatening or vice versa.
[40] Various definitions of 'politeness' which make reference to considering others' feelings, establishing levels of mutual comfort, and promoting rapport have been found to be lacking, in that often whether a verbal act is face threatening or not depends upon preemptively knowing how the hearer will interpret it.
"[12] Scholars suggest power differences vary between strangers and acquaintances, which in turn, shape the effects of the politeness strategies.
Social similarity and intimacy are other aspects to consider, as these connections create an increased awareness of the other person's meaning and request and therefore minimize the face-threatening act.
"[44] The concept of ingratiation has helped spur further investigation into how its power dynamics play into Brown and Levinson's politeness theory.
The claim has been made that Brown and Levinson's theory does not take into account the effect unique dynamic power relations and rankings has on the way people interact with one another (i.e. ingratiation).