Politeness and [Im]Politeness Reactions of Facebook Online Comments on Greta Thunberg’s Speech
- Mohamad Iadid Ashrai Hassannudin
- Nor Fatin Abdul Jabar
- 4427-4438
- Sep 11, 2025
- Discourse Analysis
Politeness and [Im]Politeness Reactions of Facebook Online Comments on Greta Thunberg’s Speech
Mohamad Iadid Ashrai Hassannudin, Nor Fatin Abdul Jabar
1Faculty of Education, Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Poly-Tech Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 56100, MALAYSIA
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000354
Received: 12 August 2025; Accepted: 19 August 2025; Published: 11 September 2025
ABSTRACT
This paper presents on the face-threatening acts (FTA) committed by Greta Thunberg that have challenged Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory. The objectives of this study are to identify the face-threatening acts (FTA) committed by Greta Thunberg in her speech at the United Nations (UN) Climate Action Summit as well as to identify politeness or [im]politeness in the comments of Facebook users towards the speech. The study adapted Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory in analysing the FTAs committed by Greta Thunberg and further analyse the classifications of politeness and [im]politeness which were interpreted from the comments of Facebook users towards the speech using Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory as well as Culpeper’s Politeness and [Im]politeness Theory. The findings show that FTAs were identified as the cause for [im]politeness to occur on Facebook comments where Greta has violated the combination of three main variables of politeness theory which are power, distance, and rank. Hence, based on the results, the study highlights parts of the speech that have shifted the power relationship in the world economic settings towards Greta Thunberg’s belief in an unbounded economic expansion that is destroying the world climate.
Keywords: climate issue, computer-mediated communication (CMC), face-threatening act (FTA), [im]politeness, politeness
INTRODUCTION
The use of face-saving strategies to maintain social peace has long been emphasised by politeness theory. According to the fundamental concept developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), speakers can use either positive or negative politeness techniques to lessen face-threatening behaviours (FTAs). However, this paradigm has been thoroughly re-examined in light of the increase in hostile or combative communication patterns, especially in digital settings. Culpeper (1996) expanded the study of impoliteness by asserting that speakers may intentionally threaten or damage the hearer’s face, a phenomenon that is currently commonly observed in online discourse.
In today’s hyperconnected society, being impolite has become a common linguistic phenomenon, particularly when discussing famous people and political engagement. Social media has altered the standards of civility by allowing users to express strong, often embarrassing thoughts in a relatively anonymous way, according to recent studies (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich & Bou-Franch, 2021; Seargeant, 2020). Speed, virality, and audience amplification are affordances of digital platforms that encourage polarising displays of alignment and misalignment. This often results in a combination of supporting politeness and antagonistic impoliteness in user answers (Dynel, 2021; Terkourafi, 2019). These digital displays of face and identity challenge traditional frameworks for politeness by revealing how language both reflects and generates social interactions in disputed discourse environments (Locher & Bolander, 2021).
The relationship between digital [im]politeness and climate discourse are brought to light by responses to campaigner Greta Thunberg’s 2019 address at the UN Global Climate Action Summit. As a young female activist, Thunberg’s rhetorical approach criticised world leaders, and audiences responded in a range of ways, including sarcasm, adulation, derision, and personal attacks. Such replies facilitate the analysis of the role of [im]politeness in mediated political communication. This study examines online responses to Thunberg’s speech to examine how language tactics are employed to either strengthen or damage her message and ethos in the evolving public realm.
While numerous studies have examined Greta Thunberg’s rhetorical style (Wang, 2021) and the sociolinguistic implications of her activism (Nashruddin et al., 2022), fewer have examined the metapragmatic responses of online audiences to her UN speech. Previous studies have largely examined rudeness in political or celebrity discourse (Dynel, 2021), with little attention given to young activists like Thunberg who challenge existing power systems. Furthermore, it might be challenging to discern between disagreement and verbal hostility due to the prevalence of intense online discussions regarding controversial personalities (Seargeant, 2020).
This study fills a gap in the literature by focusing on the [im]politeness strategies used in Facebook comments posted in reaction to Thunberg’s 2019 address. It examines not only how Thunberg employed free trade agreements in her speech but also how audiences’ remarks caused alignment or misalignment with her message.
The analysis’s three primary objectives are to: (1) identify the politeness strategies Thunberg employed in her speech; (2) look at the politeness and impoliteness strategies Facebook users used in their responses; and (3) look into the underlying causes of these online reactions. In doing so, the study contributes to our understanding of the dynamics of online discourse in the digital age regarding youth voice, activism, and political confrontation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In regards of its openness, fervour, and unwavering criticism, Greta Thunberg’s 2019 address at the UN Global Climate Action Summit is regarded as a powerful rhetorical moment. During her speech, Thunberg engaged in a number of face-threatening acts (FTAs), mostly targeting global leaders and business elites, whom she accused of failing to act properly in the face of a worsening climate disaster. For instance, she uses her forceful confrontational comment, “How dare you?” to attack the positive face needs of her audience, which include the desire to be respected, admired, and viewed as morally upright (Hoffmann & Motschenbacher, 2020). Thunberg’s statement raised serious and polarising reactions on social media by discreetly questioning the moral character of powerful individuals and casting doubt on their judgements.
Her blunt remarks went against established diplomatic norms and sparked a lot of debate, particularly on Facebook and other social media platforms. Online contexts are conducive to the more open expression of both politeness and impoliteness due to apparent anonymity, disinhibition, and the lack of immediate social consequences (Locher & Bolander, 2021). This is evidence of how computer-mediated communication (CMC) changes the norms of civility, as users often engage in conversations that range from praise and adoration to insults and personal attacks (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich & Bou-Franch, 2021).
Politeness & [Im]Politeness in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Greta Thunberg’s speech at the 2019 UN Global Climate Action Summit was intended to convey critical concerns about climate change and to hold world leaders accountable for their environmental ineptitude. Specifically, against institutional power and economic interests, her use of rhetoric—particularly her confrontational and emotionally charged delivery—led to a number of face-threatening acts (FTAs). Direct provocation of this kind generated a great deal of discussion on social media, casting doubt on not only environmental laws but also the social and private lives of powerful people.
“Face” is a person’s emotionally involved public self-image that can be maintained, lost, or enhanced by interaction, according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) classic politeness theory. Their framework makes a distinction between two types of faces: positive face, which is the want to be liked and accepted, and negative face, which is the need for autonomy and non-interference. To reduce the impact of communicative acts that endanger these faces, speakers commonly employ politeness strategies including bald-on-record mitigation, off-record acts, positive politeness, and negative politeness. However, the need to move beyond face-saving strategies and include a systematic understanding of rudeness has evolved along with digital communication. The politeness strategies outlined by Brown & Levinson is shown below:
Figure 1. Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1987)
Culpeper (1996, 2011), building on the work of Brown and Levinson, argues that not all encounters are meant to preserve face; some intentionally undermine it. Being unpleasant in this context refers to the use of communication strategies like sarcasm, exclusion, criticism, and purposeful rudeness that aim to make the hearer look bad. These behaviours are influenced by social norms, participants’ expectations, and perceived [in]justices in discourse (Culpeper, 2011; Dynel, 2021). Rudeness on social media is frequently caused by identity defence, ideological division, and emotionally sensitive topics like environmental action.
The influence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) encourages anonymity and disinhibition by eliminating physical presence, nonverbal cues, and quick social feedback, impoliteness may become more prevalent (Locher & Bolander, 2021; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich & Bou-Franch, 2021). On social media platforms like Facebook, discursive norms are continuously negotiated, enabling both constructive and destructive interactions with prominent people. Studies show that CMC creates new conditions for the implementation and contestation of facework rather than eliminating FTAs (Tagg et al., 2022).
Although there is a wealth of research on being courteous in digital settings, most of it focuses on structured communication channels like text messages or emails (Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2019). Public responses to activist discourse, particularly in the form of user-generated comments on social media sites like Facebook, have received less attention. Using Culpeper’s (1996, 2011) Impoliteness Strategies and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Strategies as analytical frameworks, this study fills that gap by analysing the kinds of politeness and impoliteness strategies found in Facebook comments in response to Thunberg’s speech. Hence, Culpeper’s Impoliteness Strategies as shown below will categorize the types of impoliteness in the comments towards Greta Thunberg’s speech on climate change:
Table 1. Culpeper’s Impoliteness Strategies (1996)
| Bald-on record impoliteness | The basic message is impolite, but the speaker does not use any extra strategies to make it “more impolite”, e.g., |
| Positive Impoliteness | It attacks the positive face, by treating the others as if they are unwanted or talking about things that are seen as bad about that person, e.g., |
| Negative Impoliteness | Attacks the negative face, by trying to invade the other’s space or by not accepting their boundaries and privacy, e.g., |
| Sarcasm/Mock Politeness | The speaker says polite things, but it is (more or less) obvious that he/she does not mean them, more often than not, you can only make out if someone is being honest or not by their intonation e.g., |
| Withhold Politeness | Politeness is left out where others would expect it, e.g., not acknowledging or greeting someone back. |
The rise of CMC in recent decades has had a profound effect on people’s identity creation as well as their interpersonal and intergroup communication. On digital platforms, politeness and impoliteness have taken many different forms, reflecting not only communicative intent but also broader social, cultural, and ideological positions (Locher and Bolander, 2021). By analysing Facebook users’ reactions to Thunberg’s speech, this study contributes to our understanding of how attitudes towards activism, youth, authority, and environmental justice are mirrored in digitally mediated discourse.
In summary, the current study highlights the manner in which CMC encourages dynamic face negotiations in contentious political discourse by analysing the speaker’s use of FTAs and the audience’s [im]polite reactions. Using the dual lenses of politeness and impoliteness theories, the study looks at how Greta Thunberg’s speech and its response reflect shifting standards in digital public involvement.
METHODS
Provide This study employs a qualitative discourse analytical technique supported by frequency analysis to investigate politeness and impoliteness strategies in Greta Thunberg’s 2019 UN speech and the reactions of the Facebook audience. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2018), qualitative research aims to understand social phenomena in their natural settings and is interpretive by nature. Thus, in addition to Thunberg’s practical tactics, this study investigates how audiences interpret and respond to her speech in a real-time digital discourse context.
Information was taken from two primary sources. First, the speech transcript—which was based on the official UN video recording—was used to analyse Greta Thunberg’s usage of politeness techniques. Second, 210 Facebook comments were collected from UNICEF’s official Facebook page in response to the speech one week after it was delivered and over the course of a month. This time frame was chosen in order to record a synchronic dataset that records audience reactions in real time during the conversation’s apex. Meyer (2002) asserts that synchronic corpora provide a trustworthy framework for observing fleeting conversation patterns, especially in contexts that immediately elicit strong emotional responses.
Analysis was limited to text-based comments. Emoji, GIF, and image-only comments were not included because they depend on semiotic interpretation that is outside the purview of this linguistically grounded investigation. Focusing on a particular content format and time period improves the reliability of results in digital discourse research, as Procter et al. (2013) point out.
Discourse analysis, transcription, and video observation are the main tools used. Through verbal cues, speech acts, and rhetorical choices, Thunberg’s use of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies was identified through video analysis of her speech. To guarantee accuracy and conformity to the speaker’s tone and intent, transcription was done by hand. According to Creswell (2014), transcription transforms audiovisual content into text that can be analysed, providing the basis for qualitative interpretation.
In order to examine the audience’s reactions, Facebook comments were separated into polite and rude responses using Culpeper’s (1996, 2011) impoliteness tactics as an analytical framework. These included bald-on-record impoliteness, withholding politeness, sarcasm/mock politeness, and positive and negative impoliteness. Frequency analysis was used in addition to classification to determine the most common politeness and impoliteness strategies in audience replies. Finally, remarks were contextually interpreted to explore the fundamental causes of these communication choices.
By integrating speaker-focused and audience-focused content analysis within the CMC context, the methodology provides a robust framework for understanding the interaction dynamics of digital political discourse and how face-threatening activities are interpreted and evaluated in an online public sphere.
RESULTS
The results of this study have identified and categorized the politeness strategies employed by Greta Thunberg’s speech at UN Global Climate Action Summit 2019. The transcript is being transcribed and categorized using Brown and Levinson’s Face-Threatening Acts (FTA) and Politeness Theory (1987). Moreover, the comments of Facebook users have been collected manually to identify the frequency analysis of politeness and [im]politeness strategies by the Facebook users in the comments and categorized into the strategies of politeness and [im]politeness using Culpeper’s Politeness and [Im]politeness Strategies (1996).
Politeness Strategies Employed by Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ Speech at UN Global Climate Action Summit 2019
Greta Thunberg’s speech video was transcribed in order to get the text data to be analysed for its Politeness Strategies of “Face-Threatening Acts” (FTA). Thus, the result is presented in Table 2. below:
Table 2. Politeness Strategies “Face-Threatening Acts (FTA)” employed by Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ Speech at UN Global Climate Action Summit 2019
| Speech Transcript | Politeness Strategies |
| “My message is that we’ll be watching you” | Bald-on record
Greta Thunberg employed the strategy to demonstrate and represent community to voice out the issue. She also threatened the hearer’s face by using ‘we’ to represent the voice of the youth. |
| “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.” | Negative politeness
She was treating addressees as a superior and thereby emphasizing rights to immunity for herself in sacrificing her life for the world environment. |
| “Yet you all come to us young people for hope.” | Negative Politeness
Greta Thunberg has successfully avoided the hearer’s territory yet making them aware of action who have power in society. |
| “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…” | Bald-on record
She boldly threatened the addresses which were world leaders by the transcribed statement. This can be seen through the phrases of “have stolen…” as well as “your empty words…” |
| “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.” | Negative politeness
This transcript is seen as negative politeness because Greta avoids using first person pronouns in warning the addresses about the issues. |
| “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…” | Bald-on record with positive politeness
However, in this dialogue she redressed the bald-on record utterance by using ‘we’ to save the addressees’ face in which demonstrating unity and solidarity as world community. |
| “…and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.” | Bald-on record
This dialogue has successfully employed bald-on record as Greta Thunberg attacked the world leaders as hearers towards their actions. |
| “How dare you!” | Bald-on record
Greta Thunberg performed face-threatening act directly and efficiently in concise manner to address the issue. |
| “How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.” | Bald-on record
Again, Greta Thunberg addressed the issue in direct manner to catch the attention of the listeners of the speech towards world leaders in protecting nature. |
| “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency.” | Negative politeness
She threatened the addresses’ positive face. |
| “Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil.” | Bald-on record
She blew the threats by using the words such ‘failing’ and ‘evil’ to address to the hearer. |
| “So, a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.” | Bald-on record with positive politeness
She reconciled the community by using saving the reputation of world leaders and demonstrated unity as people who lived in the consequences. |
| “How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions?” | Bald-on record
She performed a direct warning to the addresses. |
| “And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.” | Bald-on record
She boldly used the word ‘not mature’ in mocking their way of thinking with power and ranking they have as world leaders. |
| “You are failing us.” | Bald-on record
She really performed directly threatening the hearer’s face with the statement. |
| “But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal.” | Negative politeness
The utterance showed negative politeness as Greta Thunberg aimed to soften the blow by using ‘young people’ and making the addresses to do something about the issue with strong manner like ‘your betrayal’. |
| “The eyes of all future generations are upon you.” | Negative politeness
The utterance also showed as negative politeness as Greta Thunberg wanted the addressees to correct their responsibility yet displaying deference by saying “future generations are upon you.” |
| “And if you choose to fail us, I say…” | Bald-on record
She again directly performed and threatened the addresses to look on this matter seriously. |
| “We will never forgive you.” | Bald-on record
She enabled this strategy to occur in order to purposedly damage the hearer’s face as she represented the people disagreement with ‘we’. |
| “We will not let you get away with this.” | Bald-on record
She also enabled this strategy to occur to damage the hearer’s face as she represented the people disagreement with ‘we’. |
| “Right here, right now is where we draw the line.” | Bald-on record
She enabled this strategy to occur with the intention to damage the hearer’s face as she represented the youth disagreement with ‘we’. |
| “The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.” | Negative politeness
The utterance displayed solidarity as Greta Thunberg represented the people yet commanding indirectly to the world leaders to act on the climate issue as they can exercise their power in which she emphasized their rights and treated the addresses as a superior. |
Politeness & [Im]Politeness Strategies Employed by Facebook Users in Comments Towards Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ Speech at UN Global Climate Action 2019
The Facebook users’ comments were transcribed in order to identify the frequency analysis of politeness and [im]politeness strategies employed by the Facebook users towards Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ speech in understanding and analysing the reaction through computer-mediated communication (CMC). Therefore, the result is presented in Table 3. below:
Table 3. The Frequency of The Strategies Employed by Facebook Users in Comments towards Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ Speech at UN Global Climate Action 2019
| Strategies Employed | Frequency | Description of the Posted Comments |
| Bald on-record Impoliteness | 16 | Findings:
a. not buying it! b. This young girls behavious doesn’t spike as a shocker to me… Across borders, Zambia to be precise such typical behavior is common to her ongoing challenge…over and above all I think its exacerbated to some extent.
Both these comments directly and openly described the opinion of the commentators with basic impoliteness that they will not consider and believe the words of Greta though she delivered her speech in a forceful way. |
| Positive Impoliteness | 28 | Findings:
a. I’m all for cleaning and fixing the planet but I just have one question for you and all the other youngsters. How is your rooms? Are they in perfect order, if not, then I believe that would be a good place to start. b. Well done but many scientists deny this theory and they say they are trying to control the developing countries and as the developed countries dont let enjoy everyone a comfortable life
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators attacking Greta’s positive face indirectly as they sought to agree on what Greta is saying but still in a way stated what Greta is doing is not required or necessary as there are other contributing factors for climate change to occur apart from what Greta had mentioned in her speech. |
| Negative Impoliteness | 33 | Findings:
a. It’s all fake she is very rich but her parents are divorced and behind her big Swedish sponsors all is fake she is getting paid doing this b. Most pathetic display I’ve seen in a long time. How about we start listening to REAL scientists instead of a 16-year-old girl controlled by her proud anti capitalism parents
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators attacking Greta’s negative face indirectly as they sought to not respect and concern on the boundaries and privacy line, they have with her when they choose to criticize on Greta’s parents and her financial status though these elements are out of context from the given speech. |
| Sarcasm or Mock Politeness | 19 | Findings:
a. Future Grammy winner b. Nice way to bunk school!
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators through sarcasm as insincerity and fakeness can be sensed in the given comments though they sounded polite and nice. |
| Withhold Politeness | 5 | Findings:
a. Greta try memorizing your script next time. It would sound more sincere. b. The kid is even sobbing. This is not good. Let her go play with dolls.
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators to be polite but not acknowledging and appreciating on what Greta had said in her speech. |
| Positive Politeness | 37 | Findings:
a. Everyone is the leader of his/her conscience. Conscience transcends the differences between ethnicities, nationalities and religious beliefs. You and I can protect the conscience in our heart, and together we can create an era of love and peacehttps://youtu.be/_lkVDHgVDZU b. Truly an inspiration
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators to be polite and appreciative as they are acknowledging and applauding on what Greta’s speech. |
| Neutral | 3 | Findings:
a. Current a many Adults are doing business with Greta Thunberg and her young fans, not only NOGs, but also Politicians (CO2 taxes), climate institutes (collects millions € taxpayers annually), CO2-certification dealer, the media… b. For environmental management we need WORDWIDE sewage treatment plants, filters, recycling and protection of forests and seas. The money for the “climate protection” would be much better invested fot such projects.http://www.europakonzept.eu/umweltmanagement-statt-co2-abzockerei/the-business-with-climate demonstrations/
Both these comments described the opinion of the commentators to not taking any stand on Greta’s speech as they did not choose either to support or oppose on what she have said. |
| Negative Politeness | 0 | No commentators employed this strategy in their comments. |
| Total | 141 |
DISCUSSION
Politeness Strategies Employed by Greta Thunberg’s ‘How Dare You’ Speech at UN Global Climate Action Summit 2019
From the Table 2. above it is evident that Greta has performed FTA in her speech which she purposely addressed to the world leaders. Bald on record was mostly employed by her to show that she is utterly frustrated and disappointed towards the world leaders who should be taking the responsibilities of solving the issues pertaining to the global climate crisis. However, a 16-year-old child takes on the responsibility to eradicate the awareness of everyone around her, especially the leaders regarding climate change issues. This shows a ‘child vs. adult’ discourse which has violated the standard power dynamic of the speaker and hearer. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the weight of a face-threatening act is determined by considering the combination of three variables: power, distance, and rank. However, in the speech it is clear that Greta and her hearer (the leaders) have different power dynamics, social distance and rank. She was a 16-year-old child at that particular year of 2019, addressing all the top world leaders who have more power, higher social distance and rank. This shows a power shift frame in the speech as mentioned by Wilhelmsen (2020) power shift frame happens when she boldly criticise the leaders and empowering herself by referring to them as children.
Moreover, upon addressing the leaders, she uses ‘us’ and ‘our’ to show the solidarity of the younger generations to solve the global climate issue where the leaders have failed to do so. Nevertheless, Greta Thunberg softens the FTA of bald on records with the use of personal pronoun ‘we’ as a positive politeness strategy used on not to damage the addressees’ face (Brown and Levinson, 1987) where she mentioned “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…” She redressed the bald-on record utterance by using ‘we’ to save the addressees’ face which demonstrated unity and solidarity as a world community. According to Yuli (2021) personal pronouns ‘we’ are used to show inclusiveness between the speaker and the addressees. However, Greta also uses ‘we’ to show an exclusiveness of the addressees as she used the pronoun ‘we’ to refer to the younger generation she represented but not the addressed hearer which are the world leaders as such an example phrase in her speech, “We will never forgive you.”.
The Relationship Between Politeness Strategies of Face-Threatening Acts (FTA) Employed by Greta Thunberg in Her Speech and Politeness & [Im]Politeness Strategies Used in Comments by Facebook Users Towards the Speech
Through the critical analysis of both findings, the video analysis on Greta Thunberg’s speech and frequency analysis on the posted comments in Facebook, it is apparent that the Face-Threatening Acts (FTA) committed by Greta Thunberg has contributed to the uproar of the Facebook users. Consequently, the findings from the frequency analysis supported this statement as it was evident [im]politeness strategies were extensively and repetitively employed by Facebook commentators in their comments upon watching Greta Thunberg’s speech compared to politeness strategies. According to Aurora (2020) the users in social media express annoyance and disapproval towards Greta Thunberg’s speech because of the power shift frame employed in the speech. It is also a rare sight to see a child belittling the older generation and speaking in such power to criticise the world leaders (Wilhelmsen, 2020).
Hence, this shows how the society is still not able to accept the shift of power dynamic between the child and adults. They still perceive that a child has no right to be involved in an adult’s matter. As presented in Table 3, the comments used by the Facebook users are relatively related to these comments such as:
“I just have one question for you and all the other youngsters. How is your rooms?”
“Are they in perfect order, if not, then I believe that would be a good place to start.”
This shows that the Facebook commenter does not bother to look into the issue of what Greta has to say but rather to look into her persona as a young girl who is not qualified enough to speak on such an issue. However, Andersson (2021) argued that what has triggered the criticism and aggression towards the activist, is the nature of the message she intends to convey more than her age or lack of experience as climate change has been one of the most vigorously debated topics involving serious normative controversies in terms of beliefs and values, and pervasive ideological cleavages. Hence, this also leads to the [im]politeness strategy employed on her through the Facebook comments.
CONCLUSION
Provide In conclusion, this study analysed the politeness and [im]politeness strategies used in computer-mediated communication platforms by users to spread their ideologies and expressed their judgement of an issue. The analysis of Greta’s speech shows a ‘child vs. adult’ discourse and a power shift frame where Greta, a 16-year-old girl boldly employed bald on record in her speech addressing the world leaders. This resulted in most of the backlash comments from the Facebook users where they employed politeness and [im]politeness strategies. Although it is evident that the highest strategy employed by the Facebook user was positive politeness, when the data is combined as a whole, [im]politeness strategy would be the most used strategy compared to the politeness strategy. This shows that the politeness strategy employed in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has found that face-threatening acts (FTAs) are unavoidable no less than in a face-to-face setting.
Moreover, FTAs were identified as the cause for [im]politeness to occur on Facebook comments where Greta has violated the combination of three main variables of politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) which are power, distance, and rank. Therefore, this study will enable relevant shareholders to avoid committing the same FTAs that will incite [im]politeness to occur among the supporters of their ideologies on online platforms such as Facebook, as such strategies will cause disharmony within the online community of social media users. Moreover, this study would also be able to assist The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission to regulate suitable guidelines pertaining to online commentaries.
REFERENCES
- Anugrah Pandu Dewanta. (2020). An analysis of illocutionary speech acts in Greta Thunberg’s speech about climate change [Unpublished bachelor’s thesis]. University of Brawijaya.
- Aurora Mahliha Salsabilla. (2020). Complaining utterances used by social media users to the speech of Greta Thunberg in the United Nations Climate Action Summit [Unpublished dissertation]. Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
- Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Thomson Wadsworth.
- Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
- Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2019). Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
- Creswell, J. W. (2014a). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
- Creswell, J. W. (2014b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.
- Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232–3245.
- Culpeper, J. (2011a). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
- Culpeper, J. (2011b). Politeness and impoliteness. In G. Andersen & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (pp. 391–436). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Culpeper, J. (2015a). Impoliteness. In The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–5). Wiley.
- Culpeper, J. (2015b). Impoliteness strategies. In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 421–445). Springer.
- Dalton, E. J. (2013). Impoliteness in computer-mediated communication [Unpublished dissertation]. San Diego State University.
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. SAGE Publications.
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Dynel, M. (2021). “Cancel culture” and impoliteness: The case of JK Rowling. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 370–384.
- Hammod, N. M., & Abdul-Rassul, A. (2017). Impoliteness strategies in English and Arabic Facebook comments. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(5), 97–112.
- Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42.
- Hiemstra, G. (1982). Teleconferencing, concern for face, and organizational culture. Annals of the International Communication Association, 6(1), 874–904.
- Hoffmann, C., & Motschenbacher, H. (2020). Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN climate summit: A critical discourse analysis of youth activism. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(5), 727–748.
- Jing, D. (2016). On the politeness strategies in Chinese Internet Relay Chat communication. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 293–301.
- Locher, M. A. (2010). Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 1–5.
- Locher, M. A., & Bolander, B. (2021). Language and politeness in digital communication. Cambridge University Press.
- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.
- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. Mouton de Gruyter.
- Maros, M., & Rosli, L. (2017). Politeness strategies in Twitter updates of female English language studies Malaysian undergraduates. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(1), 132–149.
- Meyer, C. F. (2002). English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
- Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 19–56). De Gruyter Mouton.
- Morand, D. A., & Ocker, R. J. (2003). Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: A sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages. In Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2003.1173660
- Nashruddin, N., Alam, A. F., & Gunawan, F. (2022). Pragmatic analysis of Greta Thunberg’s speech: Implicature and speech acts. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21021
- Nurul Akmal, G. (2018). Online animosity: Impoliteness strategies and triggers of hostility in a social networking site in Brunei. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 71–84.
- Procter, R., Vis, F., & Voss, A. (2013). Reading the riots on Twitter: Methodological innovation for the analysis of big data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 197–214.
- Rosyidah, I. F., & Sofwan, A. (2017). Politeness strategies in official Facebook accounts of CNN, TWSJ and NBC on Obama visiting Hiroshima. English Education Journal, 7(1), 12–18.
- Seargeant, P. (2020). The era of internet trolling: Understanding the context of online disinhibition. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1045
- Shamilah, A. H. (2015). Impoliteness strategies used in a politician’s Facebook [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Malaya.
- Shinta, V. M., Hamzah, H., & Wahyuni, D. (2018). Impoliteness strategies used by supporters and detractors of Ahok in their online comments by gender. E-Journal English Language and Literature, 7(1), 225–236. http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/ell/article/view/9915
- Tagg, C., Seargeant, P., & Brown, B. (2022). Taking offense on social media: Conviviality, tolerance, and communication. Springer.
- Terkourafi, M. (2019). The role of context in (im)politeness research. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 423–446). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Wang, W. (2021). The rhetorical strategies of Greta Thunberg’s climate change discourse. Discourse & Society, 32(2), 246–263.
- Wilhelmsen, M. E. (2020). How dare she?: A critical discourse analysis of Greta Thunberg [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Agder, Kristiansand.
- Xavierine, J., & Thayalan, M. X. (2017). Impoliteness strategies in the social media comments on the Low Yat Plaza incident [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Malaya.
- Yulidar, L., Wijayanto, A., & Hikmat, M. H. (2017). Impoliteness strategies used in Dailymail’s comments [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.