Brown and Levinson defined the different kinds of “face” and linked “face” to politeness strategies, forming politeness strategies theory。 Brown and Levinson believe that “face” is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself。” “face” is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction”(Brown and Levinson 61)。 Brown and Levinson believed that “face” is mutual, people need to save “face” for both sides。论文网

Scollon and Scollon’s paradox of “face” also has important influence on the study of “face”。 Scollon and Scollon come up with that “face” is a paradoxical concept and has two meaning。 They pointed out two aspects of “face” considerations during human interaction．On the one hand, people need to be involved with others and show they care about the other side; On the other hand，people need to keep a certain distance of independence from others and need the other side to respect their need for independence。 Scollon and Scollon believe that the involvement aspect and independence aspect of “face” appear simultaneously on interaction occasions, forming a paradoxical situation。

Bases on the concept of “face” of Goffman and Brown & Levinson, Ting-Toomey develops the face-negotiation theory。 She believes that “face” construction is established on the both sides’ negotiation, and the successful negotiation is depends on the efforts of both sides。 The negotiation theory is especially striking in application of cross-cultural communication research。 It is an effective theory in the cross-cultural communication and deals with conflict in different cultures。 In Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory, she believes “face” is an inpidual’s claimed sense of positive image in a relational and network context (53)。 In face-negotiation theory, Ting-Toomey emphasized three “face” concerns。 Self-face means one’s own image, other-face refers to concern for another person’s image, mutual-face is care for both parties’ images and/or the “image” of the relationship。

2。3The Studies on “Face” in China

Lu Xun pointed out that although “face” sounds familiar, one feels confused when trying to interpret it．The main reason might be that considerable subtle and profound meanings are embedded in it。 So until now, there is no exactly established definition of this term。 There are many scholars and researchers have attempted to define it in various perspectives therefore there many theories on “face” exist。 

In 1940s，Hu Xianjin, a Chinese anthropologist, first introduced the research on “face” into the field of social science。 The most significant point in her research is that she has pided the concept of “face” in Chinese culture into two related aspect: “Mianzi” and “Lian”。 The former refers to the reputation and honor one has owned through his／her visible achievements and others praise to her while the latter means that a group gives respect to a person who has high moral standards。

Gu Yueguo makes an essential comparison of “face” of America and China。 “Li” in Chinese culture refers to the social hierarchy instead of politeness, and denigrating self and esteeming others remain at the nucleus of the modem conception of “Limao” (Gu 239)。Fundamentally, there are four notions included of the Chinese conception of “Limao”: respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal, warmth and refinement (239)。 Gu Yueguo discovers some of Brown and Levinson’s points of view are inapplicable to account for Chinese data。 First, the Chinese concept of negative “face” is different from the notion that defined by Brown and Levinson。 Second, politeness is not just instrumental in the process of interaction．It is also normative (242)。 Therefore, Gu Yueguo accepted Leech’s theory of politeness as a fundamental framework for his research。 He considers the Chinese notion of politeness is to a certain degree moralized, which makes it more suitable to study politeness according to maxims。 He advanced three maxims: the self-denigration maxim, the address maxim and the generosity and tact maxims。 In a word, Gu Yueguo has done remarkable work in the use of American influential politeness theory in Chinese language studies，which is an important contribution to the study on Chinese “face”。 中美跨文化交际中的面子观(3):http://www.youerw.com/yingyu/lunwen_97337.html