Strategies of Negative Politeness and Linguistic Realization in Thesis Advising Negotiations Via WhatsApp: A Sociopragmatic Analysis toward Quality Education (SDG 4)

Muhammad Yusi  Kamhar; Kisyani  Laksono; Mulyono Mulyono

doi:10.63230/jocsis.3.1.290

Authors

Muhammad Yusi Kamhar State University of Surabaya Author
Kisyani Laksono State University of Surabaya Author
Mulyono Mulyono State University of Surabaya Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63230/jocsis.3.1.290

Keywords:

Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Negative Politeness, Quality Education (SDG 4), Sociopragmatics, Student-Supervisor Interaction, Whatsapp Communication

Abstract

Objective: To develop a conceptual framework that integrates negative politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987) with their linguistic realization (House & Kasper, 1981) in the context of thesis supervision negotiations via WhatsApp. It further examines how power, social distance, and the degree of imposition shape the selection of politeness strategies and their linguistic markers across episodes of digital academic negotiation. Method: Employing a qualitative approach, this study adopts a sociopragmatic corpus-based design using a small specialized corpus comprising 37 speech events extracted from WhatsApp interactions between undergraduate students and their thesis supervisors. The data were analyzed through a multi-layered analytical framework linking sociopragmatic variables, negative politeness strategies, and their corresponding linguistic mitigation devices. Results: Students consistently constructed request sequences using a multi-stage discourse structure consisting of greetings, apologies, the core request, and expressions of gratitude. Their requests were predominantly realized through indirect strategies (87.9%), accompanied by politeness markers such as respectful emojis (89.2%) and expressions of gratitude (86.5%). In contrast, supervisors typically responded briefly and asymmetrically, with only 29.7% of responses explicitly granting the request, reflecting an asymmetric distribution of politeness marking associated with institutional power relations. Novelty: To contribute by integrating negative politeness strategies and their linguistic realizations into a unified multi-layered analytical framework, rather than treating them as separate objects of investigation as in previous studies. It also extends the taxonomy of politeness markers by incorporating multimodal digital resources, particularly emojis, as integral components of negative politeness strategies in digital academic communication. By clarifying how respectful and equitable communication is co-constructed between students and supervisors, this study also contributes to efforts toward Quality Education (SDG 4), particularly in strengthening inclusive and supportive pedagogical relationships in higher education.

References

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Sociopragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton.

Dai, Y., Li, H., Xie, W., & Deng, T. (2022). Power distance belief and workplace communication: The mediating role of fear of authority. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052932

Donaghue, H. (2020). Teachers and supervisors negotiating identities of experience and power in feedback talk. The Modern Language Journal, 104(2), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12633

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.

Herring, S. C. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Blackwell.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Routledge.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. Mouton.

Ismail, W. (2023). Politeness strategies used by students in communicating through WhatsApp. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(10), 002561. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v8i10.2561

Khan, P. A., Johl, S. K., & Akhtar, S. (2022). Open innovation of institutional investors and higher education system in creating open approach for SDG-4 quality education: A conceptual review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010049

Kusmanto, H., & Widodo, P. (2022). Positive politeness strategies during online learning: A cyberpragmatic study. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(3), 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i3.24021

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Pan, Y., & Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Politeness in historical and contemporary Chinese. Continuum.

Park, J. R. (2008). Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 2199–2209. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20926

Pasaribu, A. N., Saragih, E., & Gea, A. (2022). Politeness in thesis consultation by WhatsApp: Do lecturers and students apply different strategies? Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.6376

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Petersen, E. B. (2007). Negotiating academicity: Postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476167

Rahmawati, C., Suhardi, & Mustadi, A. (2021). The importance of sociocultural-based reflective picture storybook media to increase reading interest and social skills of elementary school students. Acta Educationis Generalis, 11(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2021-0008.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Shalihah, M., & Winarsih, T. (2023). Politeness strategies in WhatsApp text messaging: A case study of lecturers' politeness in sending text messages to students in Universitas 'Aisyiyah Yogyakarta. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 6(7), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v6i7.1323

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00047-X

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Žegarac, V. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.