avoids offending H at all S also fails to achieve his desired communication An example might be a physician avoiding bringing up the need for a patient to lose weight. Sociological variables Three sociological factors affect the choice of politeness strategy and the seriousness of the face threatening action: distance between speaker and listener; the power difference between the speaker and listener; and ranking of the seriousness of the face threat. Social distance between parties (symmetric relation) Distinguishes kin or friend from a stranger with whom you may have the same social status, but who is still separate because of social distance. Different acts may be seen as face-threatening or non-face threatening depending on the social distance between speaker and listener Example: We may use less elaborate positive strategies or we may choose to use positive rather than negative politeness when speaking with family rather than a stranger Power relations between parties (asymmetric relation) We are inclined to speak to our social equals differently than those whose status is higher or lower than our own in a given situation. Example: If a professor is working in her office and people are being very loud and disruptive in the next room, she will go over there and tell them to be quiet but the way she does it will differ depending on who it is. If they are students she will use the bald on-record strategy to make sure there is no confusion in what she is asking, saying: "Stop talking so loud!". But if they are colleagues she will claim common ground with them using the positive politeness strategy or frame an indirect request for them to stop talking, saying: "I'm working on a lecture and it's really hard to concentrate with all this noise." Additionally if they are really high status directors of the department she may end up saying nothing at all or apologize for interrupting them, refraining from the face-threatening act. The absolute ranking of the threat of the face-threatening act Some impositions are considered more serious than others. Highly imposing acts like requests demand more redress to mitigate their increased threat level. Overall the formula for the weight of a face-threatening act is: Weight = Social distance (speaker, hearer) + power difference (speaker, hearer) + rank of imposition Hierarchy of strategies The greater potential for loss of face requires greater redressive action. If the potential for