Linguistic Politeness and Face-Work in Computer

Mediated Communication, Part 2: An Application

of the Theoretical Framework

Jung-ran Park
College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: [email protected]

Analysis of sociointerpersonal communication patterns online discourse participants interact among themselves in
among discourse participants is essential to under- the process of presenting arguments, asking for clarification
stand the manifestation of and the interpersonal- of misunderstandings, displaying disagreement, and the like.
communication features realized in online social
interaction. The linguistic politeness theory provides an Such interaction may pose a threat to discourse participants’
effective framework for such an analysis of sociointer- face, or public self-image. Discourse participants there-
personal communication features employed by online fore converse with each other while engaging in face-work
language users to maintain and enhance their public self- (i.e., a linguistic politeness strategy) based on a cognitive
image, or face. The qualitative data analysis of this study, assessment of contextual and interpersonal variables such
drawn from the real-time, online discussions of K–12 stu-
dents, makes evident that interpersonal-communication as power difference and social distance among discourse
features appear in the form of politeness tactics. The participants.
results of the study show that there is decreased use The analysis of communication and sociointeractional
of deferential linguistic forms; on the contrary, a vari- patterns among online discourse participants is essential in
ety of verbal and nonverbal devices that denote positive understanding the manifestations of social interaction and the
politeness and bald-on-record (i.e., direct speech acts)
frequently occur. The commonality of positive politeness interpersonal communication features realized in online dis-
and bald-on-record lies in the fact that both tactics are cussion. The linguistic politeness theory provides an effective
grounded in the nature of the close interpersonal rela- framework for such an analysis of sociointerpersonal commu-
tionships between participants. Such a communication nication among speech participants. However, as described
pattern in the real-time, online discourse of K–12 stu- in the first part of this study (Park, 2008), interpersonal
dents signifies that cognitive assessment of sociointer-
personal and contextual variables undertaken by speech communication patterns over the CMC have been relatively
participants underlies the realization of linguistic polite- unexplored in the LIS domain (Mon, 2006; Park, 2007;
ness. Employment of such politeness tactics indicates Radford, 2006; Westbrook, 2007).
that effective and fully realized interpersonal communica- This study aims to examine the ways in which online-
tion plays a vital role in the development of online social discussion participants express their sociointerpersonal
interaction.
stance while presenting thoughts and arguments in group-
discussion forums. Towards this end, the first part of the
Introduction study examined the linguistic politeness theoretical frame-
The development of communication technologies has work in depth and the way the framework has been used
enabled dynamic social interaction through the computer- within the CMC context (Park, 2008). The second part of
mediated communication (CMC) channel.Accordingly, there the study aims to apply the linguistic politeness theoretical
has been rapid growth in multiple genres of social interac- framework to a text-based, synchronous, online-discussion
tion through the CMC channel. The use of electronic mail, forum. The following research questions are explored:
a type of CMC genre, is today widespread and common in
daily communication, social interaction that implicates lin- 1. What methodological merits does the linguistic politeness
guistic politeness. That is, as in face-to-face (FtF) interaction, theoretical framework bring to the analysis of sociointer-
actional patterns within the CMC context?
2. How do online-discussion participants engage in group
Received September 25, 2006; revised May 28, 2008; accepted May 29,
discussion to present their thoughts, clarify misunder-
2008
standings, and seek information from other participants?
© 2008 ASIS&T • Published online 16 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience 3. What types of interpersonal communication features are
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.20926 realized in online discussion?

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 59(14):2199–2209, 2008
 Prior to presenting the data and research methods for this Brown and Levinson (1987) delineated four major cat-
study, some of the key aspects of the linguistic politeness egories of politeness strategies: bald-on-record (e.g., direct
theoretical framework are briefly reiterated in the following speech act), positive politeness (e.g., solidarity), negative
section. politeness (e.g., deference), and off-record (e.g., hint, the
most indirect speech act). The realization of politeness strate-
gies is dependent on the cognitive assessment of sociointer-
Brief Recap of Linguistic Politeness
personal variables in a given sociocultural context. According
Linguistic politeness can be seen as a strategy for reduc- to the politeness assessment formula of Brown and Levinson,
ing interpersonal friction and conflict and as a device that there are three variables: power, distance, and imposition.
speech participants use to facilitate smooth social interac-
tion (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983). The Brown and Levinson
(1987) politeness theoretical framework, which prominently Data and Data-Analysis Method
shaped the state of the art of linguistic politeness theory, is The Virtual Math Teams (VMT), managed by the Math
constituted with politeness principles and strategies for main- Forum at Drexel University, investigate issues related to
taining and enhancing one’s face (i.e., public self-image) online collaborative problem solving. For this, the VMT
during social encounters. In everyday language use, such conducted an experiment called powwow, an extension of
strategic devices can be easily observed in various verbal the Math Forum’s Problem of the Week (PoW ) service. The
and nonverbal expressions and rituals. experimental powwow project explores small-group collabo-
For example, in a job setting, a subordinate may be dis- rative learning with minimal support in terms of software. The
cussing work-related matters in her supervisor’s office. The project aims at investigating the issues surrounding the ped-
subordinate feels cold and wants to have a window closed. agogy of online collaborative learning of mathematics and
In this context, the utterance by the subordinate for making a software design. Data for this study were directly derived
request to her supervisor (“It’s cold in here.”) is realized as an from the experimental powwow project.
indirect speech act by hint together with a nonverbal gesture; The VMT conducted the powwow project using AOL’s
a direct command such as “Close the window!” would likely Instant Messenger (AIM) software. For group discussion,
vitiate smooth social interaction considering the asymmetri- each participant received his or her screen name through
cal power relationship between subordinate and supervisor. the official AIM Web site (http://dashboard.aim.com/aim).
In other words, a direct speech act would likely pose a Participants in the chat forum were able to see the screen
threat to the speech participant’s face. In this sense, indirect names of their counterparts, which have been de-identified for
verbal and nonverbal behaviors reflect the use of linguistic the purposes of the article. The chat forum runs approximately
politeness as a strategic device for facilitating social inter- 1 to 1 21 hr with math questions from algebra and geometry.
action; it can be said that linguistic politeness underlies the
The mathematical discourse data of each powwow session
interpersonal and interactive function of language use during
are recorded as chat logs. The originally recorded chat logs
social interaction.
consist of the screen name of participants, the time stamp
There are two interrelated aspects of face desire. One is the
of the posting (e.g., 8:00:16 PM), and utterance (e.g., Hello).
positive-face desire that is rooted in involvement, connection,
The following excerpt from a powwow session is illustrative:
and proximity with others. Scollon and Scollon (1983) used
“solidarity” in lieu of positive face. The other is the negative-
face desire that is rooted in the independence and autonomy of
individuals. According to Scollon and Scollon, “deference” You are now in chat room “powwow1.”
is in line with negative face. There are a variety of politeness Pee1 has entered the chat room.
strategies that attend to the positive-face desire to be liked Shk has entered the chat room.
Azn has entered the chat room.
and appreciated. These include verbal and nonverbal forms
Life has entered the chat room.
encompassing the claiming of common ground such as shared
interest and knowledge with the other speech participant, Shk (8:00:16 PM): Hello
Sunshine has entered the chat room.
seeking agreement and avoiding overt disagreement, deliv-
Life (8:00:23 PM): hey
ering compliments, showing interest, approval, or sympathy, Pee1 (8:00:27 PM): hello there old chap
and using in-group identity markers such as a nickname. Sunshine (8:00:27 PM): hi
On the other hand, negative-face desire can be realized by Azn (8:00:31 PM): hi
giving others options, independence, and freedom of action Mdr (8:00:39 PM): Let’s go around and have everyone share a greeting
with the group. I’ll start by saying that I’m really looking forward to
and freedom from imposition. Accordingly, it brings forth a
seeing you talk about math tonight!
certain degree of social distance between interlocutors and Pee1 (8:00:51 PM): Im ready!!!
maintains personal space and territory. Politeness strategies Life (8:01:09 PM): ohk
for realizing negative-face desire encompass verbal and non- Azn (8:01:09 PM): same here
verbal expressions and rituals conveying indirectness and/or Pee1 (8:01:12 PM): iight
Shk (8:01:14 PM): M 2
hesitation, avoidance, apology, deference, self-effacement,
Mdr (8:01:15 PM): great!
and formality.

2200 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 For the purposes of this study, the numbered discourse Groups are composed of 3 to 5 students in Grades 6 to
lines are added to the original chat logs; time stamps of post- 11 and a moderator/facilitator from the VMT project. The
ings are not relevant to the discussion for this study and role of the moderator is akin to that of a third-party observer;
thus are deleted. An utterance or message pertinent to the in the transcript, this is indicated through the screen name
discussion of the section is in boldface throughout the article. for purposes of this article. Moderators do not participate in
Overall, 15 chat logs, as illustrated earlier, are randomly solving the math problem. A member from the VMT project
sampled from a larger set of powwows. Each powwow session moderates and logs in each session without imposing any
comprises approximately 90 min of online interaction. The structure for the group discussion. They post introductory and
collected random sample is examined based on the linguistic closing messages. At the end of the group forum, moderators
politeness theoretical framework. The politeness strategies also solicit feedback on the group interaction.
are identified and extracted from online chat transcripts to Three specific social and interpersonal variables (i.e.,
examine the way in which online-discussion participants power, distance, and imposition) for face-work of Brown and
promote public self-image during small-group interaction. Levinson’s (1987) politeness framework can be realized dif-
The qualitative data analysis addresses the applicability ferently depending on the genre of CMC.1 In a synchronous
of the linguistic politeness theoretical framework to the peer-group collaboration for solving math problems, power
analysis of sociointeractional patterns in an online-group- and distance between participants are symmetrical and low
discussion setting. (−power, −distance = egalitarian power and close social
The unit of analysis is based on coherent sequences of relationship) inasmuch as participants are members of the
utterances realized through adherence to turn-taking rules. same peer group; on the other hand, the power difference
In FtF interaction, speech participants mostly unconsciously between moderator and students is asymmetrical owing to
follow turn-taking rules through employment of various differences in roles in the discussion forum. The power dif-
verbal and nonverbal devices. Thus, there exists conver- ference also is in part derived from the difference in age: Each
sational coherence in talk in FtF interaction, even though online chat session is facilitated by a VMT project member
there are sometimes overlaps and interruptions among speech who is an adult. One of the primary goals in synchronous-
participants. peer-group collaboration for the solving of math problems is
However, there is noticeable disruption in turn-taking to exchange ideas and thoughts during information seeking
and discourse coherence in text-based, real-time, online chat and sharing. Thus, it is safe to state that the degree of imposi-
(Herring, 1999; Park, 2007, discussed this in detail in present- tion in the online-peer-group discussion setting is lower than
ing mechanisms employed by online discourse participants to that of other CMC genres such as virtual reference.2
overcome such disruptions). This is largely owing to the fact Other variables also may be at play in social interaction.
that turn-taking in real-time, online chat is realized through Such variables include gender, social distance, age, and ethnic
transference of keyboarded messages between speech partic- characteristics among students who participate in the online
ipants. The transference is then relayed by a remote server, chat sessions; however, this type of information is not read-
engendering a time-lag. In addition, multiple party interac- ily available in the chat transcripts, even though there are
tions through the text-based, online communication channel instances in which participants freely disclose such infor-
may create disruptions of coherent sequences of talk inas- mation during group interaction. Lack of such information
much as the sender’s text is presented in chronological order limits the study in terms of identification of sociointeractional
as it is transferred to the receiver. patterns in relation to these variables.
Unrelated turns without coherent sequences frequently Data analysis demonstrates the way in which speech par-
appear in text-based, real-time, online communication. This ticipants employ verbal and nonverbal devices for face-work
creates difficulties in interpreting ongoing talk. Thus, for the dependent upon cognitive assessment of interpersonal vari-
purposes of the study, turns irrelevant to the given discussion ables such as social distance and power difference between
are deleted. Any deletion is indicated in the transcripts for the the interlocutors and the weight of imposition. It also will
discussion. show how other contextual variables such as spatial-temporal
The contextual ground of the sample data underlies setting and the discussion topic play a part in the use of
the text-based, synchronous communication channel. The politeness strategies.
spatial-temporal setting, the discussion topic for a given
online chat session, and the small-group participants con-
1 In dyadic interaction between a librarian and a user in a virtual refer-
stitute the contextual variables. The text-based, synchronous
ence setting, the social variables between participants would be different
communication channel reflects the spatial and temporal con- from those in peer-group collaboration in an education context. In other
text for the online chat. That is, a participant’s own work words, social variables of power and distance in interpersonal relations
station set the spatial context; real-time sets the temporal con- between a librarian and a user might manifest as asymmetrical (+power,
text. Seen another way, the extent of space and time shared +distance = vertical power difference and distant social relationship) in
by participants is 100% in time and 0% in space. Discussion that a librarian equipped with educational credentials for advising and guid-
ing an information seeker has a certain degree of power over users in their
topics are related to solving math problems. The online dis- interpersonal relationship.
cussion occurs in real time; thus, misspellings and other typo- 2 In a virtual reference setting, one of the primary purposes of the interac-

graphical errors frequently appear in the surveyed transcripts. tion can be found in the information transaction between librarian and user.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008 2201
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 Data analysis, in the following sections, follows the four TABLE 1. Positive politeness strategies (adapted from Brown & Levinson,
categories of linguistic politeness strategies put forth in 1987).
the theoretical framework of Brown and Levinson (1987): (1) Seeking common ground and shared interests or background (e.g.,
bald-on-record (e.g., direct speech act), positive politeness, You’re not alone. I’m also confused.)
negative politeness, and off-record (e.g., hint, the most indi- (2) Use of informal speech style and use of informal in-group markers
rect speech act) (see the details of these strategies in Part 1 through employment of nickname and/or first name
(3) Seeking agreement and using partial agreement prior to disagreement
of the study, Park, 2008). These four categories of linguistic
(e.g., I like your idea but in this case we don’t have an option for that.)
politeness strategies are applied to sociointeractional features (4) Use of small talk, humor, and compliments (e.g., I think this is a great
employed by online-discussion participants. idea!)

Face-Work in a Real-Time, Online-Discussion

Forum In this excerpt from the ongoing group interaction, a group
member asks the moderator for help by employing a bald-
Bald-on-Record: Direct Speech Act on-record strategy, which is a direct speech act (i.e., “help us
Unlike indirect speech acts, direct speech acts for seeking out”). Due to the direct speech act, without the use of other
request, clarification, and refusal engender a potential threat verbal and nonverbal devices such a bald-on-record strategy
to the face of speech participants. On the other hand, direct tends to threaten the speech participant’s face. However, in
speech acts contribute to close and uninhibited interpersonal this asymmetrical interaction between a K–12 student and
relationships between participants. One of the most promi- an adult moderator, the group member tactfully utilizes other
nent characteristics of social interaction in the data is the fact politeness strategies: the direct request (i.e., “help us out”)
that the K–12 students frequently employ the direct speech is preceded by a discourse marker (i.e., “ya”) that functions
act during their peer-group discussion. to appeal to the speech participant, followed by the “smiley
The frequent use of direct speech acts results from several face,” which conveys a friendly tone of request. Such ver-
factors. First, the real-time setting contributes to this phe- bal (i.e., discourse marker “ya”) and nonverbal (i.e., “smiley
nomenon, as participants need to follow the dynamic flow of face”) elements mitigate and soften the force of the direct
conversation as it occurs in this synchronous communication request, thus still attending to the moderator’s positive-face
channel. That is, the participants need to accommodate their desire.
speech style to follow the stream of the real-time conversa- The shift of speech style from bald-on-record towards pos-
tion. This contributes to more frequent use of direct speech itive politeness shows that the cognitive assessment of social
acts, which are concise, clear, and brief. interpersonal variables such as social distance and power
In addition, the text-based communication channel might difference between the interlocutors and the weight of impo-
delay the speed of exchange of the message. Keyboarding is sition underlies speech participants’ employment of verbal
slower than speaking; thus, to compensate for the slowness of and nonverbal devices for face-work. In the aforementioned
keyboarding and to follow the real-time conversational flow, case, the participant discerns social distance stemming from
speech participants tend to use direct speech acts. Another the age gap and power difference resulting from role differ-
factor can be found in the characteristics of the discourse ences in the chat forum between herself and moderator. This
genre. Note that language use in a discussion forum for math cognitive assessment is then the basis for the deployment of
problems is different from that of a discussion forum on con- politeness strategies to the moderator accordingly.
troversial issues. Unlike dealing with controversial issues,
solving a math problem through group discussion, especially
through a real-time, synchronous communication channel, Positive Politeness Strategies: Seeking Common Ground
demands a direct, clear, and brief conversation style. There are a variety of strategies for attending to the speech
In addition to these external factors, peer-group interaction participant’s desire for positive-face. I will highlight just a few
tends to be direct in that there is little or no power difference of the most commonly occurring positive politeness strategies
with low social distance. As mentioned, the bald-on-record in the data. Table 1 illustrates some of the most prominent
strategy (i.e., direct speech act) signifies close and uninhibited examples of positive politeness strategies.
interpersonal relations among interlocutors. First, positive-face desire is reflected in the language use of
On the other hand, when K–12 peer-group participants the interlocutors through claiming common ground in accor-
interact with the moderator, who is an adult, they utilize dance with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness
politeness strategies other than bald-on-record, as shown strategy. By seeking common ground, speech participants
next: aim to reduce social distance. Speech participants seek com-
[Transcript 1] mon ground by expressing shared background in knowledge,
interests, or experiences. This tactic contributes to a decrease
1 a group member [K–12 student] Ya, help us out :-) in social distance and the building of common and mutual
2 Moderator [adult] No comment, sorry:-) understanding between speech participants.

2202 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 Transcripts 2 and 3 are illustrative: from the perspective of sociocultural anthropology. She noted
that a formal situation displays the use of seriousness, polite-
[Transcript 2]
ness, and respect; thus, the use of “respect vocabulary” and
1 Moderator That’s their job:-) Secondly, we used AOL’s “formal etiquette” can be seen as hallmarks denoting a for-
Instant Messenger because we know that a mal setting and situation. Formality increases the use of
lot of people already have it. Do you think deference-oriented linguistic forms. Formality also increases
that was a good choice? social distance between interlocutors. This attends to the
2 EAR HECK YEAH interlocutors’ negative-face desire to be free from imposition
3 EAR this is a popular sys and to be able to keep personal space and territory.
4 INO YA!! Wierzbicka (1991) noted that “ . . . the essence of ‘infor-
5 [6 turns deleted] mality’ lies in the purposeful rejection of any overt show
6 CIL If it hadn’t been AIM, I couldn’t
of respect, with implications of familiarity, friendliness, and
have been here.
7 EAR Diddo
equality.” Informality increases the use of solidarity-oriented
8 INP Same linguistic forms including informal speech style. Informality
decreases social distance and accordingly facilitates posi-
Toward the end of the online-peer-group discussion, the tive interpersonal relationships among speech participants.
moderator seeks comments on some issues in relation to the This attends to interlocutors’ positive-face desire to be liked,
VMT chat forum, such as system, evaluation of the forum, appreciated, and approachable.
and desired features for improving the forum. The previ- For instance, linguistic forms of address illustrate the dif-
ous excerpt centers on AOL’s Instant Messenger (IM), which ference in forms centering on formality versus informality
VMT utilizes for the online chat discussion forum. As shown (Park, 2001). For instance, in a formal situation such as a
in Lines 2 through 4, peer-group participants EAR and INO discussion forum on world economics that is broadcast, the
express agreement regarding the moderator’s question posed moderator may address discussion participants by using a
in the first line concerning IM. Both participants agree that title followed by a last name (e.g., Dr. Park, Mr. Donn); on
the chat system is a good choice for VMT’s group discussion. the other hand, in informal situations such as “small talk”
In addition, in Lines 6 through 8, 3 group participants in everyday language use, people may address each other
(CIL, EAR, and INP) express their common experience by employing a first name or endearment terms (e.g., honey,
regarding IM: It enabled them to participate in the online dear). In this illustration, deference-oriented linguistic forms
chat discussion. Such interaction contributes to enhancement concern address forms such as last name or title followed by
of positive interpersonal relationships and atmosphere, and last name for the formal setting; on the other hand, solidarity-
accordingly increases social proximity and solidarity among oriented forms concern forms such as endearment terms or
the interlocutors. first name for the informal setting.
The following illustration also shows the seeking of In this sense, speech styles can be noticeably different
common ground among speech participants: when comparing social encounters dependent on the setting.
The speech style in formal meetings such as an organizational
[Transcript 3]
group meeting or a presentation in a conference tends to be
1 Moderator How was this different from solving a more rigid, neutralized individual voice, with suppressed
problems on your own? interpersonal affect. On the other hand, the speech style in
2 [14 turns deleted] informal settings such as small talk is familiar and solidarity
3 AEL I like this way of sharing ideas oriented.
4 NIP ya im all for it Transcript 4 illustrates the manner in which informality
This excerpt is towards the end of the discussion of a math informs a group-discussion session:
problem. Following the moderator’s question in the first line,
[Transcript 4]
Participant AEL expresses thoughts on solving math prob-
lems within the group rather than singly by commenting on
the merits of sharing ideas (Line 3). To this, in the next line, 1 ORB i don’t like having to write up my solution
2 MEA m2
NIP agrees with AEL with use of the discourse marker “ya,”
3 IIL me 3
which functions to index his or her common experience on the 4 MEA I do this for extra credit for school
merits of solving math problems within the group. Additional 5 ORB lol
affirmation and reinforcement of positive common experi- 6 IIL same here
ences on sharing ideas through group discussion are followed 7 OOH oh, really
by the discourse marker (i.e., “im all for it”). 8 MEA The PoW-Wow is my choice
9 OOH cool!
Positive Politeness Strategies: Informality 10 MEA but i submit for extra credit
11 OOH I found this site myself
While examining the role of language in social interac- 12 IIL ic
tion, Irvine (1979) adduced a concept of linguistic formality 13 OOH and still enjoy exploring it

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008 2203
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 14 [10 turns deleted] TABLE 2. Linguistic contractions (adapted from Park, 2007).
15 MEA So what level math are you guys doing in school
16 OOH I am quite old and stupid. . . compared to you 1. Phonological contraction:
guys. . . them > ‘em
and > an > ‘n (e.g., rock and roll > rock an’ roll >
17 OOH I am in Geometry
rock ‘n roll)
18 MEA 1?
you > yo > u
19 OOH Yes because > ‘cause
okay > ok > ‘k
This interaction occurs in the middle of a discussion forum
for solving a math problem. In Lines 1 through 3, discussion 2. Morphosyntactic contraction:
My way is a whole a lot simple! > My way is hella simple!
participants share their common dislike of text-based com-
So, (do you) want to hear my way? > so, wanna hear my way?
munication in the context of having to write up their math See you Sunday > Cya Sunday
solution. As well, in the subsequent lines (4–13) ORB, IIL, All right > alright
MEA, and OOH share their common experiences on using
powwow. In addition, they share their motivation on using
powwow for earning extra credit for school work and how
they found powwow. [Transcript 5]
As shown, all these interactions constitute small talk not
directly related to the activities for solving the math problem. 1 OOH substitute : rˆ2 = 4ˆ2 + (8−r)ˆ2
As indicated in Line 14, the participants return to the discus- 2 IIL Ok
sion for solving the math problem. These turns are deleted. 3 ORB Uh
However, as shown in Lines 15 to 19, the participants revert 4 OOH and simplifying: never mind. . .
to more small talk; MEA and OOH discuss the math and 5 MEA Rˆ2 = 16 + 64 + rˆ2 − 16r
geometry level they are assigned to in school. 6 OOH I am too lazy to type out my whole thing
As can be seen in the previous transcript, jokes and small 7 MEA Ok
talk are frequently used during group-discussion sessions for 8 IIL right
solving math problems. Small talk and exchange of jokes dur- 9 OOH wow . . .
10 ORB jeez
ing group discussion functions to index informality. Small
11 MEA Well does everyone get it
talk brings forth intimacy and solidarity, and thus attends to
12 OOH cancel rˆ2 from both sides
the speech participant’s positive-face desire to be liked and 13 IIL 16r = 80
approachable. In addition, subsequent group interactions can 14 IIL ?
be facilitated by small talk in the sense that discussion par- 15 OOH Yes
ticipants express their shared experiences and seek common 16 IIL R = 80/16
ground through small talk. 17 OOH cool!
Informality increases the use of informal speech style. 18 MEA yup
As illustrated in the aforementioned interaction, online- 19 IIL =?
discussion participants frequently utilize informal speech 20 MEA R=5
style. This includes verbal shorthand as in Lines 2, 3, and 21 IIL Ya
22 IIL I knew that
12 (i.e., “m 2,” “me 3,” “i c”). The use of shorthand (in this
23 OOH hey!
case, informal abbreviation) also is observed in Line 5 (i.e.,
“lol:” laughing out loud). Informality also is realized through As shown, informality increases the use of solidarity-
contractions of linguistic forms (see Park, 2007, 2008). The oriented linguistic forms including informal speech style.
contraction is one of the stylistic characteristics of informal Informality at the same time decreases social distance and
language use. The contextual variable in relation to real-time accordingly facilitates positive interpersonal relationships
conversational flow triggers use of both contractions, verbal among speech participants. This attends to the interlocutors’
shorthand, and informal abbreviations. positive-face desire to be liked and appreciated.
Phonological and morphosyntactic contractions appear
frequently in the data. Table 2 illustrates just a few examples.
Positive Politeness Strategy: Seeking Agreement
Such informality also is realized in linguistic forms such as
frequent use of discourse markers (e.g., “you know,” “well”), Speech participants attend to the positive-face desire of
informal address forms (e.g., “hey,” “hi there”), and collo- others through expression of agreement and by avoiding
quial terms. In-group language use also is an instance of overt disagreement through the use of partial agreement prior
linguistic informality. These linguistic elements appear very to disagreement. In the sampled data, explicit agreement fre-
frequently in the sampled data for this study. quently appears during group interaction. Some of the most
Transcript 5 illustrates only a few instances of these ele- frequently occurring linguistic elements for explicit agree-
ments. The use of discourse markers appears in Lines 2, 7, ment are the following: “I agree,” “that’s true,” “indeed,”
11 (i.e., “ok,” “well”); the use of colloquial terms appear in “you said it,” “I also . . . ,” “ditto,” “yes,” “I did notice
Lines 18, 21, and 23 (i.e., “yup,” “ya,” and “hey”). that too.”

2204 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi
 In the same way as in FtF group interaction, disagree- TABLE 3. Negative politeness strategies (adapted from Brown &
ment or rebuttal among online discourse participants is Levinson, 1987).
inevitable; this engenders a potential threat to the positive- (1) Being conventionally indirect and being hesitant (e.g., Well, er, I think
face desire of other participants. In the sampled data, explicit it would be much better to be a bit warm in here. Can you please
disagreement rarely occurs; instead, online discourse partici- close the door?)
pants utilize a nonconfrontational argument strategy through (2) Giving deference (e.g., Dr. Park, sorry to bother you again, but would
you mind if I ask you another question?)
mitigated disagreement. The interaction in Transcript 6 is
(3) Being apologetic
illustrative: (4) Use of formal words and/or speech style

[Transcript 6]

1 HOK I know you got the right answer, but your way
is kinda wrong. . . prior to the statement of rebuttal marked by the discourse
2 [12 turns deleted] marker “but” in Line 8.
3 CAL My way is fine This in consequence softens the overall illocutionary force
4 CAL Its works of the disagreement. As well, by prefacing with the dis-
5 CAL If the answer is right than what gives? course marker “well” prior to the requestive speech act of
6 HOK well . . . ok . . . asking an explanation, the interlocutor delivers a hesitant
7 HOK All goes well that ends well stance regarding her or his upcoming utterance (i.e., ask-
8 HOK but I need explaination . . . ing for an explanation). Doing so contributes to attenuation
9 CAL Ok
of the impact of the requestive illocutionary force. In this
This interaction occurs among group members HOK, sense, the discourse marker “well” functions as a posi-
CAL, and others in the middle of solving a math problem. tive politeness marker, redressing the face-threatening act of
In the first line, HOK points out that CAL’s math solution is disagreement and request.3
incorrect. For this argument, HOK employs a variety of lin- As can be seen in Line 9, CAL acknowledges HOK’s
guistic devices such as acknowledgment, a discourse marker, request (i.e., “ok”) and provides further explanation of the
and a pause. These devices of linguistic politeness all con- solution. The subsequent interaction in this chat session
tribute to softening the force of disagreement. Absent these shows active collaboration in solving the math problem
devices, as in an overt bald-on-record (i.e., direct speech act) among group members. This indicates that the linguistic
“your way is wrong,” there would be a significant threat to politeness tactics of seeking agreement and avoiding direct
the face of CAL. disagreement contribute to the maintaining of a positive inter-
Instead of expressing overt disagreement, HOK employs personal relationship with the other participant, in turn engen-
partial agreement and acknowledgment (i.e., “I know you got dering a positive atmosphere for furthering involvement and
the right answer”). By prefacing her or his utterance with the collaboration among group members.
partial acknowledgment, HOK manages to express a hesitant
stance concerning the upcoming disagreement with CAL’s Negative Politeness Strategies
math solution. HOK also utilizes a hedge (i.e., discourse
marker): “kinda.” The use of the hedge kinda also contributes Negative politeness tactics serve to meet and attend to
to downgrading the illocutionary force of the utterance (i.e., the negative-face desires to be unimpeded, autonomous, and
your way is kinda wrong . . .). In addition, HOK completes the free from imposition. There are many tactics employed to
statement with a pause indicated by an ellipsis marker. The attend to the negative-face desire of other participants. Table 3
pause indexes the speech participant’s hesitant stance on the illustrates some of the most prominent examples of negative
disagreement; accordingly, this also contributes to softening politeness strategies.
the force of the utterance. One of the most frequently used tactics in our daily
In reaction to HOK’s disagreement, in the following lines lives concerns indirectness: Speech participants express their
(Lines 3–5) CAL argues for and justifies her or his solu- intention and thoughts indirectly by employing verbal and
tion by using a rhetorical question (i.e., “If the answer is nonverbal devices such as hedges (discourse markers), cir-
right than what gives?”). In the subsequent lines (Lines 6–8), cumlocution (lengthy explanation, preface prior to primary
HOK responds to CAL’s argument by employing linguistic
politeness tactics. In Line 6, by utilizing the discourse marker 3 The Korean discourse marker ceki and Japanese ano are roughly cor-
“well,” HOK initiates a turn by drawing attention from CAL. respondent to the English well. In the same way as the English well, the
The discourse marker “well” also indexes HOK’s hesitant Korean ceki and the Japanese ano also function as positive politeness mark-
stance on the disagreement with CAL concerning justification ers. In the case of Korean, the discourse marker ceki “well” contributes
of his or her math solution, along with a concomitant request to softening the effect of the illocutionary force of these speech acts in
making excuse, apology, disagreement, and request (for details, see Park,
for clarification of CAL’s solution (i.e., “but I need explaina- 2001, 2004). The Japanese discourse marker ano similarly functions as a
tion [sic]. . .”). This also is followed by the discourse marker positive politeness marker, creating interpersonal rapport between speech
“ok.” The marker “ok” functions to index initial agreement participants (for details, see Cook, 1993).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008 2205
DOI: 10.1002/asi
message), and touching of the head in some cultures (e.g., original solicitation and successfully elicits the participants’
Asian). responses, as in Lines 11 through 13.
The following illustrations show some of these tactics: The interaction below illustrates other tactics for achieving
negative politeness:
[Transcript 7]
[Transcript 8]

1 Moderator How was this different from solving

1 Moderator What sort of functionality would you wish
problems on your own?
to have. For instance, would it be good if
2 OCR this is awsk
you had a shared whiteboard?
3 OCR Sorry
2 [3 turns deleted]
4 OCR i meant
3 PCM Yes, because I couldn’t Paint” like the others
5 OCR k
wanted me to.
6 NIN btw. . .did any of you get this weeks POW?
4 ARE I can’t draw
7 CMP the parallelogram?
5 [two turns deleted]
8 NIN ya
6 PCM I could have shown a drawing with a shared
9 CMP Yes
whiteboard.
10 Moderator I am sorry, could you please answer my
7 PPN cool
question?
8 PCM As is, can’t
11 OCR k
9 ARE maybe, moderator, you could set up a
12 CMP That’s what I thought this would be like,
drawing station with built in shapes
but this was more challenging.
13 CMP I like having the helpline handy in this In the excerpt, towards the end of the online peer-group
chat
discussion, the moderator solicits feedback on the desired
functionality of the VMT’s online chat forum. In this solici-
In the excerpt, towards the end of the group discussion, tation, as in Line 1, the moderator’s utterance is rather formal
the moderator seeks feedback on group discussion for solv- in the sense that instead of asking “What sort of functional-
ing a math problem versus singly solving the problem. In ity do you want to have,” the moderator asks “What sort of
Lines 2 to 5, OCR responds to this by employing short- functionality would you wish to have.” In contrast to infor-
hand (i.e., “awsk”) and the phonological contraction “k” (i.e., mal language use, formality increases the social distance
“okay”). As illustrated in the earlier section on positive polite- between interlocutors and has the effect of respecting the par-
ness tactics, shorthand and phonological contraction together ticipant’s autonomy and independence. Another tactic used
with in-group terms are prevalent in this peer-group online by the moderator concerns the subjunctive syntactic construc-
chat forum. These are all devices for conveying informality, tion in his or her subsequent utterance: “. . . would it be good
which contributes to the building of solidarity among speech if you had a shared whiteboard?” Subjunctive syntactic con-
participants. struction allows an option for the other speech participant
Interestingly, in Line 6, NIN changes the topic by utilizing to refuse or disagree to the interlocutor’s request or sugges-
the discourse marker “by the way” in shorthand form (i.e., tion; accordingly, it empowers the participant to be freer from
“btw”) instead of responding to the moderator’s question. To imposition. Interestingly, in this K–12 peer-group online chat
this interruption, through employment of negative politeness forum, negative politeness strategies are mostly employed
tactics in Line 10, the moderator appeals to the participants by the moderator, who is an adult. This indicates that the
to pay heed to the original solicitation of feedback. Specif- role of speech participants may affect the style of language
ically, the moderator’s utterance in Line 10 is composed use. In addition, there might be some difference in language
of several linguistic devices for attending to the negative- use involving face-work between children and an adult. This
face desire of the participant: The moderator begins with an needs to be confirmed with more data.
apology (i.e., “I am sorry”), followed by conventional indi- Even though online-chat participants (K–12 students)
rectness (i.e., “could you. . .”) and a discourse marker/hedge rarely utilize negative politeness strategies, they do employ
(i.e., “please”). All these negative politeness devices con- these strategies when appropriate. As in Line 9, Participant
tribute to attending to the participant’s negative-face desire ARE responds to the moderator’s solicitation of feedback by
to be autonomous and free from imposition. In this case, the employing the discourse marker (i.e., hedge) “maybe” fol-
participants’ negative-face desires concern freedom from the lowed by a subjunctive marker (i.e., “you could . . .”), which
imposition of responding to the moderator’s question and the redresses the force of advice or suggestion to the modera-
autonomy to seek their own inquiries and discussion topics. tor.4 As stated earlier, speech participants employ verbal and
An utterance lacking such politeness tactics, for instance, nonverbal devices for face-work dependent upon the cogni-
“answer my question,” would come across as rude, resulting tive assessment of social variables such as social distance and
in a threat to the participant’s face. Through the employment
of such negative politeness tactics as in Line 10, the moder- 4 In analysis of transcripts derived from a chat reference, Westbrook (2007)
ator mitigates and redresses the force of interruption of the noted that advice of librarians to users that mitigates any potential face-threat
participants’ interaction by redirecting their attention to the is more valuable than that which is given without such mitigation.

2206 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi
power difference between the interlocutors and the weight of 5 CPM Ok. My diagram has B as a rather obtuse
imposition. In the previously mentioned case, social interac- angle, to match the bisect condition, if that
tion between the moderator and participant (K–12 student) helps
6 ARE We would only need one equ
underlies power difference owing to discrepant roles in the
7 ARE we got that
chat forum and social distance owing to age difference. 8 ARE try posting ur picture on the URL
The following excerpt takes another look at negative 9 CPM I’m too new at that.
politeness tactics: 10 ARE K
[Transcript 9] In this excerpt, occurring towards the beginning of the
powwow session for solving the math problem, the peer-
1 CPM CPM has entered the room. group participants discuss a diagram they have drawn for
2 ARE never mind about the two ideas a math problem. As shown in Transcript 9, CPM joins this
3 PPN k group discussion in the middle of the session. In Line 5, CPM
4 Moderator Hi CPM. Could you guys help cpm to
shares his or her diagram with the rest of the members. To
catch up?
this, in Line 8, ARE asks CPM to post the diagram at the
5 PPN sure
6 ARE k URL the moderator presented in the first line so other group
7 CPM I just read the prob and got a diagram. members can see it.
8 PPN well, we got the 2 triangles congruent To this request, CPM employs off-record politeness strat-
egy in Line 9 by giving a hint of refusal to ARE’s request. In
This excerpt takes place during the ongoing interaction; other words, CPM indirectly indicates not having the ability
as indicated in the first line, Group Member CPM has newly to comply with ARE’s request because CPM is a new mem-
joined this ongoing discussion forum. In Line 4, the mod- ber of the group discussion. Such off-record tactics save the
erator asks the other members to help the new member participant’s face in the sense that freedom is given to either
(CPM); the moderator does this through the employment of respond to it, as ARE does in Line 10 by indicating under-
mixed politeness strategies: conventional indirectness (i.e., standing of the implied meaning of CPM’s utterance, or to
“Could you”) that attends to negative-face desire, followed ignore it.
by informal term use (i.e., “guys”), which promotes prox-
imity between interlocutors and attends to the participant’s
positive-face desire. Conclusion
In Line 7, CPM attempts to participate and contribute to the
group discussion by sharing a diagram that he created for the To understand the manifestation of online social interac-
math problem. To this, in Line 8, PPN responds by opening tion and to foster successful interaction and collaboration
with the discourse marker “well,” followed by a comment on through the CMC channel, analysis of sociointerpersonal
how far their discussion has advanced, implying that CPM’s communication patterns among online discourse participants
contribution is irrelevant to the current stage of the group is critical. For this, the first part of this study examined the
discussion. In this statement, the function of the discourse linguistic politeness theoretical framework in relation to its
marker “well” is significant in that “well” indexes hesitation methodological applicability for analyzing communication
of the interlocutor and functions to redress the force of the patterns and the manner of social interaction among online-
implication, accordingly contributing to preservation of the discussion participants (Park, 2008). In the second part of
participant’s negative-face desire. the study, the theoretical framework is applied to real-time
online chat data to examine the social interactional features
employed by online-discussion participants to maintain and
Off-Record
enhance public self-image, or face, in presentation of their
An off-record strategy is the most indirect speech act in arguments.
the sense that the interlocutor gives full option to the other The qualitative data analysis of this study makes evi-
speech participant to ignore the illocutionary force without dent that the use of politeness strategies is prevalent in
threatening the interlocutor’s face. In so doing, the partici- social interaction through real-time, online chat forums.
pant has freedom from imposition without losing face. The The social interaction during the online-discussion forum for
following interaction is illustrative: solving math problems shows that the realization of linguistic
politeness is dependent upon speech participants’ cognitive
[Transcript 10]
assessment of contextual variables as well as interpersonal
variables such as power, distance, and imposition. In K–12
1 Moderator CPM, you can view our image at http://
peer-group collaboration for solving math problems, power
mathforum.org/pow/vmt/feb1204/
powwow1.1.gif and distance between participants are symmetrical and low
2 ARE It uses two variables (−power, −distance = egalitarian power and close social
3 PPN x and y relationship). The degree of imposition is relatively low in
4 ARE And just so you know PPN, if we can the sense that the peer-group interaction occurs to share
equate x and y ideas and thoughts during the process of group collaboration

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008 2207
DOI: 10.1002/asi
and information seeking. In this context, interactions vis-à- use of off-record tactics, as stated, there is the frequent
vis face-work strategies among peer-group participants tend use of bald-on-record (i.e., direct speech acts) tactics in
towards high involvement (i.e., positive politeness). conjunction with positive politeness strategies in this K–12
Data analysis shows that interpersonal communication peer-group interaction. The commonality of bald-on-record
features are realized in online discussion in the form of polite- and positive politeness strategies lies in the fact that both
ness tactics. In other words, participants pursue positive-face tactics are grounded in proximity. Accordingly, they bring
desire by reducing social distance, resulting in creation forth close interpersonal relationships between participants.
of close and solidarity-oriented interpersonal relationships. Employment of such politeness tactics indicates that effec-
Accordingly, positive politeness and bald-on-record (i.e., tive interpersonal communication plays a vital role in the
direct speech acts) strategies are frequently used. A variety of enhancement of group discussion.
devices are employed in realizing positive politeness tactics. As evinced in the qualitative data analysis for this study,
The most frequently occurring tactics include the seeking linguistic politeness theory provides a framework for an
of common ground and agreement and the use of informal analysis of social interaction undertaken through online-
speech style, in-group language use, jokes, and small talk. discussion forums. The politeness theoretical framework
These tactics engender a positive atmosphere for furthering is particularly effective in analyzing the sociointerpersonal
interaction and collaboration among group members. communication strategies that online discussion participants
As well, peer-group interaction tends to be direct in that employ to maintain and enhance each other’s face. Thus, anal-
there is little or no power difference together with low social ysis of social interaction based on the linguistic politeness
distance. The bald-on-record strategy (i.e., direct speech act) theoretical framework seems well positioned to contribute
may convey close and uninhibited interpersonal relations to the development of a benchmark for the evaluation of
among interlocutors. The frequent use of direct speech acts group discussion in an online educational context. The
suggests that in addition to the aforementioned interpersonal decreased use of deferential linguistic forms and frequent use
variables, contextual variables such as real-time setting and of verbal and nonverbal forms that denote a positive polite-
discourse topic also play a part in employment of verbal and ness strategy and bald-on-record (direct) speech acts in this
nonverbal devices for face-work. That is, the participants need K–12 real-time, online-discussion forum signify that linguis-
to accommodate their speech style to the real-time conver- tic politeness is indeed a social phenomenon and is therefore
sational flow. This contributes to more frequent use of direct filtered through a given social context. It also signifies
speech acts, which are brief and clear. Unlike with a con- that sociointerpersonal variables among speech participants
troversial discourse topic, solving a math problem through a as well as contextual variables underlie the realization of
real-time communication channel also triggers the frequent linguistic politeness.
use of direct speech acts. This study limited the applicability of the findings to
Note that there is a shift of speech style from the direct other CMC genres in the sense that the linguistic polite-
speech act in the symmetrical peer-group discussion to other ness theoretical framework is applied only in a synchronous
politeness strategies when there is an asymmetrical interac- online-discussion forum dealing with mathematics. Utiliza-
tion such as with adult moderators. Even though online chat tion of the small number of transcripts for qualitative data
participants (K–12 students) rarely utilize negative politeness analysis also limits the findings of the study. Thus, there
strategies, in this asymmetrical context, they tactfully utilize is ground for future studies regarding the application of the
these strategies. For instance, the K–12 student utilizes either theoretical framework to other CMC genres such as virtual
negative or positive politeness strategy from the direct speech reference and other subject domains (Barnes, 2003; Kum-
act through the use of verbal and/or nonverbal devices. Such mar, Novak, Raghavan, & Tomkins, 2004; Nardi, Schiano,
verbal (e.g., hesitation through discourse marker, deference Gumbrecht, & Swartz, 2004). Quantitative analysis utilizing
through subjunctive marker) and/or nonverbal (e.g., the smi- a sizable number of transcripts in conjunction with qualita-
ley face ☺) devices function to redress the illocutionary force tive discourse analysis will contribute to a fuller assessment
of the direct speech act and accordingly contribute to attend- of the distribution of certain politeness tactics across CMC
ing to the moderator’s positive- or negative-face desire. The genres and subject domains.
shift of speech style indicates that the deployment of lin-
guistic politeness strategies is based on speech participants’
cognitive assessment of interpersonal variables such as social
distance and power difference between them.
independence rather than involvement. In other words, the information seeker
Use of off-record in conjunction with negative politeness tends to attend to the librarian’s negative-face desire by maintaining social
strategies rarely occurs in the K–12 peer-group interac- distance and by respecting the librarian’s personal territory and right to
tion. The commonality of off-record and negative politeness nondistraction and freedom from imposition. Thus, in this context, negative
strategies lies in the fact that both tactics are grounded in politeness strategies may frequently occur. The disparity in social interac-
indirectness and deference.5 In contrast to the infrequent tion between librarians and users in the virtual reference setting noted by
Radford (2006, p. 1050) illustrates this: According to the comparison of
librarian and client relational facilitators, client utilize deference foremost
5 In dyadic interaction between librarian and user in a virtual refer- in interaction with librarians. Deference can be seen as correspondent to the
ence setting, face-work strategies would in general be geared towards negative politeness tactic of politeness theory.

2208 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Acknowledgment Nardi, B.A., Schiano, D.J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we
blog. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41–46.
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Gerry Park, J.R. (2001). Politeness: The Korean pragmatic marker ceki. Journal of
Stahl for his permission to use data archived by the Vir- PAAL, 5(2), 297–319.
tual Math Teams (VMT) at Drexel University for this study. Park, J.R. (2004). Multifunctional characteristics of the pragmatic marker
My appreciation also to the reviewers of this article and to ceki. Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics, 12,
99–132.
Dr. EileenAbels for valuable comments that greatly improved Park, J.R. (2007). Interpersonal and affective communication in synchronous
the quality of this article. online discourse. Library Quarterly, 77(2), 133–155.
Park, J.R. (2008). Solidarity and rapport in social interaction through com-
References puter mediated communication channel. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant
(Eds.) Handbook of research on computer mediated communication.
Barnes, S.B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human Volume 1 (pp. 934–946). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference,
communication across the internet. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. IGI Global.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language Park, J.R. (2008). Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated
usage. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. communication, Part 1: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American
Cook, H.M. (1993). Functions of the filler ano in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2051–2059.
Linguistics, 3, 19–38. Radford, M.L. (2006). Encountering virtual users: A qualitative inves-
Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer- tigation of interpersonal communication in chat reference. Journal of
Mediated Communication, 4(4). the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8),
Irvine, J. (1979). Formality and informality in communicative events. 1046–1059.
American Anthropologist, 82, 773–791. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.B.K. (1983). Face in interethnic communication.
Kummar, R., Novak, J., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A. (2004). Structure and In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication
evolution of blogspace. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 35–39. (pp. 156–188). London, United Kingdom: Longman.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Westbrook, L. (2007). Chat reference communication patterns and impli-
Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–305. cations: Applying politeness theory. Journal of Documentation, 63(5),
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, United Kingdom: 638–658.
Longman. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human
Mon, L.M. (2006). User perceptions of digital reference services. Unpub- interaction. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Information
School, Seattle.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—December 2008 2209
DOI: 10.1002/asi