All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Analysis on Hostage Crisis Negotiations With Regard to Identity Concerns
Unformatted Document Text:  Hostage Negotiations 9 desire to not be imposed upon by others" (as cited in, Lim, 1990, p. 76). Individuals wish that the wants of the face, both positive and negative, be satisfied. However, these are "social desires" that can only be granted by other individuals. Individuals then use politeness as a strategy for making a request with an expectation that if they do so others will reciprocate it by attempting to save their face (Lim, 1990, p. 76). Brown and Levinson (1987) define the hierarchy of strategic politeness that occurs in conversation. They integrate the social circumstances that define the severity of face-threatening acts and the conversational strategies with each of the five levels of politeness hierarchy: 1) not doing face a threatening act, 2) going off record, 3) negative politeness, 4) positive politeness, and 5) reacting baldly, without redressive action (p. 69). This comprehensive approach to discourse politeness by Brown and Levinson (1978) attracted broad academic attention. Many scholars studied, applied, and critiqued this approach and developed their own theories. Leichty and Applegate (1991) attempted to further investigate the correlation between Brown and Levinson’s (1978) theory about social circumstances and selection of face-saving strategies. The results of Leichty and Applegate’s (1991) research confirm Brown and Levinson’s (1978) findings in regard to the distinctions between "positive face redress and autonomy granting and between threat to autonomy and threat to positive face" (p. 480). Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998) studies facework in intercultural conflict. She has established a two-dimensional model of facework based on Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness theories. The first dimension is concerned with the person to which the facework is directed, self or other, and the second dimension is the character of face, positive or negative (p. 218).

Authors: Ie, Fumiko.
first   previous   Page 9 of 32   next   last



background image
Hostage Negotiations 9
desire to not be imposed upon by others" (as cited in, Lim, 1990, p. 76). Individuals wish
that the wants of the face, both positive and negative, be satisfied. However, these are
"social desires" that can only be granted by other individuals. Individuals then use
politeness as a strategy for making a request with an expectation that if they do so others
will reciprocate it by attempting to save their face (Lim, 1990, p. 76). Brown and
Levinson (1987) define the hierarchy of strategic politeness that occurs in conversation.
They integrate the social circumstances that define the severity of face-threatening acts
and the conversational strategies with each of the five levels of politeness hierarchy:
1) not doing face a threatening act, 2) going off record, 3) negative politeness, 4) positive
politeness, and 5) reacting baldly, without redressive action (p. 69).
This comprehensive approach to discourse politeness by Brown and Levinson
(1978) attracted broad academic attention. Many scholars studied, applied, and critiqued
this approach and developed their own theories. Leichty and Applegate (1991) attempted
to further investigate the correlation between Brown and Levinson’s (1978) theory about
social circumstances and selection of face-saving strategies. The results of Leichty and
Applegate’s (1991) research confirm Brown and Levinson’s (1978) findings in regard to
the distinctions between "positive face redress and autonomy granting and between threat
to autonomy and threat to positive face" (p. 480). Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998)
studies facework in intercultural conflict. She has established a two-dimensional model
of facework based on Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness theories. The first
dimension is concerned with the person to which the facework is directed, self or other,
and the second dimension is the character of face, positive or negative (p. 218).


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.