Langua – Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Education
Vol. 3, No. 2, October 2020
EISSN: 2623-1565

Linguistic Politeness in Public Virtual Communication

Zainurrahman1 & Mintesya Kofau2
1, 2

STKIP Kie Raha Ternate
Correspondence: zainurrahmankalero@gmail.com
Received: August 31, 2020

Accepted: September 10, 2020

Abstract

Linguistic politeness has become an interesting discussion among linguists. Many thoughts
and concepts have been constructed in order to explain the phenomenon of linguistic
politeness. In fact, there are controversies among these concepts or models. However,
currently available models of linguistic politeness tend to focus on direct (face-to-face)
communication. What about public virtual communication? This article aims to discuss
linguistic politeness in public virtual communication where important elements in the models
of linguistic politeness that exist today can be tested. By trawling the comments of several
videos on YouTube, we found that positive politeness is the polarity of politeness that is
mostly used. Meanwhile, negative politeness is still outnumbered even with the bald strategy.
Using descriptive analysis, we express the opinion that positive politeness is no longer a
communication strategy in public virtual communication but a norm. Linguistic politeness is
only really identified in negative politeness because even though they don't know each other
and therefore social distance cannot be measured, they still use negative politeness to
maintain their self-esteem and the people they communicate with. In this regard, it is very
clear that linguistic courtesy in public virtual communication is a "face-saving" act,
especially negative politeness.
Keywords: linguistic politeness, positive politeness, negative politeness, face-saving, virtual

public communication
© Langua – 2020

1. Introduction
Linguistic politeness has been an unavoidable intriguing topic in linguistics, especially
pragmatics or language in use. The intricate emerged in the discussions concerning linguistic
politeness, consequently, makes this topic more interesting today than before. It is hard to
believe that linguistic politeness has born various perspectives: social-norm, conversationalmaxim, face-saving like discussed by Fraser (1990). Brown (2015) counts social rules,
adherence to politeness maxims, and face management as three perspectives to be considered
politeness or linguistic politeness in specific.
Dating back to the earlier times, linguists slightly controversially formulated linguistic
phenomena counted as linguistic politeness, from Grice, Lakoff, Leech, to Brown and
Levinson. In the 1990s, Bruce Fraser came with a new perspective which seems to quite
1

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

disagree with the earlier perspectives proposed by the names mentioned above. Bruce (1990)
proposed a perspective to see linguistic politeness as a conversational-contract.
Overall, linguistic politeness has been seen as consequences of sociocultural values or norms
that dictate how individuals use language, psychological effect resulted in an interaction and
situations that influence linguistic interaction. The author is tempted to assume that we had
paid attention to the spoken language to capture the dynamic of linguistic politeness. Is it the
reason why it is rare to find linguistic politeness captured in written language or written
communication?
As discussed later, to identify the linguistic features representing politeness in written
communication, especially in online forums groups, is tempting. It is argued that some of the
theoretical foundations where the linguistic politeness perspectives stand on unexpectedly
become complicated in that particular communicative situation.
This article is not intended to propose a new perspective in linguistic politeness, neither to
promote a certain perspective. The author intends to invite the readers to capture the
phenomena of linguistic politeness (which also implies impoliteness) in the written
communication situation especially in expressing appreciation.
2. Theoretical Basis
2.1.

Linguistic Politeness

The word politeness is generally understood as a matter of "proper" talk or behavior. Webster
defines it as having or showing good manners or respect for other people. Meanwhile, good
or not good is always based on a particular view (religion, society, culture, or institution)
where other people are always involved, politeness is simply defined as socially correct or
proper conduct.
Based on the quite simplistic definition of politeness above, it seems like politeness is all
about “being polite” by following rules applied in a social institution for violating that rules
can result in offense in the other party or can result in unexpected consequences like
punishment or, at least, self-esteem lose.
Coming into linguistics, the meaning of politeness turns wider than what it was. In
linguistics, politeness does not only cover proper conduct but also improper conduct.
Linguistic politeness is not only about “being polite” in communication but also about “being
impolite”. Being polite or impolite is a range in linguistic politeness. The word politeness
itself, in linguistics, captures both politeness and impoliteness. Even, as we can see later,
linguistic politeness has turned from socially proper conduct to communication strategy to
achieve a certain communication goal.
Fraser (1990) implies that theorists (including linguists) don’t explicitly define what they
mean by linguistic politeness. For example, Fraser writes that although Lakoff entitled her
paper ‘The logic of politeness’, she never actually says what she takes politeness to be. Fraser
infers that Lakoff sees politeness to be the avoidance of offense. It is in the later work of
Lakoff that she gives a clear definition of politeness as “a device used in order to reduce
friction in personal interaction.” (Fraser, 1990:223). Brown (2015) sees politeness as crucial
conduct to the construction and maintenance of the social relationship. Overall, the theorists
build their linguistic politeness model in order to teach us how to decrease the chance of
offending other people while speaking.
2

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

It is interesting to see that without the linguistic politeness model, we tend to create friction in
interaction. The existence of politeness models in general, including linguistic politeness, has
given us a picture that as human beings we need to be educated on how to speak or how to
act. Communication, then, is seen as a fundamentally dangerous and antagonistic endeavor
without a set of rules we call etiquette. Without those, we cannot construct and maintain a
social relationship. The ability to communicate (language, linguistic competence) is a “gift”
but men have a quality to turn it into a “curse”, so to speak.
The meaning of linguistic politeness as “being polite in using language so we do not offend
other people” is now outdated because, as speech act teaches us, words or utterances are also
usable to threaten other people that Brown and Levinson (1987) would call Face Threatening
Act (FTA). Linguistic politeness turns from a set of rules or etiquette in using language to
decrease a social irritation to a communication strategy used to achieve the communication
goal. Cutting (2002) mentions that [linguistic] politeness encompasses an array of choices
made at the linguistic level to fulfill some communicative goals. Based on Cutting and some
other theorists, Maha (2014) proposes a definition of linguistic politeness as a set of linguistic
choices or strategies employed to achieve some goals though these goals are not well
determined.
2.1.1.

Models of Linguistic Politeness

Maha (2014), Brown (2015), and many other theorists agree that there are three models of
linguistic politeness which are derived from the perspectives on it: social-norms or rules,
conversational-maxims, and face-saving acts. Additionally, Fraser (1990) proposes the fourth
model of language politeness that sees linguistic politeness as a conversational-contract. The
first two models have been criticized for being ‘too simple’ and ‘too complex’ (Fraser, 1990)
or culturally biased (Thomas, 1995). Thomas (1995:177) mentions that Fraser’s model of
politeness is sketchy compared to those of Leech and Brown and Levinson and it is difficult
to judge how it might operate in practice. Therefore, basically, all models of linguistic
politeness are seemed to have strengths and weaknesses. However, since this paper does not
focus on the strength and weaknesses of those models rather to pick one of them to be used in
this study, then the readers are invited to look at the brief overviews on the models as
presented below.
2.1.1.1. Linguistic Politeness as Social Rules
It is not uncommon to have a belief that every parent teaches their children how to dress, how
to eat, and, of course, how to speak. The 'teaching' is usually based on the culture of that
society. Children are taught to speak differently based on their ages and genders by
considering the age or gender of whom they speak to. They are taught so to avoid being
impolite in speaking or to not offend other people. Western and eastern have different rules
and even neighbors have different rules of how to speak politely. In North Mollucas,
Indonesia, when you speak to an older person (or higher in social status), you should use
“saya” as the first personal pronoun (polite I in English) and not “kita” (inclusive we in
English but considered impolite if being used to replace I). However, in few places in North
Mollucas, using “kita” is just as polite as “saya”. Therefore, different rules apply in different
societies and this is one of the criticisms directed to this model as being culturally biased.
Neither Fraser (1990) nor Brown (2015) mentions the theorist’s name that cultivates this
model but Maha (2014) implies that it is Lakoff who is responsible for this model. Lakoff
herself might not intend to cultivate that model but to consider that we should like to have
some kind of pragmatic rules, dictating whether an utterance is pragmatically well-formed or
3

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

not, and the extent to which it deviates if it does (1973:296). Therefore, what Lakoff does is
more pragmatic than social. However, since pragmatics sees language and socio-cultural
context inseparable, then it is hard to refuse that Lakoff is not cultivating linguistic politeness
as a social rule.
Lakoff is influenced by Grice’s conversational maxims and that leads her to state that the first
pragmatic rule is “Be Clear” while the second rule is “Be Polite”. In order to be polite, she
puts three sub-sets under “Be Polite” which are: don’t impose (formal-impersonal politeness),
give options (informal politeness), and make (the hearer) feel good (intimate politeness)
(Maha, 2014).
This model is confirmed if we interpret "Be Polite" and its sub-rules in accordance with a
specific sociocultural context. In other words, we should speak as polite as what the given
society (and culture) consider as polite although it is impolite in our own culture. For
example, different culture has a different way or words to make the hearer feel good which
will not be working for the other cultures.
This model, however, has been considered as simplistic. For example, Okamoto (1999:51)
mentions that:
“These theories (the writer refers not only to Lakoff’s but also the other theorists’,
italic mine) do not consider cultural and situational variability in the meanings of
politeness; politeness rules and maxims are proposed without detailed descriptions of
when and how to use them…”
Lakoff’s model should be seen as an “advice” in using language rather than a rule. Being
clear and polite in speaking are two rules that can be found in every culture but when and
how to be clear and polite are not universal since, like Huang (2007:119) shortly says (if we
consider being clear and polite as two perlocutionary effects), many speech acts are culturespecific. We need to refer to what a particular society accepts as clear and polite and
consequently in order to apply Lakoff’s model we need to study more than language but also
the culture of a society.
2.1.1.2. Linguistic Politeness as a Conversational Maxim
The term conversational maxim has been known in Pragmatics and is popularized by Grice
with his four maxims (Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner). These maxims seem to
inspire Lakoff in modeling her ‘three rules of rapport’ as mentioned previously. However, the
main significance of the Grice’s maxims is to ensure the understanding of conversation
(comprehension) and not directly related to politeness. In other words, these Gricean
conversational maxims are formulated to avoid misunderstanding rather than friction in
interaction; Grice calls it Cooperative Principle (CP). It is Lakoff who advances the maxims
in order to build her linguistic politeness model.
Lakoff is not the only theorist influenced by Grice’s maxims but also Leech (1983). If Grice’s
maxims are called CP, Leech prefers to name his maxims or model as Politeness Principle
(PP) that implies his intention to not only refers to the understanding of conversation but also
to politeness. It can be seen by his distinction between what the speaker means by conveying
an utterance (the speaker’s illocutionary goal) and what position the speaker is taking on
being truthful, polite, ironic, and the like (the speaker’s social goal). Fraser states that in this
regard, Leech posits two sets of conversational principles: Interpersonal Rhetoric and Textual
Rhetoric, each constituted by a set of maxims, which socially constrain communicative
4

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

behavior in specific ways. Leech treats politeness within the domain of Interpersonal
Rhetoric (1990:224).
Leech proposes six interpersonal maxims:
1. Tact maxim: minimize hearer costs; maximize hearer benefits. This maxim implies
Meta maxim: do not put others in a position where they have to break the Tact
Maxim.
2. Generosity maxim: minimize your own benefits; maximize your hearer’s benefits.
3. Approbation maxim: minimize hearer dispraise; maximize hearer praise.
4. Modesty maxim: minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise
5. Agreement maxim: minimize disagreement between yourself and others; maximize
agreement between yourself and others.
6. Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy between yourself and others; maximize
sympathy between yourself and others.
Besides these six maxims, Leech also formulates a set of scales for each maxim. It is so
because politeness, in Leech’s perspective, is a matter of degree. By consulting to the scales,
it is possible for the hearer to determine what ‘strategy’ to be used to avoid friction in
interaction by picking one or more of the maxims:
1. Cost-benefit scale: represents the cost of the benefit of an act to the speaker and
hearer.
2. Optionality scale: represents the relevant illocutions, ordered by the amount of choice
which the speaker permits the hearer.
3. Indirectness scale: represents the relevant illocutions, ordered in terms of hearer
‘work’ to infer speaker intention.
4. Authority scale: represents the relative right for the speaker to impose wishes on the
hearer.
5. Social distance scale: represents the degree of familiarity between the speaker and the
hearer.
According to Fraser (1990), on Leech’s view, the Tact Maxim can be observed only as
follows: As the hearer costs, the hearer authority relative to the speaker, and the social
distance increases, the greater will be the need for providing the hearer with options and the
greater the need for indirectness in the formulation of the expression conveying the message.
Moreover, Leech also distinguishes Relative Politeness and Absolute Politeness. Relative
politeness is politeness in a specific situation and absolute politeness is politeness directly
associated with the speaker's actions (e.g. order vs. offer).
In the maxims above, we can see that Leech uses the words to minimize and maximize. Those
words represent what he calls Negative Politeness (minimizing impoliteness) and Positive
Politeness (maximizing politeness).
Leech even goes further. According to him, the speaker's illocutionary goals also function to
determine the degree and polarity of politeness. There are four illocutionary functions in
Leech's (1983):
1. Competitive: ordering, asking, demanding, begging; negative politeness is required to
minimize the discord between the speaker's illocutionary goal and the speaker's social
goal.

5

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

2. Convivial: offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating; positive politeness
may be required.
3. Collaborative: asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing; neither negative nor
positive politeness is required.
4. Conflictive: threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding; politeness is inapplicable.
Leech’s politeness model is far more detailed than Grice’s CP and Lakoff’s model, it is clear.
However, this turns into unexpected complexity because those maxims are potentially
overlapping and for some reason, we have no way of knowing which maxims are to be
applied, what scales are available, how they are to be formulated, what their dimensions are,
when and to what degree they are relevant, and so forth (Fraser, 1990). The complexity that
arises is not because of the insufficiency of Leech's model. In fact, this model is too
complicated.
Leech (2005:4) himself does not refuse if “being too complicated” is one of the criticisms
addressed to his politeness model. In his 2005 paper, he even formulated a new model which
he calls Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP) but most of all he criticizes Brown and Levinson
model (Face-Saving model, discussed later) and put some crucial distinctions to state a thick
border between his model and B&L’s model. For example, he turns positive politeness and
negative politeness to pos-politeness and neg-politeness because B&L also has those terms
with different meanings; he also changes the term maxim to constrain because that term is
easily misconstrued (or same with Grice’s?). In that, Leech does not “simplify” his model
after receiving criticism as being too complex but to restate his principles in a quite different
way.
2.1.1.3. Linguistic Politeness as Face-Saving Act
Face-saving act or face management is a linguistic politeness model developed by Brown and
Levinson (1987). The term face in this model can be translated into self-esteem. The meaning
of face is derived from Goffman (1971) who defines face as an individual’s publicly manifest
self-esteem. Moreover, Goffman says that in terms of social interaction, including linguistic
interaction, humans have two desires. Firstly, humans have the desire to be approved by other
people and this desire is known as a positive face. Secondly, humans have a desire not to
offend other people and this desire is known as a negative face.
Brown and Levinson’s model of linguistic politeness is built on Goffman’s perspective. This
perspective, according to Brown (2015) is quite universal because all people in the world
want to be approved as well as none wants to be offended. However, this model is still
criticized mainly by Leech (2005) for being culturally biased.
To understand B&L’s model of linguistic politeness, we need to define some terms used in
that model. It is important to note that those terms are not formulated as maxims (like either
Grice or Leech) but “social facts” that need to take into account during linguistic interaction.
The first term must be the face. As mentioned above, the face is understood as self-esteem or
self-image which is attained by efforts or given by a particular authority in a given society.
This face is then divided into two sub-faces; positive and negative face. A positive face is a
desire to be approved or appreciated and a negative face is a desire to claim the personal
territories, preserves, and rights. The face or self-esteem, according to Fraser (1990:229), is
something that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and any threat to face must be
continually monitored during an interaction. Because some acts in interaction can potentially
threaten the face, then a linguistic politeness model is needed to soften the acts. Sometimes, a
6

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

speaker is unaware if his acts indirectly threaten the hearer although he does not intend to do
so. Sometimes, the speaker’s appreciation is not well-manifested so that the hearer
misunderstands the speaker by inferring that the speaker is trying to offend him. B&L then
started to formulate their model by considering that polite intention is a message and it can be
conveyed through utterances.
Based on the positive and negative face, B&L formulated positive and negative politeness.
Positive politeness is any utterances expressing or representing solidarity or camaraderie
which can be related to Lakoff’s personal and intimacy politeness. Negative politeness, on
the other hand, is any utterances expressing or representing social boundary or restriction
which can be related to Lakoff’s impersonal politeness. We experience positive and negative
politeness every day. A wife expresses positive politeness to her husband because she
approves her husband and wants to be approved by her husband. A student expresses
negative politeness to her lecturer because she does not want to offend him. She knows that
her lecturer has a “territory” that she should not “enter”. Or, she appreciates the lecturer’s
restraint. A wife also expresses negative politeness to her husband if she is a student and her
husband is her lecturer and the interaction happens in the classroom. In other words, we
speak differently to different people and in different situations. We speak differently simply
because we don't want to threaten the hearer's face or our own face. To avoid facethreatening, we need to extract the sociocultural-sensitive variables in the above example.
In B&L’s model, there are three variables that we need to mentally calculate before and
during interaction: Social Distance (D), Relative Power (P), and Absolute Ranking (R).
Social Distance is a distance between the speaker and the hearer; in effect, the degree of
familiarity and solidarity they share (wife-husband, student-lecturer). Relative Power is the
degree of power that the speaker possesses to impose his or her will on the hearer (husband to
wife, lecturer to the student). Absolute Ranking is the ranking of imposition in the culture,
both in terms of the expenditure of goods and/or services by the hearer, the right of the
speaker to perform the act, and the degree to which the hearer welcomes the imposition
(1987:74ff.). By calculating these three variables, we can estimate the risk of face-loss which
is called Weightiness (W). Without considering these variables, we tend to threaten the face
(both the speaker's and the hearer's faces are lost) and in B&L's model, it is called Face
Threatening Act (FTA).
In its heart, B&L’s model of linguistic politeness is a strategy to minimize the risk of faceloss. Fraser (1990) summarized the B&L’s taxonomy of possible strategies for performing
FTAs as follow:

B&L’s Taxonomy of FTA Adopted from Fraser (1990)

7

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

On record means "noted" or uttered. It is called bald-on record if the speaker utters it clearly
in an unequivocal way like "Shut the window" or "Stop a moment" while the redressive-on
record may involve positive politeness or negative politeness depend on the speaker’s rational
assessment of the face risk (weightiness) to the hearer (Wx = D(S, H)+P(S, H)+Rx) where S
stands for speaker and H stands for the hearer. The greater the amount of W, the higher the
face risk (Wx).
Off record requires more complex inferences which are, according to Fraser, motivated by
factors other than politeness, for example, evading giving a direct answer to a question, or
playing with language.
Overall, B&L's model of linguistic politeness can be implemented by assessing the degree of
social distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer. Then, the speaker assesses the
difference in “power” between them. After that, the speaker must be able to assess the
absolute ranking or “roles” between them (is the speaker superior or inferior to the hearer in
the given context). Finally, by knowing the degree of face-loss risk (W), the speaker can
determine what strategy to be used to achieve the communication goal.
2.2. Linguistic Politeness in Virtual Public Communication
Since 2019 until this paper is written, 2020, the pandemic phenomenon of Corona Virus has
limited humans’ face-to-face communication and therefore online communication is
preferred. The ability to use internet-connected devices to communicate has become a
required ability in many professional fields (economy, education, military, etc.). Moreover,
communicating through social media is now common in our society at all levels of age and
status. Consequently, language is used (to communicate) more often than before and it is safe
to assume that we have communicated through the internet more often than face-to-face
(hereafter FtF) communication since the distance is no longer a problem anymore.
Online communication, however, is not to replace FtF communication although many
programs have been developed to communicate not only text but also audiovisual contents. It
cannot replace FtF communication although real-time audiovisual communication is now
available for us. There is a sort of mental variables “sacrificed” in online communication
because FtF communication is undeniably our nature of communication; longing cannot be
paid by text-messages.
There are different kinds of online forum and it is important to briefly look at them to clarify
what kind of online forum is discussed in this paper. At least four kinds of the online forum
are available today: discussion forum, feedback forum, Q&A forum, and article forum (Ure,
2014).
Discussion forum: it is a forum used to discuss various topics and usually the topic discussed
is put under a certain category. The member of that forum posts a topic and starts the
discussion and the other members respond by giving their opinions towards the topic.
Debating is very usual in this kind of forum since the members are free to express their
thoughts as long as they follow the forum rules.
Feedback forum: it is a forum used to get feedback from the other members of the forum.
Different from the discussion forum, the member posts a question to get feedback from the
other members. Although members can comment, agree or disagree on someone's feedback
on a question posted, a debate rarely happens in this group because the members are not
motivated to argue since this kind of group is not a discussion group.
8

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

Q&A forum: it is a forum slightly similar to the feedback forum. The difference is that this
forum is specific to one object and sometimes owned by a company to discuss their product.
Moreover, in this forum, the owner of a product provides questions and answers but the
members (people who registered in that forum) can respond to the Q&A. This kind of forum
is different from a FAQ page (Frequently Asked Question) where people cannot respond to
the Q&A. Microsoft or Amazon has this kind of forum. This forum, eventually, is for the
“users” of an object or product of a particular platform.
Article forum: in this forum, the members are allowed to post their thoughts in a detailed way
in the form of an article. The other members then comment on the posts either to support or
against the thoughts presented in the articles.
Forums are also distinguished by their level of formality. Most universities in the world have
their forums and only those who are formally registered in a university can be a member of
that university forum. Most forums on the internet are non-formal where anyone can be a
member of the forum.
In this research, the writer takes data from comments on the videos on YouTube. YouTube is
indirectly a forum because it provides the members to discuss anything related to the videos
posted and watched. It is not a formal forum and anyone having Google account can join
YouTube (hence YT). It means that the members of YT are ranged from amateurs to
professionals of any fields or disciplines, from young to old.
Since people usually don't put "honest" information in their profile (credential), it is hard to
assess directly the relevant "power" influencing the way people on YT communicate (being
polite or impolite linguistically) by commenting and responding on the comments. Most of
them are not known each other so that it is hard to imagine that they can assess the
weightiness (Wx) before they write their comments.
We are inspired by Park (2008) who evaluates how linguistic politeness and Face-Work are
applied in computer-mediated communication. That research shows that:
Interpersonal communication features are realized in an online discussion in the form of
politeness tactics. In other words, participants pursue positive-face desire by reducing social
distance, resulting in the creation of close and solidarity-oriented interpersonal relationships.
Accordingly, positive politeness and bald-on-record (i.e., direct speech acts) strategies are
frequently used. A variety of devices are employed in realizing positive politeness tactics.
The most frequently occurring tactics include the seeking of common ground and agreement
and the use of informal speech style, in-group language use, jokes, and small talk. These
tactics engender a positive atmosphere for furthering interaction and collaboration among
group members (Park, 2008:2208).
However, Park’s participants “know” each other and the forum type is different. In an online
forum like YT, most of the members do not know each other and a member just recognizes
another member by looking at their credentials. Even, most of the time, people just answer
the questions they are required to answer (or interested to answer) without looking at the
profile of the owner of the question. Therefore, it is very interesting to look at how the
linguistic politeness strategies are applied in the communication in this forum.

9

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

3. Methods
This study is a descriptive qualitative study since the data of the study is in the form of
linguistic passages or words. Nevertheless, in an attempt to describe the data, descriptive
statistics may be used. The data of this research are taken from the feedbacks from a list of
randomly taken comments in YT. The feedbacks collected are then evaluated in terms of the
linguistic politeness strategies by following the models outlined above. The data are also
restricted or reduced when possible due to the numbers of feedbacks. The data are then
discussed by using content analysis after being sorted according to what model or strategy is
represented by each passage (feedbacks). The profiles of the feedback givers are kept
anonymous. Hillier’s practical procedures (Hillier, 2004) are adapted here to specify the
relevant variables and describe the data. The data are then discussed descriptively to draw a
conclusion.
4. Finding and Discussion
4.1. Finding
4.1.1.

Relevant Variables

Comments towards three videos are collected and reduced due to the numbers of the
comments and the similarities and relevance of the comments to the video. From the
comments, relevant variables to discuss are then identified and stated. The variables are the
strategy identified within each comment that represents the politeness as a desire to maintain
or to threat face: positive politeness, negative politeness, and bald-on-record. From the data,
the researcher identifies that the commentators apply either positive or negative politeness to
express their appreciation. Moreover, other expressions are also identified: jokes, insults,
complaints, suggestions, requests, and the use of icons. However, since this research focuses
on the appreciative expression, the other expressions are not deeply discussed.
4.1.2. Data Description
Extracted from 52 comments taken from 3 videos on YouTube, here are the percentages of
the usage of linguistic politeness strategy:
Politeness Strategy
Positive Politeness
Negative Politeness
Bald

%
56%
21%
23%

From the 52 comments, here are the percentages of the appreciative expression and “other”
expression:
Expression
Appreciation
Other

%
77%
23%

10

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

The researcher also calculates the use of each politeness strategy (positive, negative, and
bald) to express appreciation and other expression and the percentage can be seen as follow:
Strategy
Positive Politeness
Negative Politeness
Bald

Appreciative Expression
63%
20%
18%

Other Expression
33%
25%
42%

Please take note that the other expression consists of several expressions. These other
expressions are not discussed deeply in this research.
4.2. Discussions
Comments on a video on YouTube can run into the hundreds or even thousands depending on
the level of popularity of the video and how interesting (or controversial) the video is. In
addition, comments on a video are also not only limited to appreciation but also insults and
jokes. In fact, commentators often express "mixed intent" such as appreciating through jokes
or insults through praise. This study only focuses on appreciative expressions, but on several
occasions, the author has to show other expressions contained in the comments column of the
selected video.
In the tables that have been presented earlier, it can be seen that the commentators tend to use
positive politeness strategies compared to negative politeness. Furthermore, positive
politeness was also found to be used more to express appreciation than negative politeness.
However, we cannot assume that all commentators are commenting in such a conscious
manner as not everyone understands the issue of linguistic politeness. Commentators whose
comments were netted in this study may be aware of their conveying intent and the effects of
using their language patterns but they do not necessarily understand that they are being
linguistically polite or disrespectful. We can only assess the type of strategy commentators
"use" and also use our understanding of speech acts to assess the meaning or intent they
convey.
As previously mentioned, other expressions are also netted in the comments on each video.
Apart from appreciative expressions, commentators also expressed requests, opinions, jokes,
and insults. They also use icons that may represent their feelings. Comments other than
appreciation are included in the "other" column.
Through the data descriptions in the tables above, the following are some important points
that are implied by the difference in the percentage level of linguistic politeness strategies.
4.2.1. Positive Politeness: Camaraderie or Norm?
The high level of positive politeness in the comments that were screened indicates that the
commentators perceive social distancing between themselves and the video creators as
significant. They show that there is a “familiarity” between them even though in the physical
world they do not know each other. We can assume this is one of the effects of information
technology which "brings distance closer" but linguistic politeness does not only interpret
distance as something physical but also psychological.
11

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

If we refer to B&L (1987) that positive politeness indicates acceptance and friendship, then
we cannot deny that in this case, the commentators do not consider them or others as
strangers. Furthermore, they tend to overlook any potential differences in social or academic
strata. There is a possibility that distance (both social and psychological) does not really
matter in virtual communication. This may be due to the opportunity factor to "hide" personal
data (real credentials or profile) so that there is nothing to worry about (e.g. social irritation).
The most sensible reason to exclude social distancing in virtual communications like this is
that what matters is what is communicated and not who is communicating; the most important
thing is information.
As for speeches that contain positive politeness, they always use informal expressions. In
addition, positive politeness speech often carries a personal meaning. We know that people
generally don't talk about personal matters unless the speakers and listeners have a close
relationship or are friends. To strangers, people tend to speak general things and use more
formal expressions. Based on the model put forward by B&L, it seems that many of us would
think that people who don't know each other will tend to use negative politeness. However,
this only applies to direct communication (FtF). Meanwhile, in indirect communication,
people are free to use expressions to convey their meaning.
Informality and personal meaning can be identified in the following comments:
I really like the idea of teaching the computer to do something, it's kind of cute when
the little computer icon jumps up and down like, "oh! I get it!” [C1.1]
You are so awesome. Thank you, from the depths of my previously very sore brain. I
was an Arts major in school and enthusiastically avoided trying to learn this stuff until
now. You're the first basic programming video maker who doesn't sound like the
adults in Charlie Brown. Again, thank you for the migraine relief. [C1.7]
The two comments above both express appreciation for video 1. Both of them express
positive politeness and this can be seen from the informality and personal information
contained in the two comments. Obviously, irregularities are seen in C1.1 comments, for
example, the use of the word 'cute' or the quote "oh! I get it!" Meanwhile, C1.7's comments
also contain informality such as the use of the metaphorical "migraine relief" as well as
personal information about the object of interest and praise.
As a speech, the two comments above contain positive politeness which should reflect
camaraderie or social and psychological closeness. But in this case, it is not the case.
It is possible that positive politeness was formed in the comments because the purpose was to
give thanks. This is as stated by Leech (1983) as one of the illocutionary functions that
determine the polarity of politeness, namely convivial. That is, in this case, people tend to
express positive politeness if they want to express gratitude, according to Leech. Meanwhile,
B&L (1987) indicates that positive politeness expresses intimacy because only those who are
familiar or expect familiarity use positive politeness in their speech.
Informality can also be seen from the way someone comments and one way is by looking at
the completeness of the grammatical elements in the speech. The more formal the grammar
12

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

is, the more formal the situation created by the speech. We can identify positive politeness in
a speech that is grammatically incomplete.
Good video! taught me lots [C1.13].
Thank you. Made me understand coding a lot better [C1.14]
The two comments above are very informal both in sound and grammar. Both also expressed
appreciation. And neither of them has a subject in their second sentence. No one knows if
these commenters have any relationship with the owner of the video but comments that are
grammatically incomplete like this are very much found in virtual communication. Does this
show that the polarity of politeness should not be determined by social and psychological
distance (B&L) but by the illocutionary function of speech (Leech)?
Positive politeness, when viewed from the B&L model, can also be used to express
complaints. That is, one can express a complaint using informal personal expressions as
shown in the following comments:
I have such a low IQ I have to watch this ten more times! [C1.16]
If we interpret the above comment as a personal expression, then the expression validly
contains positive politeness and this refers to B&L (1987). No one wants to say that he has a
low IQ except for people who he thinks can be trusted. However, if we see this comment as a
complaint, then Leech will include the comment in the Conflictive section where politeness
cannot be applied.
At this point, it seems that we cannot deny that camaraderie is not the only reason to express
positive politeness. In other words, in virtual communication, social and psychological
closeness cannot be a reference to identify the presence of positive politeness in an
expression. People feel free to use a form of expression which either consciously or
unconsciously determines the polarity of the linguistic politeness of that form of expression.
We have the right to assume that even if they didn't know the video maker, they chose a
certain form of expression to convey who they were, or "their face."
Comments of positive politeness, in our opinion, do not necessarily indicate camaraderie.
Commenters may have hopes or goals to build a camaraderie atmosphere in the comments
column. Of course, this is limited to virtual communication contexts where social distance
(D, in the B&L formula) is an element to be considered. There are other possibilities, for
example, the commenters want to maintain a positive face (want to show that they are a
friendly person) and do not want to show that they are a formal person. We do not have
information about the relationship between the commenter and the owner of the video, but
the form of expression used should be sufficient to give us information about the polarity of
politeness that the expressions express.
The polarity of politeness is always based on the polarity of the fact that you want to keep. In
the concept of linguistic politeness, a face consists of two polarities: a positive face and a
negative face. A positive face is the face of acceptance, intimacy, and closeness. From this
13

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

positive face is born positive politeness. Conversely, the negative face is the face of
restriction, honor, and self-respect. Negative politeness is born from the concept of negative
faces. These two polarities of politeness are used in communication to maintain both
polarities of the faces of all communicating people.
We have seen some examples of comments that show appreciation through expressions of
positive politeness. However, if we look at the currently available models of linguistic
politeness (B&L or Leech) we experience problems to analyze because there are certain
elements that are not present in virtual communication. For example, as we saw that in the
B&L model the element distance (D) is an important element for measuring the "effect" of
expression of politeness, both positive and negative. This distance element (D) is not
available in virtual communication, so we can't really apply the model.
We agree with Park (2008) who stated that:
The computer-mediated communication (CMC) modes impose conversational
constraints on language users due principally to the lack of contextual cues.
Park also conducted research on linguistic politeness in virtual communication. It's just that
the people involved in the research are people who already know each other. Even with the
participants who already knew each other, Park still acknowledged that context is an
important element in communication that cannot be found in virtual communication. The
communication forum used by Park is a formal communication forum that only gives access
to certain people. Meanwhile, YouTube is a large online forum that is free to access by
anyone as long as he has a Google account. This means that the people milling about and
communicating on YouTube are people who do not know each other or at least cannot be
guaranteed that they know each other.
After we have seen how people use positive politeness to express appreciation even though
they do not have to be familiar or even know each other, we now see how they use negative
politeness to express appreciation which is less frequent than positive politeness.
4.2.2. Appreciating with Negative Politeness
Language speakers use language to achieve a social function. Politeness, both positive and
negative, must be seen as a social function. If politeness is a social function of language, then
expressions of positive or negative politeness basically carry a will that affects all
communicating parties. In this case, a speaker would want the polite attitude he shows
through his expression (positively or negatively) to be recognized by the recipient. Regarding
the effect that arises as a result of the politeness expressed depends on the polarity and
understanding of the recipient.
In virtual communication, the effect we are talking about is not always visible because in
general, the video creators do not always reply to visitors' comments due to a large number of
comments (even if they read them). Commenters may have understood that their comments
were likely not reciprocated; most of the comments are also given only as an expression,

14

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

either praise or insult, and so on; some commenters only put comments just as a trace that
they have watched the video.
As shown in the table presented earlier, commentators tend to express positive politeness.
This can be seen from the percentage value which we can compare with negative politeness.
Commentators generally acted "friendly" in their comments or did not use formal grammar in
their comments. They also often do not use the formal address "sir, mistress, miss" and so on.
They use expressions that display parallels where social strata are not taken into account.
This may be due to the nature of technology and public spaces where social boundaries are
faded. We may accept expressions of positive politeness (informality, camaraderie, etc.) as
the norm in public virtual communication.
Expressions of negative politeness, on the other hand, are expressions that the commentator
deliberately expresses with a specific purpose. Both B&L and Leech agree that negative
politeness plays a role in keeping the "negative face" of each other. Negative modesty works
to minimize the risk of "losing face" or losing self-esteem. This means that comments
containing negative politeness are conveyed so that both the sender and receiver maintain
their dignity while communicating. What makes this interesting is that negative politeness is
still used even though the element of distance (D) or Absolute Rank (R) cannot be measured
in this context. The following are some appreciative comments expressed with negative
politeness:
Thank you for your video. I learned a lot about you. I hope you make more useful
videos. [C2.7]
Hello sir I am from India and here we are taught British English but many of us went
USA for higher study so for exams like SAT we have to study American
pronounciation and American vocabulary which is a bit different so I was confused
what to study. But now I m clear because of you that English is just one language and
we have to focus on any one English . So I will Focus on British English. Thankyou
so much. I m learning in these quarantine days. Love and respect from India. [C2.13]
The two comments above differ in size but both are expressions of appreciation. The second
commenter did provide a few details which for us are quite relevant to the topic of the video.
Both commenters used formal thanks and one even used "sir" in their comments.
The use of formal designations in virtual communications like this, especially in public
spaces where profiles of people cannot be "trusted", are quite numerous. However, when
compared with the use of informal designations (bro, guy, etc.), the use of formal
designations is still rare.
As mentioned earlier, positive politeness may have become the norm in virtual public
communication. This means that it is possible for commenters to express positive politeness
without feeling familiar or without the slightest polite intent.

15

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

In contrast to the use of negative politeness. People who express negative politeness in virtual
public spaces are completely conscious and intend to act politely. They do so in order to
protect their dignity and those with whom they communicate.
Negative politeness is still outnumbered by the use of the bald strategy. Many commenters
used a bald strategy to either "play with the language" or avoid giving straight answers.
Others use direct expressions where no polarity of politeness can be applied. However, once
again, negative politeness is still outnumbered by all other strategies of linguistic politeness,
particularly in public virtual communication.
5. Conclusion
From the above discussion, we conclude that in public virtual communication, all linguistic
politeness strategies can be found (positive, negative, and bald). However, expressions that
we think carry the value of politeness are not always said with the same meaning. That is, not
all expressions of politeness carry out their social functions as discussed in the available
models of linguistic politeness so far.
In public virtual communication where social strata or distance (D) and Absolute Rank (R)
cannot be measured, politeness values can only be identified and measured through grammar
and formality of expressions. In this way, we have found that positive politeness has become
the norm in virtual public communication. We can assume this is the result of fading social
boundaries in public virtual communication. Therefore, positive politeness no longer
functions to create acceptance or an atmosphere of intimacy but has become the norm for
strangers to communicate.
As a result, negative politeness is outnumbered by positive and bald politeness. However, this
then illustrates that the commenters only really consciously intended to be polite when they
used negative politeness. That is, when using negative politeness, they step out of the box and
choose to create a formal atmosphere in their communication. This is to keep their "face".
In public virtual communication, it appears that linguistic courtesy is more likely to be "face
maintenance" than "communication strategy" to achieve certain communication goals.
Finally, we have to accept the fact that the current models of linguistic politeness still need to
be refined so that they can be applied in virtual public communication where important
elements of communication are lost (context, distance, etc.).
References
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. (2015). Politeness and language. International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol. 18, 326-330.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatic and discourse: A resource book for students. London:
Routledge.
16

www.jurnal.stkipkieraha.ac.id/index.php/langua

Langua

Vol. 3, No. 2; 2020

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 14, 219-236.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic
Books.
Hillier, H. (2004). Analysing real texts: Research studies in modern English language.
Palgrave Macmillan
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the 9th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2005). Politeness: Is there and East-West divide? Journal of foreign languages,
6(6), 1-30.
Maha, L. (2014). Cross-cultural perspectives on linguistic politeness. Cross-cultural
communication, 10(1), 56-60
Okamoto, S. (1999). Situated politeness: Manipulating honorific and non-honorific
expressions in Japanese conversation. Pragmatics, 9(1), 51-74.
Park, J. (2008). Linguistic Politeness and Face-Work in Computer Mediated Communication,
Part 2: An Application of the Theoretical Framework. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 59(14): 2199-2209.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London:
Longman
Ure, C. (2014). What type of online forum is right for my community? Available at
https://forumbee.com/article/y7h1xv/what-type-of-online-forum-is-right-for-mycommunity- retrieved on June 17th, 2020, 21:41.

17