Discursive-Integrative Politeness Meanings in Digital Spaces: A Third-Wave Pragmatic Analysis of Face-Threatening Acts in Online Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1512.29Keywords:
discursive-integrative politeness, online communication, face-threatening acts, third-wave pragmaticsAbstract
This study investigates the discursive-integrative meanings of politeness in online communication by applying a third-wave pragmatics framework, with a particular focus on the management of face-threatening acts (FTAs). Employing discourse analysis, the research explores how participants in digital interactions strategically manage FTAs, not only through linguistic and contextual strategies but also by navigating sociocultural norms that emerge within specific online communities. The findings reveal eight distinct pragmatic meanings associated with acts of politeness in these contexts: (1) negative politeness aimed at avoiding direct confrontation, (2) negative politeness involving dismissive humor, (3) positive politeness intended to prevent prolonged conflict, (4) positive politeness used to assert credibility, (5) negative politeness employed to assert authority, (6) negative politeness expressed through emotional outbursts, (7) negative politeness manifested in direct criticism, and (8) negative politeness signaling relational closeness. These findings underscore the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of politeness in online environments. By emphasizing the discursive and integrative dimensions of pragmatic behavior, this study extends the theoretical scope of third-wave pragmatics and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how individuals navigate FTAs in digital communication. The research offers critical insights into the evolving norms of politeness in virtual discourse and highlights the complex interplay between language, identity, and social interaction in mediated settings.
References
Arundale, R. B. (2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 58(108-120). doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.013.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1453-1469. doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00173-X.
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices (1st ed.). Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203552308.
Bezemer, J. (2021). Multimodality: A guide for linguists. Manuscript to appear in L. Litosseliti (ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum. doi.org/10.5040/9781350043466.ch-012.
Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2018). Multimodality: A guide for linguists. Research Methods in Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Blitvich, P. G. C., & Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91-101. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.015.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131-146. doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5.
Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological proposal. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(1), 1-22. doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.001.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Cummings, L. (2013). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective (1st ed.). Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9781315045580.
Dong, G. Z. (2018). Improvement validity of modern Chinese reading teaching based on pragmatics. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 18(6), 3354-3360. doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.6.240.
Harper, D. (2011). Choosing a Qualitative Research Method. In Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners. Thompson. doi.org/10.1002/9781119973249.ch7.
Haugh, M. (2003). Japanese and Non-Japanese Perceptions of Japanese Communication. New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 5(1), 156-177.
Haugh, M. (2006). Emic Perspectives on the Positive-Negative Politeness Distinction. Culture, Language and Representation, 3(October). http://hdl.handle.net/10072/13702
Haugh, M. (2008). Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–110. doi.org/10.1515/ip.2008.006.
Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36-42. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018.
Haugh, M. (2018). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics, 1(1). doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2012-0005.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2018). Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2). doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0002.
Johnson, E. (2001). Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1177/00754240122005503.
Krippendorff, K. (2010). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Organ Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture, 3(2). doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Recursion in Pragmatics. Language (Baltim), 89(1), 149-162. doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0005.
Li, H., & Wang, M. (2016). Culpeper, Jonathan & Haugh, Michael: Pragmatics and the English language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 595-601. doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0026.
Mulyana, N. (2021). Politeness Strategies on Instagram: A Cyberpragmatics Perspective. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Linguistik dan Sastra (SEMNALISA), 6, 561-565.
Mungmachon, M. R. (2012). Knowledge and Local Wisdom: Community Treasure. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(13), 174–181. doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-1785-2015.
Murray, N. (2009). Pragmatics, awareness raising, and the cooperative principle. ELT Journal, 64(3), 293-301. doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp056.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31. doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1.
O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Face, communication and social interaction (Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh, Eds.). Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(1), 153-157. doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.008.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 8(5), 375–387. doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447.
Rahardi, R. K. (2019). Integrating Social, Societal, Cultural, and Situational Context to Develop Pragmatics Course Learning Materials: Preliminary Study. Jurnal Gramatika: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 5(2), 169-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.22202/jg.2019.v5i2.3572
Rahardi, R. K. (2022). Triadicities of Indonesian Phatic Functions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(12), 2641–2650. doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1212.22.
Rahardi, R. K. (2024). Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar dalam Bidang Ilmu Bahasa, Teroka Paradigma Linguistik, Perspektif Studi Linguistik, dan Konteks Siberteks dalam Cyberpragmatics [Inauguration Speech for Professor in the Field of Linguistics, "Exploring Linguistic Paradigms, Linguistic Study Perspectives, and Cybertext Contexts in Cyberpragmatics]. Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta.
Rahardi, R. K., & Budhiono, R. H. (2024). Information Layers of Ostentive Communication of Hoaxes in the Perspective of Relevance Theory of Sperber & Wilson. Suar Betang, 19(2), 207–218. doi.org/10.26499/sorbet v19i2.23484.
Rahardi, R. K., Rahmat, W., & Kurniawan, Y. (2023). Pseudo-Directive Speech Act in the Javanese Language: Culture-Specific Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66, 1–12. doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00223.
Rahardi, R. K., Setyaningsih, Y., Rahmat, W., & Lateh, N. H. M. (2024). A Stylistic Pragmatics Perspective on Metaphors of Emotive Words in Anak Bajang Menggiring Angin. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(8), 2417–2425. doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1408.14.
Ramírez, A. (2020). The case for Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Pedagogy: Bilingual Reading to learn for Spanish-Speaking immigrant mothers. System, 95, 102379. doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102379.
Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203071953.
Sachs-Hombach, K., & Thon, J. N. (2019). Introduction: Multimodal media. Poetics Today, 40(2), 183–187. doi.org/10.1215/03335372-7298494.
Silva, V. M., Holler, J., Ozyurek, A., & Roberts, S. G. (2020). Multimodality and the origin of a novel communication system in face-to-face interaction. R Soc Open Sci, 7(1), 182056. doi.org/10.1098/rsos.182056.
Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design in qualitative research. Nurse Research, 18(2), 39-5. doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.39.c8283.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2012). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Meaning and Relevance, (17), 3-23. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.016.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Ruhi, Ş. (2007). Identity, face and (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 635-786. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.003.
Stöckl, H. (2019). Linguistic multimodality - multimodal linguistics: A state-of-the-art sketch. Multimodality: Disciplinary Thoughts and the Challenge of Diversity. De Gruyter. doi.org/10.1515/9783110608694-002.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286. doi.org/10.2307/2095521.
Sykes, J. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2018). Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and comprehensive. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2 Special Issue), 381-402. doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9.
Terkourafi, M., & Bezuidenhout, A. (2021). Special issue: (Im)politeness, humour, and the role of intentions: Essays presented to Michael Haugh: Guest editors’ introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 179(1), 1-3. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.015.
Topić, M. (2020). Fluffy PR and ‘comms girls’: banter, social interactions and the office culture in public relations in England. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(5), 1321-1336. doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2423.
Unger, C. (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. The Mental Processes of Communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 332-334. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.001.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. Educause Review, 41(2), 16-30. doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596.
Wang, V., & Tucker, J. V. (2016). Phatic systems in digital society. Technology in Society, 46, 140-148. doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.06.002.
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Communication and community: The pragmatics of ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 3-14. doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(97)00028-8.
Zienkowski, J. (2014). Discursive pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.01zie.
Zuckerman, M., Depaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1-59. doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X.
