in the usage pattern of politeness strategies among native English speakers and ESL learners. Critiques Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is very applicable not only in the area of study within the communication field but also helpful in guiding individuals in ways to improve their speech and actions Two qualities in particular stand out: Good Heuristic Value: This theory has motivated scholars to implement more research into grasping these ideas or finding alternatives to this way of thinking. Broad Scope: This theory considers factors that play a role in the field of communication such as "language, identity, relational definition ... social power, distance, and culture". On the other hand, Although Brown and Levinson's theory is widely applicable, some weaknesses in their theory have been noted. Cultural differences Many academics have critiqued that many cultures use politeness strategies differently than how Brown and Levinson theorized. Many sociologists criticize that politeness theory is heavily based on Western cultures where individualism is highly valued compared to many non-Western cultures where group identity is valued over the individual. Some of this intracultural difference is, in part, due to diverse "knowledge and values" within a particular society, but Brown and Levinson argue that their theory is universal. Although everyone has face wants, there are different ways strategies they use to accomplish these wants or mitigate face threats based on their culture. For example, negative politeness is the norm in some cultures (Japan and Britain) but not others that prefer positive politeness (Australia) and some cultures use politeness strategies when there is no face threat, such as the Japanese honorific system. Ide et al. shows that the roughly equivalent term in Japanese, teneina, has different sets of connotations associated with it from the English term "politeness". Gu (1998) pointed out that some face concerns in Western culture are not taken into account in Eastern cultures. In a series of interviews conducted by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper in 1989 of fifty-two Israeli families, they conclude that as suggested already by the semantic definitions offered for the term "politeness" by Israelis, the constituents of "tact" and its appropriate modes of expression are very much subject to cultural interpretation. Inclusiveness of politeness strategies Some claim that a few of these techniques may be used in more than one type of situation or more than one at a time. Additionally, a given speech act (of any politeness strategy) can have