English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper appraises Brown &amp; Levinson (1987 [1978]) from a utilitarian perspective. Rather than assess the veracity, validity, or applicability of their model as a whole, or its relevance to politeness, it identifies and examines several of the claims contained in the model individually, to see which ones can help to illuminate interaction across cultures. Its main contention is that the concepts of positive face(work) and negative face(work) are particularly useful in this context, being applicable to a wider range of interactive moves than the model in which B&amp;L cage them allows. (By way of example, one such interactive move is analyzed in detail.) This potential, however, only becomes clear when (1) these concepts are freed from the constraints of the B&amp;L model as a whole, (2) they are defined in a manner which returns to the original inspiration for the positive-negative opposition and (3) it is understood that this opposition is just one among many aspects of face, so that it is not made to do too much, inappropriate, work. (Examples of these limits are also discussed.)

Brown & Levinson's face: How it can—and can't—help us to understand interaction across cultures