Definition:
Face-saving refers to the communicative behaviors and strategies that protect, maintain, or restore face — a person’s publicly maintained self-image and sense of dignity in social interaction. The concept of face originates with sociologist Erving Goffman (1955, 1967), who described face as the positive social value a person claims for themselves in interaction. Brown & Levinson (1978/1987) formalized face in linguistic pragmatics as two complementary needs:
- Positive face: The desire to be liked, approved of, and respected
- Negative face: The desire to have autonomy — to not be imposed upon
Face-saving strategies include hedging, indirect speech acts, apologies, compliments, humor, and topic avoidance — all deployed to minimize the face threat posed by communicative acts.
Goffman’s Face
Goffman (1955) observed that in ordinary social interaction, participants continuously work to maintain their own face and to protect the face of their interactants — a process he called facework. Face is treated as a social contract: participants cooperate to maintain a situation in which everyone’s face is preserved.
Face loss — when face is damaged, damaged face must be restored through remediation sequences: apologies, explanations, humor, or face-saving accounts.
Brown & Levinson’s Positive and Negative Face
Brown & Levinson (1987) built on Goffman to propose a universal pragmatic framework:
| Face Type | Definition | Face-Threatening Acts | Face-Saving Strategies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive face | Want to be liked, admired, approved | Criticism, insults, complaints | Compliments, solidarity expressions, enthusiasm |
| Negative face | Want freedom from imposition | Requests, directives, orders | Hedges, apologies, optional framing (if you don’t mind) |
Face-Saving Strategies
According to Brown & Levinson, speakers choose among face-saving strategies based on the weight of the face-threatening act (determined by power + social distance + imposition level):
- Bald on record (no face-saving, emergency): Move!
- Positive politeness (address positive face): Hey, you’re always so helpful — could you move over?
- Negative politeness (address negative face): I’m sorry to bother you, but could you possibly move just a little?
- Off record (indirect, deniable): It’s a bit cramped over here… (hint)
- Don’t do the act (maximum face-saving): Avoid the request entirely
Cross-Cultural Variation
While Brown & Levinson claimed face is universal, they acknowledged that what counts as face-threatening and which face-saving strategies are natural vary substantially across cultures:
- Cultures differ in the relative importance of positive vs. negative face
- In many East Asian contexts, maintaining group harmony (a form of positive collective face) is weighted more heavily than individual negative face autonomy
- Arab cultures often emphasize demonstrating positive face (generous hospitality) as primary face work
Face in L2 Pragmatics
L2 learners who lack face-saving strategies in the target language risk:
- Performing face-threatening acts without mitigation — perceived as rude
- Under-recognizing face threats in L2 input — missing the social signals in others’ utterances
- Pragmatic failure — communicating grammatically correct but pragmatically awkward utterances
History
Goffman (1955) introduced face; Brown & Levinson (1978/1987) operationalized it in linguistic politeness theory. Their framework has been the dominant model in pragmatics for four decades, despite ongoing revisions and criticisms.
Common Misconceptions
- “Face-saving = being dishonest” — Face-saving is about protecting dignity; it does not necessarily involve dishonesty
- “Face only matters in Asian cultures” — Face concerns are documented universally; what varies is the specific strategies and their weighting
Criticisms
- Brown & Levinson’s theory has been criticized for being overly rationalist, individualist, and Anglo-centric
- “Face” is difficult to operationalize rigorously in empirical research
- Spencer-Oatey (2002) proposed a revised framework (“face and rapport”) to address some of these limitations
Social Media Sentiment
Face and face-saving are frequently discussed in the context of intercultural communication, international business, and East-West cultural differences. “Saving face” is recognized as a concept across mainstream media. Last updated: 2026-04
Practical Application
- Teach L2 learners face-saving strategies in the target culture explicitly — how to disagree, refuse, criticize, and make imposing requests in ways that preserve face
- Use scenario-based role-plays to practice selecting face-appropriate strategies across different power and distance relationships
Related Terms
See Also
Research
- Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. — Foundational introduction of face as a sociological concept.
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. — Full theoretical elaboration of positive/negative face and politeness strategies.
- Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529–545. — Revised face/rapport framework addressing Brown & Levinson’s limitations.