Students’ Politeness Strategies and Politeness Maxims in Student-Teacher Online Interactions

Students’ Politeness Strategies and Politeness Maxims in Student-Teacher Online Interactions

Cristy Grace A. Ngo, Frances Arabella B. Alcayde, Ia P. Lagrosa, Bless Yera B. Micabalo

College of Teacher Education, Davao del Sur, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90500064

Received: 25 April 2025; Accepted: 28 April 2025; Published: 30 May 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the politeness strategies and politeness maxims employed by engineering students during interactions with their teacher on the Blackboard Learn learning management system. Findings indicate that engineering students predominantly use positive politeness and tact maxims, aiming to affirm their teachers’ positive faces, reflecting their desire for approval, respect, and recognition. The use of in-group identity markers, such as address forms, was identified as a dominant sub-strategy of politeness. Tact maxims were mainly observed in requests and academic inquiries directed toward teachers. While the study provides valuable insights into enhancing students’ communication skills in virtual settings, it acknowledges limitations in focusing solely on the Blackboard Learn platform and suggests further exploration of politeness strategies and politeness maxims across different contexts and platforms.

Keywords: politeness strategies; politeness maxims; student-teacher online interaction; Blackboard Learn; education; Philippines

INTRODUCTION

The increasing use of text messaging in academic settings has brought attention to the politeness strategies students employ in online interactions. To prevent misinformation, Zahra et al. (2023) emphasized the significance of careful communication in online interactions. Abid (2019) and Rahmi et al. (2018) highlight frequent violations of politeness principles in students’ messages to lecturers, including directness without politeness markers and demanding tones. During the COVID-19 pandemic, studies like Panjaitan et al. (2021) revealed the use of impoliteness strategies among students in online learning environments, which can disrupt social harmony and hinder effective learning.

In online interactions as well as traditional classroom settings, communication politeness is necessary. Social connections and a diversity of backgrounds have an impact on the range of politeness methods that students use, including bald on-record and off-record strategies. The importance of politeness in promoting successful communication and social harmony buttresses that teachers’ polite language has an important effect on students’ motivation and self-efficacy (Sembiring et al., 2021; Rivai et al., 2021).

Despite the importance of politeness in education, there is limited research on how these strategies manifest in online student-teacher interactions, particularly in virtual learning environments, students frequently overlook manners in digital communication over time (Miri, 2019; Salazar & Codina, 2018). Since politeness techniques are essential to sustaining courteous and effective interactions, it is important to comprehend these factors as online learning becomes an increasingly dominant element in the educational environment.

Additionally, in online interactions where non-verbal cues are limited, students often rely more on written communication to convey politeness. Research in this area, rooted in pragmatics, explores how language is used in context, focusing on politeness strategies that maintain social harmony and respect (Lakoff, 1973). Pragmatic education needs to assist students with comprehending how to communicate in a variety of settings (Sykes, 2017). Even though traditional classrooms have been the subject of many research studies, politeness strategies in online interactions need to be examined.

METHOD

This descriptive-qualitative study investigated the politeness strategies and politeness maxims in online conversations used by engineering students at a private higher education institution in Davao City, Philippines. Ngo and Cubelo (2024) explained that there is no universally agreed-upon number of corpora that is considered sufficient as it often rests on the goals and methodology of the study; thus, 100 screenshots of conversations via Blackboard Learn (BBL) learning management system (LMS) between the engineering students and their teachers were deemed adequate and then collected. The 100 corpora were then analyzed and interpreted using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness strategies and Leech’s (1983) politeness maxims. Through these, the study found repeating patterns in politeness strategies that students used and evaluated how they affected online interactions. Moreover, these theories provided insights into the structure of online student-teacher communication by analyzing their politeness maxims.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 reveals that four politeness strategies — positive politeness, negative politeness, bald-on-record, and off-record — were evident in the engineering students’ statements during online conversations. In detail, positive politeness included actions like noticing the hearer, intensifying interest, using in-group identity markers, presupposing common ground, showing concern for the hearer’s wants, making offers or promises, being optimistic, and giving or asking for reasons. Whereas negative politeness was marked by indirectness, using questions and hedges, minimizing imposition, giving deference, apologizing, stating impositions as general social rules, and going ‘on record’ to sustain a debt. Meanwhile, the bald-on-record strategy appeared in task-oriented communication where maintaining the hearer’s face was not a priority. Lastly, the off-record strategies involved giving hints and association clues.

Table 1. Politeness Strategies Used by Engineering students

Positive Politeness

Positive politeness is a strategy that helps maintain positive social relationships by emphasizing friendliness, solidarity, and common ground between speaker and listener (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It facilitates understanding and goodwill amongst people, which leads to more productive communication (Smith & Johnson, 2018). Using this strategy commonly entails speaking respectfully, demonstrating empathy and exhibiting concern for the listener’s comfort. Essentially, the goal is to strengthen social bonds by making the listener feel respected and valued. These are the following:

Notice and attend to the hearer (his interests, wants, needs, and goods). Pay attention to the goods, needs, interests, and desires of the hearer. Effective communication requires paying attention to the needs and interests of the listener (Adler & Proctor, 2019). As stated by Gervasio and Ikeri (2019), this strategy suggests that students should take note of changes, belongings, or anything else they would like their teacher to see and approve of in the context of this study. It entails paying close attention to and demonstrating empathy for the needs, goals, passions, and values of the teacher as exemplified in the conversation below:

S: You told me to pm you here ma’am because I wasn’t able

to submit my activity. What will I do maam?

T: Submit it within this week.

[SS6]

In [SS6], the student demonstrated consideration for the teacher’s preferences by reminding her of her prior directive to get in touch with her regarding the activity submission problem via private message. Because the student respects and adheres to the teacher’s wishes, this exchange exemplifies positive politeness. By following the teacher’s instructions, the student hopes to preserve a healthy social interaction and reduce any potential imposition or interruption (García & Martínez-Flor, 2019).

Intensify interest to the hearer. This strategy involves demonstrating genuine interest in the teacher’s feelings, thoughts, opinions, or experiences to affirm their importance and value in the interaction (Njuki & Ireri, 2021). This approach seeks to affirm the importance and value of the teacher in the interaction, fostering a sense of appreciation and respect (Romero-Trillo, 2019). When employing this strategy, students often use language and nonverbal cues that convey attentiveness and concern for the listener’s perspective. By showing genuine interest in the teacher’s perspective, students can create a supportive and an inclusive environment where all parties feel valued and heard. This is shown in the statement below:

S: “I trust this letter finds you in good health”

[SS21]

S: “I hope this message finds you well”

[SS99]

In [SS21] and [SS99], the students intensify their interest in their teacher by showing genuine concern for their

well-being. It implies that the students care about the teacher’s health and wishes them good fortune. These statements show positive politeness because they maintain the teacher’s cheerful face, which refers to their desire to be appreciated, approved, and included in social interactions (Kadar & Haugh, 2018). In addition, by expressing concern for the teacher’s health, the students acknowledge their importance and attempt to establish a positive rapport.

Use in-group identity markers (address form, use of in-group language or dialect, jargon or slang, contraction, and ellipsis). There are many ways to convey in-group identity markers. These markers include address forms, in-group language or dialect, jargon or slang, contractions, and ellipses. In this study, students used these linguistic elements to establish a sense of camaraderie and affiliation with the teacher, enhancing rapport and reducing social distance (Haugh, 2013). In other words, this indicates that both the student and the teacher belong to the same social community. This strategy is shown in the statements below:

S: Good afternoon, ma’am

[SS1]

S: Thank you, Sir.

[SS2]

In [SS1] and [SS2], the students use formal and respectful terms commonly used to address female and male authority figures, to show respect and recognition of the teachers’ status. By using these address forms, the students acknowledge a shared identity with the teacher, indicating that they belong to the same class and thus acknowledging their presence. Additionally, expressing politeness and considering the teacher’s status and authority contributes to a positive and respectful interaction (Smith & Johnson, 2018). Another way to use in-group identity markers is through slang and jargon, which is observed below:

S: Good morning maam, I would like to ask when will you re-open the submission of the activity regarding the compilation of comsof.

[SS8]

In [SS8], the student asked the teacher regarding the reopening of the submission of the activity. The student specifically used the term “comsof,” commonly used within the engineering community. Using familiar terminology within their shared academic context, the student demonstrates respect for the teacher’s expertise and acknowledges the common ground they share as members of the same course. This also contributes to camaraderie and mutual understanding between students and teachers. Additionally, this aligns with positive politeness strategies, fostering a sense of solidarity and collegiality between the student and the teacher (Cutting, 2009).

Presuppose/raise/assert common ground. Recognizing common ground is essential because this serves as a reference point for both parties to interpret messages accurately. By this, the politeness strategy involves assuming or implying that certain beliefs, knowledge, or experiences are shared between the speaker and the listener (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In the framework of this study, by presupposing, raising, and asserting common ground towards the teacher, students signal that they are operating within a shared context. As a result, the student and teacher highlight areas of agreement or similarity, which can enhance rapport and mutual understanding, help strengthen social bonds and minimize potential disagreement. This is shown in the excerpt below:

S: I thought the deadline was 12NN then it would automatically close at 8AM.

[SS12]

In [SS12], the student should have submitted her assignment on time. She explained respectfully that the reason was her misconception of the deadline. She uses the term I thought which suggests a common understanding and implies that the teacher shares her understanding of the deadline. Burk and Pearson (2022) explicated that this shows a sense of mutual understanding and connection with the teacher, which is why this shows positive politeness.

Assert or Presuppose S’s knowledge of and concerns for H’s wants. In communication, when the speaker assumes that the listener is aware of their wants and concerns, they can convey information more efficiently because they can skip explicit explanations that the listener is likely to know already or infer (Verschueren, 2018). In the context of this study, the student must make it look like the teacher’s will and wants to fit into his (Burk & Pearson, 2022). This is observed in this study when the student demonstrates understanding, consideration, and respect for the teacher’s wants and preferences, as shown in the statement below:

S: I know it is not a valid excuse ma’am but is there a way for me to take the quiz?

[SS80]

The student in [SS80] failed the long quiz because he forgot to open it. He shows that he is aware of the teacher’s expectations by admitting that his apology might not be acceptable. This indicates that the student is aware of the teacher’s worries. The student tries to keep the conversation going and reduce any potential face-threatening situations by inquiring as to whether the quiz can still be taken despite the spurious excuse. This method makes the request more courteous and less likely to spark a dispute (Litvinova & Larina, 2023).

Offer; Promise. To strengthen social ties and demonstrate concern for the well-being of others, this tactic entails providing or promising to do something for the other person (Lim, 2019). When a possible danger to face-threatening acts (FTAs) emerges in student-teacher contact, a student may respond by offering or agreeing to work with the teacher in a different way (Wong, 2021). This involves pledging to act in the future to support or accommodate the educator. This is observed in the conversation below:

S: It was my mistake, and I promise to double-check my files before submitting them.T: Check it again.

[SS74]

In [SS74], the student agreed to take preventative action to avoid making the same mistakes again and turned in the incorrect file to the teacher. The student demonstrates a dedication to accuracy by promising to double-check their files before submitting, which helps the teacher by reducing future errors. By displaying the student’s accountability and commitment to develop, this promise is intended to lift the teacher’s enthusiasm (Wong, 2021).

Be optimistic. Positive viewpoints and possible solutions are the foci of optimistic communication, which enhances interpersonal and professional relationships. Prioritizing successful results improves relationships, raises spirits, and promotes teamwork (Fredrickson, 2009). Students in this study frequently employ language that emphasizes optimism, such as showing hope, encouraging others, or emphasizing the positive parts of the conversation. This is evident in the following excerpts:

S: I’m hoping you’ll let me make up any quizzes or activities I missed in class today.

[SS3]

S: Hoping for your kind consideration and immediate response.

[SS38]

[SS3] and [SS38] are great examples of the positive politeness approach of optimism. The students emphasize their optimistic outlook on the outcome and frame their words well by conveying positivism and hopefulness in their demands. This strategy seeks to increase the possibility of receiving a good response from the teacher. Furthermore, by being optimistic, the students convey respect and thought for the teacher’s possible reaction, strengthening the connection and sense of mutual understanding (Seligman, 2006).

Give (or ask for) reasons. This study observes this strategy when students give reasons and explanations to justify their requests, opinions, or actions (Brown & Levinson, 1987). When students give reasons, they provide context, evidence, or rationale to help the teacher understand the underlying motivation behind their communication. By offering reasons, students demonstrate transparency, credibility, and thoughtfulness, which can increase the likelihood of their message being accepted or acted upon by the teacher. Conversely, when students ask for reasons, they seek clarification or justification from the teacher to better understand their perspective or rationale. By asking for reasons, students demonstrate openness, curiosity, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, which can foster mutual understanding and facilitate constructive communication exchanges (Amerstorfer & Freiin, 2021). This strategy is observed in the statement below:

S: Can I just please take the special exam sir if we are going to have our first exam tomorrow? I have fever, cough, and runny nose since yesterday and I think my conditionis still not good enough for me to take the first exam tomorrow without disturbing my classmates.

[SS38]

In [SS38], the student starts by politely asking permission to take the exam. To justify her request, she provided a reason, stating that she has been experiencing symptoms of illness since yesterday. The student is appealing to the teacher’s sense of understanding and empathy by providing a reason. Moreover, the student’s polite request, coupled with a valid reason for needing to take the exam, showcases the use of positive politeness because it seeks to establish rapport and maintain social harmony by showing consideration for the teacher’s perspective and the needs of the classroom environment (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Negative Politeness

Negative politeness is a communication strategy aimed at respecting the autonomy and desire for freedom from the imposition of the listener (Arundale, 2020). Almoabdi (2022) elaborated that it involves avoiding intruding on the listener and is characterized by employing strategies like using modal verbs, hesitating, apologizing for potential imposition, asking questions, or seeking permission to inquire; while indirect language, hedging, and deference are employed to show respect for the listener’s independence (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The goal of negative politeness is to maintain social harmony and preservation of the listener’s self-esteem by refraining from causing discomfort or intruding on their personal space (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Strategies such as indirectness, questioning, hedging, adopting a cautious tone, minimizing imposition, showing deference, offering apologies, and depersonalizing topics are utilized to achieve this aim. Additional principles of negative politeness include the following:

Be Indirect. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), indirect speech acts are the most common form of conventional indirectness. Al-Hamedi (2023) defined indirect speech as straightforward devices that offer traditional indirectness. This study uses hedging, indirectness, and please particles to convey politeness in indirect speech. When using phrases and sentences with precise meanings, students may use indirect language to convey negative politeness (Burk & Pearson, 2022). However, sometimes, indirectness can lead to ambiguity, as different people interpret words differently based on their relationships and knowledge levels. Being indirect means avoiding direct and explicit language when making requests or statements to reduce the risk of infringing on the teacher’s autonomy or causing discomfort. This is seen in the line below:

S: May I ask sir If we’ll have the second batch now for the title defense for micro?

[SS73]

In [SS73], the student softens the request by using the modal verb “may” making it more polite and allowing the teacher the option to comply without feeling pressured or obligated. Additionally, the indirectness in the question, If we’ll have… exemplifies negative politeness. Instead of directly inquiring about the timing of the second batch for the title defense, the student formulates the question tentatively, leaving room for the teacher to respond without feeling pressured or obligated to provide an immediate answer. This indirect approach, as acknowledged by Al-Hamedi (2023), serves as a straightforward mechanism for traditional indirectness in communication.

Question and Hedges. One-way writers express negative politeness through hedging (Fafiyebi & Dada, 2023). Hedging is often used in politeness strategies to mitigate potential offense or disagreement by softening statements or expressing uncertainty, and according to Alsaawi (2022), but-clauses can be used as a mitigating marker to soften the impact of a potentially harmful statement. When employing this sub-strategy, the student asks the teacher to do something for him while allowing them to accept or reject responsibility (Gervasio & Ikeri, 2019). Thus, instead of making a direct statement that could be imposed on the teacher, a student might phrase their utterance as a question or hedge it with qualifiers to soften its impact. This is observed below:

S: I know it is not a valid excuse po ma’am but is there a way for me to take the quiz?

[SS80]

In [SS80], the student begins by acknowledging the situation directly with the phrase, I know… By doing so, the student shows that showing awareness and taking responsibility for their actions reflects a form of negative politeness aimed at maintaining rapport with the teacher. Additionally, the use of the word but signals a transition to the main request of the sentence. However, instead of making a direct demand or request, the student hedges their request with the phrase, Is there a way… suggest a sense of uncertainty or tentativeness, which softens the request and mitigates any potential imposition on the teacher. This hedging strategy is a significant aspect of language as it facilitates effective social communication by allowing students to express varying degrees of confidence in conversation.

Minimize imposition on the other person. Minimizing imposition involves reducing the burden on others by considering their time, space, and autonomy (Grant & Berg, 2011). This includes being polite, asking permission, acknowledging inconvenience, and respecting boundaries. Speakers use phrases to convey reduced urgency, implying less risk to the hearer (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Individuals aim to maintain positive relationships and uphold mutual respect by minimizing impositions. The student uses this strategy to imply that the burden’s inherent urgency is insignificant. It can be realized through phrases that convey the idea of reducing the teacher’s potential risk. This strategy is used in the student’s statement below:

S: Good evening, ma’am, are you going to send the solution for the 1st exam?

[SS32]

In [SS32], the student initiates the conversation with the question, are you going to… By starting with a polite greeting and framing the question in a considerate manner, the student attempts to minimize the imposition on the teacher. The student also uses the phrase Are you going to send instead of a more direct demand like When will you send or I need the solution, which suggests a respectful inquiry rather than an urgent demand. Additionally, as stated by Smith (2019), the question format allows the teacher to respond at their convenience, minimizing any sense of urgency or pressure. Hattie (2015) added that this approach acknowledges the teacher’s autonomy and role in providing support or guidance.

Give deference. Showing deference conveys respect for others’ expertise, experience, or status, which can lead to greater cooperation and collaboration (Wong, 2021). Suyono and Andrianti (2021) stated that using an address term indicates a speaker’s respect for or intimacy with others. A formal address is typically used in formal settings or when addressing someone not physically close to the speaker. On the other hand, a more personal address term is used when addressing known relatives or close friends, indicating intimacy or equality. In this study, students aim to demonstrate humility and recognition of the teacher’s social or professional standing by showing deference, thereby reducing the risk of causing offense or discomfort. This is seen in the excerpts below:

S: Greetings, Mr. Plazos!

[SS19]

S: Good morning, Engr. Plazos

[SS15]

The student’s choice of formal titles in [SS19] and [SS15] reflects a respectful acknowledgment of the teacher’s status and expertise. This deferential language not only signifies a professional distance but also demonstrates adherence to the principles of negative politeness. By opting for a formal address, the students refrain from imposing familiarity or intimacy on the addressee, thereby upholding respect in their communication (Al-Hamedi, 2023).

Apologize. This strategy aims to mitigate the potential face-threatening act inherent in requesting or expressing a need. Speakers use apologies to emphasize that they apologize for interfering with someone’s business (Suyono & Andrianti, 2021). By apologizing, the student acknowledges the inconvenience or imposition their request might cause and attempts to minimize any negative impact on the teacher’s face, maintaining social harmony and rapport (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Students who use this strategy typically use it to begin their utterances before proceeding to express their opinions like in the excerpt below:

S: I apologize for the delay as the person compiling it left their laptop in the boarding house.

[SS26]

In [SS26], the student apologizes to the teacher for the group’s delayed compilation submission. Through this apology, the student acknowledges the inconvenience caused to the teacher and expresses regret for the situation. This act of apologizing exemplifies negative politeness (Smith & Johnson, 2018). Negative politeness underscores the speaker’s intent to minimize imposing on others and to avoid intruding. The student’s apology serves to mitigate potential face threats and foster social harmony by demonstrating respect for the teacher’s time and expectations.

State the imposition as a general social rule or obligation by using ‘request’ as a noun rather than ‘want’ as a verb. This is a strategy in which student and teacher are dissociated from a specific imposition in the FTA, resulting in the conclusion that the student does not impinge on the teacher but is forced by circumstances to state the FTA because they are obliged, or it is a general social rule (Gervasio & Ikeri, 2019). Notably, this strategy is rarely used. Below is an example:

S: I was wondering if you could change it to the correct deadline ma’am. Your assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

[SS99]

Instead of making a direct demand for a modification, the student in [SS99] asks, I was wondering… framing the request as a general guideline rather than a personal preference. By framing the request as broad help rather than as a request for favors, this method removes the student from the imposition. This is consistent with the findings of Brown and Levinson (1987) and Gervasio and Ikeri (2019), who claimed that framing an FTA as a general obligation reduces face threats.

Go “on record” as sustaining a debt or not ‘obligated’ to the other person. This approach is often used in interpersonal communication to maintain politeness and manage social relationships. Refusing to sustain a debt or explicitly stating that one is not obligated to the other person can help avoid potential misunderstandings or feelings of indebtedness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). According to Burk and Pearson (2022), this strategy occurs when a student proposes or presents something to a teacher, who agrees to do something. In this strategy, the student wants the teacher to do something for the speaker as a form of request. Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategy can involve expressing gratitude for a favor received or reassuring the other person that their assistance was appreciated but not necessary to repay. This is evident in the following statement:

S: Your assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

[SS99]

In [SS99], the student expresses gratitude and acknowledges the value of the teacher’s assistance, creating a sense of indebtedness. By saying, Your assistance…, the student expresses gratitude and indicates that the teacher’s help is desired but not demanded. Alahmad and Asma (2020) emphasized that positive politeness through expressing appreciation, recognizing the other person’s contributions, and respecting the other person’s autonomy in communication are crucial for maintaining social harmony. The student’s statement achieves this by allowing the teacher to respond at their discretion without feeling overly obligated or pressured to assist. Thus, the student’s message effectively balances politeness and autonomy, enhancing the likelihood of a positive and cooperative interaction.

Bald-On Record Strategy

In bald-on-record communication, goals are communicated directly and simply without compromising the content (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This method puts efficiency and simplicity ahead of civility whether it comes to clarity, directness, or urgency. Speakers that employ this tactic concentrate on making their point clearly, which frequently leads to a more instantaneous and basic transfer of information (Haugh, 2013).

Task-oriented. This is where communication puts completing a task quickly ahead of being courteous or upholding social relationships (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Delivering crucial information clearly and concisely, without needless elaboration or consideration of interpersonal dynamics, is the main goal. With a focus on work efficiency, this approach uses brief explanations, clear directions, and small talk. You can see this in the statement that follows:

S: Here’s the PPT of my report about “Conscious Consumption” and “Psychological or Sociological Consumption’’

[SS14]

The student’s message in [SS14] is clear and directly addresses the task at hand, which makes this statement fall under bald-on-record politeness. It is straightforward and lacks any explicit politeness markers or strategies to mitigate potential face-threatening acts. The student does not use hedging, politeness formulas, or indirect strategies to soften the request or defy the teacher’s authority. Instead, they directly present the PPT without any unnecessary elaboration or niceties. This directness can be perceived as efficient and respectful of the teacher’s time, as it gets straight to the point without unnecessary pleasantries (Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, 2018).

Do not care to maintain the hearer’s face. In this strategy, being vulgar or rude is the student’s manner of utterance; it does not consider keeping the teacher’s negative face (Burk & Pearson, 2022). By not caring about maintaining the teacher’s negative face, the student disregards the potential threat to the teacher’s positive or negative face and opts for a straightforward, unmitigated communication style (Sbisà, 2021; Lakoff, 1973). This is shown in the excerpt below:

S: I was about to send my Assignment today but it was already closed.

[SS12]

The student’s statement lacks any explicit attempt to soften the blow or consider the teacher’s feelings. Instead of employing strategies to soften the blow, such as apologizing excessively or offering excuses, the speaker states a fact without showing concern for the teacher’s possible disappointment or inconvenience. The student does not use polite markers or indirect language to soften the message. Instead, they deliver the message bluntly, which can be seen as disregarding the need for politeness or face-saving strategies in communication. This is similarly discussed by Lakoff (1975) and Sbisà (2021), that the absence of polite markers or indirect language in the student’s message may reflect a disregard for the need for politeness or face-saving strategies in communication, potentially perpetuating power imbalances in the interaction.

Off-Record Strategy

This strategy is beneficial when the speaker wants to avoid imposing on the hearer’s face, either positive or negative, but still wants to convey a message. By not stating the request directly, the speaker allows the hearer to either ignore or accept the request without feeling pressured or obligated. However, the success of off-record strategies relies heavily on the shared understanding and context between the speakers (Wong, 2021). If the hearer picks up on the implicature, the message may be understood. This strategy can be shown in different approaches.

Give hints. This is a subtle yet effective way to convey a message without being too direct, often used as a strategy in politeness. Psychologists suggest that hinting can be a form of social intelligence, allowing individuals to convey messages without causing offense or discomfort (Verschueren, 2018). Students use this strategy when asking for favors or special consideration from their teachers. They might use softening language or provide subtle hints rather than making a direct request, suggestion, or implication, like the excerpt below:

S: I experienced severe dysmenorrhea. I have an irregular menstrual cycle, and it has caused me significant discomfort and pain…  

[SS6]

In [SS6], the student is indirectly giving hints at a request for understanding or sympathy about their situation having severe dysmenorrhea. Instead of directly stating their request, they describe their condition and its impact, hoping that the teacher will infer or show understanding of their need for empathy. This indirect approach is a characteristic of giving hints of off-record in politeness strategy, a concept also discussed by Leech (1983), where communicators utilize subtle cues to convey their intentions without imposing direct obligations.

Give association clues. This strategy clarifies that speakers can refer to their intended meaning without saying it aloud by connecting a message with a comparable idea (Verschueren, 2018). The student uses this strategy to stay polite by letting the teacher figure out what is meant to be said without making them feel compelled to do anything. To accomplish this, it is essential for both the student and the teacher to share a mutual understanding and context. This is observed in [SS6] that shows how the student indirectly suggests a related topic or idea without explicitly stating it. By stating their experience with severe dysmenorrhea and an irregular menstrual cycle, the teacher is associating these descriptions or conditions with possible consequences or needs without directly stating them. This strategy aligns with Alahmad and Asma (2020), particularly the concept of ‘giving association clues’ as an off-record politeness strategy. By providing these association clues, the teacher enables the listener to infer the intended message without feeling pressured to respond immediately or take action.

Politeness Maxims

The table below shows the result of an analysis of politeness maxims in online communication, focusing on various sub-strategies employed to maintain positive social interactions. The table categorizes instances of politeness maxims namely tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy maxims. However, in the context of this study, students only used tact, modesty, and agreement maxims. Relatively, illocutionary forces were also recognized to determine the kind of maxim employed.

Table 2. Politeness Maxims Used by Engineering Students in Online Interactions

Tact Maxim

To communicate effectively, speakers should consider others’ feelings and maintain politeness. Tact maxim emphasizes the importance of being kind, sensitive, and diplomatic avoid causing offense or discomfort to others (Leech, 1983). This maxim guides speakers to choose words and expressions that are gentle, respectful, and appropriate for the social context. The following are some occurrences of tact maxim.

Offering. When offering information or opinions, speakers can use gentle, respectful, and considerate language (Al-Hamedi, 2023). This means avoiding blunt or insensitive statements that might hurt or offend the listener. Instead, speakers can frame their message politely and diplomatically, considering the social context and the relationship between themselves and the listener. This is observed in the sample statement below:

S: Should I wait to submit It personally on Monday or I’ll submit it on the Student Consultation Folder Under Note/Letter of Excuse?

[SS34]

S: can I put the link of the journal in the file instead of the file itself?

[SS62]

In [SS34], the student asks the teacher to change the deadline for the final activity. Instead of directly demanding a change, the student offers a suggestion using softening language using the phrases should I and can I which imply flexibility and leave room for the teacher to consider the proposal without feeling pressured or offended (Wong, 2021). Additionally, the student’s softening language and tactfulness could adhere to tact maxim by minimizing the imposition on the teacher and showing respect for their feelings.

Suggesting. When suggesting, speakers aim to maintain harmony and preserve the other person’s self-esteem. In tact maxim, suggestion works by encouraging speakers to offer advice, corrections, or critiques in a considerate and polite manner, considering the potential sensitivity of the listener. Suggesting also includes advice or suggestions without directly giving instructions or requests into something (Searle, 1969). This enables the speaker to give a kinder or courteous suggestion. This strategy is seen in the statement below:

S: Maybe you are available tomorrow sir so we can submit this.

[SS69]

In [SS69], the student uses the word maybe to suggest the possibility of the teacher’s availability rather than assuming or demanding it outright. This shows a considerate approach, acknowledging the teacher’s schedule and potential constraints. In addition, maybe softens the request, making it less direct and more polite to soften the request to the teacher. (Haugh, 2015).

Requesting. Requests are framed to preserve the addressee’s face while achieving the communicative goal (Leech, 1983). In tact maxim, requesting involves using polite language, being indirect when necessary, and showing consideration for the recipient’s feelings and autonomy. The student’s statement below uses this approach.

S: can I ask for an extension for the activity that will be due later sir?

[SS63]

In [SS63], the student requests the teacher for an extension on an activity. Rather than demanding an extension, the student phrases the request as a question Can I… This indirect strategy softens the request and defends the teacher’s authority. This shows how the student connects politely and respectfully to negotiate an extension for the activity (Searle, 1975).

Modesty Maxim

Modesty promotes a sense of humility and empathy, making interactions more pleasant and respectful (Mohammed, 2010). It helps avoid appearing boastful or arrogant, which can alienate others. According to Leech (1983), this principle of politeness suggests that individuals should minimize their self-praising and maximize their praise of others in social interactions. This is further discussed below.

Apologizing. Apologizing often involves expressing empathy and understanding for how one’s actions may have affected others (Tomasello, 2020). When someone apologizes, they acknowledge their mistake, demonstrating humility and modesty. This aligns with modesty maxim’s emphasis on minimizing self-praise and admitting faults. This is observed in the statement below:

S: I’m really sorry ma’am if I wasn’t able to take the comprehensive exam. I thought the exam was moved to 4pm.

[SS57]

In [SS57], the student accepts responsibility for missing the exam and does not assign blame or offer justifications. In line with modesty maxim’s emphasis on owning up to mistakes and expressing remorse rather than downplaying or denying them, the student demonstrates humility and admits their inability to complete the task by offering an apology (Liddicoat, 2021).

Agreement Maxim

Agreement maxim is fostering unity and avoiding conflict involves embracing the thoughts, values, and behaviors of others. This principle of civility aims to maintain harmony in social relationships by minimizing disagreement and promoting agreement. It emphasizes respecting and supporting others’ viewpoints, even if one does not personally agree with them. This concept is be elaborated below.

Stating. According to Searle’s (1969) speech act theory, stating or asserting is a kind of illocutionary speech act in which the speaker communicates an idea, usually by making a declaration or a statement. Speech acts of this kind are frequently used to provide information, explain a situation, or voice an opinion. Since the statement represents or transmits information about the world as the speaker sees it, it is seen as a representative speaking act.

S: Ma’am, good afternoon. I have submitted the file on your Gmail in regards to my activities in draw101

[SS45]

S: I am part of the group 10 (Techno subject) because there were only 4 members, and I wasn’t able to list my name. Ty maam!

[SS95]

The statement in [SS45] is simply the student notifying the teacher that the assignment file for the course has been uploaded to the instructor’s Gmail account. To help prevent misunderstandings or ambiguity, the student gives precise details regarding the action taken, which falls under the sub-strategy of stating how language is used to state information politely (Kádár & Haugh, 2018).

Overall, after analyzing the 100 screenshots of online interactions between engineering students and their teachers, the results show the dominant use of positive politeness which are cognizant to the findings of Zahra et al. (2023), Ahmad (2022), Mahmud (2019), Mulyono et al. (2019), Hafizah (2019), and Budiwati (2017) to name a few. The engineering students utilized various politeness strategies in their online interactions to adhere to politeness maxims. However, they frequently employ positive politeness strategies to acknowledge and empathize with the teacher’s perspective, aiming to establish harmony, and show concern for the teacher’s wants, which verify the theory of Brown and Levinson (1987). The students also used negative politeness strategies to avoid imposing on the teacher’s time or authority. Furthermore, the students demonstrate instances of the bald-on-record strategy in task-oriented interactions, where they prioritize conveying information directly without concern for maintaining the teacher’s face. This strategy reflects a balance between efficiency and politeness in online academic exchanges, which also adheres to the theory of Brown and Levinson (1987). However, students seldom employ the off-record strategy because they may worry that their off-record remarks could be misconstrued due to the barrier caused by online communication, leading to misunderstandings or conflicts with their teacher.

By observing Leech’s (1983) three politeness maxims—tact, modesty, and agreement—students make careful linguistic choices to prevent upsetting or offending their teachers. Their offerings, recommendations, and requests demonstrate tact while their humble and sincere apologies demonstrate modesty. Also, students successfully navigate online communication by adhering to these maxims and considering the illocutionary factors, all while preserving a courteous environment.

CONCLUSION

This study was to bring awareness to how crucial it is to include pragmatic analysis and politeness throughout classroom interactions. In so doing, teachers may provide students with the tools they need to handle challenging communication situations, lowering the likelihood of confrontations and promoting a more pleasant and collaborative educational environment. This method not only helps students learn how and when to use language effectively, but it also gets them ready for interactions with people in a variety of social and professional contexts.

The findings open new possibilities for more in-depth research on politeness strategies. Future studies could expand the scope by examining written assignments and in-person interactions to gain a deeper understanding of how engineering students use politeness methods in varied circumstances. Furthermore, examining how cultural influences affect the manner of communication could produce insightful information. Because digital communication platforms are becoming increasingly common, researchers ought to investigate the ways in which technology influences politeness strategies. Gaining insight into how students modify their communication strategies for various online environments will improve our comprehension of proper behavior in a digitally interconnected society. In addition, future research could benefit from exploring how politeness strategies vary across cultures, as cross-cultural pragmatics has shown significant differences in expressions of politeness (Evizariza, 2024). Moreover, recent studies highlight the importance of platform-specific politeness strategies, noting that professional emails often rely on negative politeness to minimize imposition, while social media platforms favor positive politeness strategies, such as expressions of enthusiasm and gratitude (Yaqoob, 2024). By examining diverse digital platforms, such as emails, video calls, and learning management systems, future research could provide a more nuanced understanding of how context and medium shape politeness strategies.

Including peer-to-peer interactions in this research could offer further insights. Unlike the unequal power dynamics of student-teacher communication, peer interactions typically occur within a more equal social framework, which may encourage informal language and positive politeness strategies like humor, encouragement, and expressions of camaraderie (Fitriani & Hardjanto, 2023). These strategies can reflect students’ attempts to build rapport, encourage collaboration, and cultivate a sense of belonging within their academic communities.

Moreover, longitudinal studies are recommended to examine how students’ politeness strategies evolve over time in response to changes in educational technologies and learning environments. Such studies could reveal patterns in the development of pragmatic competence, such as the increased use of hedging, indirectness, and mitigation strategies, as students become more adept at navigating digital communication norms (Millah et al., 2024). These studies could also shed light on how contextual factors, including instructor feedback, peer interaction, and cultural expectations, influence the refinement of politeness strategies over time (Haugh, 2013; Locher & Watts, 2008). Over time, students may transition from relying on scripted politeness to adopting more context-sensitive and flexible communication strategies, reflecting greater social awareness and adaptability in both asynchronous and synchronous communication environments (Schauer, 2009).

Lastly, while the study shows engineering students’ efforts to maintain good relationships with teachers, the findings may not represent all university students due to limitations. Most interactions were analyzed on Blackboard Learn LMS, which may miss face-to-face and non-verbal communication. Despite this, students demonstrate an understanding of manners’ importance in shaping perceptions. This awareness can enhance instructional quality and foster positive interactions. Further research is needed to explore various learning environments and communication nuances in more detail.

 REFERENCES

1. Abid, S. (2019). Kesantunan Berbahasa Mahasiswa terhadap Dosen di Media SosialWhatsApp.https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/index.php/semiba/article/view/10302
2. Adler, R. B., Proctor, R. F., II, & Manning, J. (2023). Looking out, looking in. ResearchGate.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381161597_Looking_Out_Looking_In
3. Ahmad, M. S. (2022). Analisis kesantunan berbahasa antara mahasiswa dengan dosen di InstitutTeknologi dan Bisnis Kalla. AUFKLARUNG: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, Sastra Indonesia, dan Pembelajaraannya, 1(6), 13-24.
4. Alahmad, T. M., & Asma, K. A. A. (2020). Linguistic politeness and gender: apology strategies:sociolinguistic research. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(1), 167-178.
5. Almoabdi, R. B. (2022). Awareness and use of politeness strategies for female EFL learners at theUniversity of Jeddah. English Department, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v12n3p23
6. Alsaawi, A. (2022). Use of discourse markers among senior university students. Arab World EnglishJournal (AWEJ) Volume, 13.
7. Al-Hamedi, A. M. J. (2023). A pragmatic analysis of negative politeness strategies in D.H. Lawrence’s”The Blind Man.” Journal of Namibian Studies History Politics Culture 33 (2023)
8. Amerstorfer, C. M., & Freiin von Münster-Kistner, C. (2021). Student perceptions of academicengagement and student-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 713057.
9. Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating & relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. OxfordUniversity Press.
10. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody(Ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge Cambridge University Press. – References – Scientific Research Publishing.
11. Budiwati, T. R. (2017). Kesantunan berbahasa mahasiswa dalam berinteraksi dengan dosen di UniversitasAhmad Dahlan: Analisis pragmatik. Proceeding of the 5th URECOL, 557-571.
12. Burk, N. R., & Pearson, A. (2022). Encouraging student sense of belonging through instructor facesupport. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 6(1), 16.
13. Cutting, J. (2009). Pragmatics and Discourse. A Resource Book for Students, 2nd edition.academia.edu.https://www.academia.edu/83824984/Pragmatics_and_Discourse_A_Resource_Book_for_Students_2nd_Edition
14. Evizariza, E. (2024). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Understanding politeness strategies in intercultural communication. Social Studies and Humanities Journal (SOSHUM), 1(2), 109–120. https://journal.ppipbr.com/index.php/soshum/article/view/334
15. Fafiyebi, D. O., & Dada, S. A. (2023). A Pragmatic Study of Politeness Strategies in the InauguralSpeeches of Civilian Heads of Government in Nigeria. Glob Acad J Linguist Lit, 5.
16. Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3-to-1 Ratio That Will Change YourLife. Crown Publishers.
17. Fitriani, I., & Hardjanto, T. D. (2023). Students’ politeness strategies in online learning classroom. Journal of Linguistic Phenomena, 1(2), 53–60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377244113_STUDENTS’_POLITENESS_STRATEGIES_IN_ONLINE_LEARNING_CLASSROOM
18. García, C., & Martínez-Flor, A. (Eds.). (2019). Speech act research and language teaching. Springer.
19. Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2011). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making adifference makes a difference. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), *The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship* (pp. 28-44). Oxford University Press.
20. Hafizah, H. (2019). Politeness strategy in student’s lingua to their lecturers via Whatsapp at in InformationTechnology Department of Technical Faculty Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya. AKSIS: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 3(2), 424-434.
21. Hattie, J. (2015). Visible Learning into Action: International Case Studies of Impact. (n.d.). Routledge &CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Visible-Learning-into-Action-International-Case-Studies-of-Impact/Hattie-Masters-Birch/p/book/9781138642294?srsltid= AfmBOoqTnqULnpSC4MmrQKmXp5HyOv1UJ5sySiw7gz8mSeTcB0aR4Qw-
22. Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness, social practice, and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 86,74-89. UQ eSpace. (n.d.). https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:387249
23. Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness Implicatures. Walter de Gruyter. O’Keeffe, A. (2010). Politenessstrategies in workplace emails: The use of mitigating devices. In C. R. Hoffmann & L. Siebers (Eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (pp. 393–403). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
24. Johnstne, B., & Andrus, J. (2024). Discourse analysis. (n.d.). Google Books.https://books.google.com/books/about/Discourse_Analysis.html?id=ppTuEAAAQBAJ
25. Kádár, Z., & Haugh, M. (Eds.). (2018). Understanding politeness. (n.d.). Google Books.https://books.google.com/books/about/Understanding_Politeness.html?id=tabqAAAAQBAJ
26. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. Cedric SmithStark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305. – References – Scientific Research Publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=945182
27. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London Longman. – References – Scientific ResearchPublishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/refaspx?referenceid=1838418
28. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Politeness: Some Universals inLanguage Usage (pp. 61-104).
29. Liddicoat, A. J. (2021). An introduction to conversation Analysis – Asian EFL Journal. (2012, March 9). Asian EFL Journal. https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/an-introduction-to-conversation- analysis/index.htm
30. Lim, T. S. (2019). Strategies of Politeness in a South Korean Context: An Analysisof Requestive Speech Acts in Korean TV Dramas. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 48(6), 578-596.
31. Litvinova, A. V., & Larina, T. V. (2023). Mitigation tools and politeness strategies in invitation refusals:American and Russian communicative cultures. TLC Journal, 7(1).
32. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguisticbehaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). https://edoc.unibas.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/bbcf5455-5dee-4b0a-863c-44efb28f27ba/content
33. Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.). (2018). Speech act performance:Theoretical, empirical andmethodological issues. John Benjamins Publishing.
34. Millah, K.., Kiptiyah, M.., & Athena, T. (2024). Analysis of language politeness in English learning atX IPA MA. Journal of Islamic Education, 2(2), 94–103. Retrieved from https://sunanbonang.org/index.php/arif/article/download/317/167/2409
35. Miri, C. A. (2019). Self-Quotations and Politeness: The Construction of Discourse Events and ItsPragmatic Implications. Text & Talk, 39, 341-362. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2029
36. Miriti Gervasio, & Humphrey, K. Ireri. (2019). Politeness strategies employed by Chuka Universitystudents in their social media discourse. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 7(89), 53-64. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0708006.
37. Mohammed, A. (2010). The role of modesty in promoting humility and empathy ininteractions. Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 18(2), 45-58.
38. Mulyono, H., Amalia, D. R., & Suryoputro, G. (2019). Politeness Strategies in TeacherStudent WhatsappCommunication. PASAA, 58, 295-318.
39. NGO, C. G., & Cubelo , R. R. . (2024). The Epistemic Modality in the Inaugural Speeches of PhilippinePresidents. Journal Corner of Education, Linguistics, and Literature, 3(4), 410–423.https://doi.org/10.54012/jcell.v3i4.284
40. Njuki, E., & Ireri, H. K. (2021). Positive and negative politeness strategies used by Kenya’s members ofnational assembly. Open Access Library Journal, 8(8), 1-20.
41. Panjaitan, S., Sumarsih, S., & Ginting, S. A. (2022). The Realization Of Impoliteness Strategies Used ByStudents In English Online Learning Through Zoom During Pandemic Covid-19. Linguistik Terapan, 18(3), 253. https://doi.org/10.24114/lt.v18i3.31399
42. Rahmi, U., Tressyalina, T., & Noveria, E. (2018). Kesantunan Bahasa SMS (Short Message Service)Mahasiswa Terhadap Dosen Jurusan Bahasa Indonesia Pada Semester Ganjil 2017/2018 di Universitas Mahaputra Muhamman Yamin Solok. Retrieved from https://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/pbs/article/view/9544
43. Rivai, M., Yusri, Y., Rivai, A. T. O., & Anwar, M. (2021). Teachers’ language politeness, students’academic motivation and self- efficacy during school from home. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 16(5), 2161-2172.https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6236
44. Romero-Trillo, J. (Ed.). (2019). Pragmatics and prosody in English language Springer.
45. Salazar, P., & Codina, V. (2018). Politeness in first and follow-up emails to faculty: Openings and closings| LAELA Research Group. (n.d.). http://gruplaela.uji.es/politeness-first-and-follow-emails-faculty- openings-and-closings
46. Sbisà, M. (2021). (Im) politeness and the Human Subject. The Philosophy of (Im) politeness, 157-177.
47. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
48. Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. Vintage Books.
49. Sembiring, E. M. B., Sianturi, S., Simanjuntak, F., & Tarigan, S. N. (2021). The Students’ Strategies inOnline Learning Interaction: Exploring Politeness in Google Classroom during Covid-19 Pandemic. Elsya, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v3i3.6725
50. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334431960_Interlanguage_pragmatic_development_The_study_abroad_context
51. Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2018). Title of the work where the citation is found.
52. Smith, R. (2019). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and Practice. Routledge.
53. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication, and Politeness Theory.Continuum.
54. Suyono, & Andrianti. (2021). Negative Politeness Strategies in What Would You Do? TV Show. Journalof Language and Literature., 439-452. https://e-usd.ac.id/index.php/JOLL/index.
55. Sykes, J. (2017). Technologies for Teaching and Learning Intercultural Competence and InterlanguagePragmatics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318430167_Technologies_for_Teaching_and_Learning_Intercultural_Competence_and_Inte rlanguage_Pragmatics
56. Tomasello, M. (2020). The moral psychology of obligation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e56.
57. Verschueren, J. (2018). Understanding pragmatics. Routledge.
58. Wong, S. S. (2021). One-upmanship and putdowns: the aggressive use of interaction rituals in face-toface diplomacy. International Theory, 13(2), 341-371.
59. Yaqoob, B. Y. (2024). Politeness strategies in digital communication: A pragmatic analysis of email and social media interviews. HNSJ, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.53796/hnsj512/24
60. Zahra, I., Anggrarini, N., Wati, A., Prawiro, I., & Larasaty,G. (2023). EFL Undergraduate Students’Politeness Strategy in Online Classroom Interaction.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371293714_E FL_Undergraduate_Students’_Politeness_Strategy_in_Online_Cla ssroom_Interaction