In Pr es s *Corresponding Author P-ISSN: 1978-8118 E-ISSN: 2460-710X 59 Lingua Cultura, 17(1), July 2023, 59-66 DOI: 10.21512/lc.v17i1.9643 BANJARESE COLLEGE STUDENTS’ POSITIVE POLITENESS TOWARD THEIR LECTURERS THROUGH ONLINE CHATS Menik Winiharti1*; Ahmad Mubarok2 1English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University Jl. Kemanggisan Ilir III No. 45, Palmerah, Jakarta Barat 11480, Indonesia 2Indonesian Literature, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Mulawarman University Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara, Gn. Kelua, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur 75243, Indonesia 1menik_w@binus.ac.id; 2mubarok.banjar@gmail.com Received: 23rd February 2023/Revised: 05th April 2023/Accepted: 10th April 2023 How to Cite: Winiharti, M., & Mubarok, A. (2023). Banjarese college students’ positive politeness toward their lecturers through online chats. Lingua Cultura, 17(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v17i1.9643 ABSTRACT The research aimed to describe the positive politeness strategy which was applied by undergraduate students to- ward their lecturers in online conversations. It was also to find the form of violations of politeness that occurred in the conversation and to describe the factors that influenced the violation. The data was gathered from online conversations between students and lecturers through chat applications such as WhatsApp and Line on lecturers' and students’ devices. Then the data were grouped and analyzed according to Brown and Levinson's (1987) posi- tive politeness strategy along with their theory on Distance, Power, and Ranking of Imposition. The results show that positive politeness strategies appear in eleven utterances out of forty-three utterances. The violation of polite- ness is shown in five utterances, all of which threaten the negative face of the addressee. In addition, five factors influence the violation: distance, context, desire to over-praise the addressee, deliberately asking for reasons, and rejection. Overall, social factors still influence the way students communicate online with their lecturers. To some extent, students apply positive politeness strategies toward their lecturers even though the interaction happens through online chat applications. Keywords: politeness strategy, positive politeness, positive face, negative face, social factors, online chat INTRODUCTION The value of politeness does not necessarily belong to a person since birth but appears as a form of competence obtained from interaction among speakers in terms of social, cultural, and surroundings. A high cultural value is not innate but comes from the process of socialization and the socio-cultural construction of a nation. Politeness is not universal but has a social background, so forms and backgrounds cannot be separated. There are three factors that determine the form of politeness, namely the norms of culture, situations, and the nature of the message conveyed. It can also be understood that the speech context determines the form of politeness performed by speakers (Rasyikin, 2018). Politeness may occur in any situation, including in an academic setting. Several researches have investigated students and/or teachers’ politeness in the academic setting. In terms of English language learning, Rejeki and Azizah (2019) have pointed out that politeness strategies should be introduced in the classroom because students would use the language in the real world. Other research also shows university students’ politeness when they are responding to their teacher’s online announcements (Selgas, 2022), dealing with emails of requests delivered to their lecturers (Trang, 2019), interacting with their teacher in Biology class (Nugrahanto & Hartono, 2020), having interaction in EFL class (Fitriyani & Andriyanti, 2020) even when they are having interaction among themselves as English university students (Mahmud, 2019). Nowadays, face-to-face interactions, to some In Pr es s 60 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 17 No. 1, July 2023, 59-66 extent, are replaced by online communication as technology is developing exceptionally fast. The presence of communication devices makes communication across the world instant. One of the most booming occurrences with this technological advancement is communicating through online chats provided by internet-based applications, such as Whatsapp and Line. These applications are quite easy to use in which users only have to type messages on the provided space in the application, click ‘send’ then they can be connected to other people within seconds. As a result, to some extent, the oral communication culture is eventually replaced by online chats for more effective and efficient reasons. In terms of politeness, interactions through online media should consider the elements of ethics, as some researches show that such types of communication indicate some ethical issues. For this case, Mâță (2022) has pointed out some problems that may occur in online communication between students and teachers, such as the use of inappropriate language, misunderstanding of information, and failure to respect the teacher’s private time. Thus, she has suggested that online communication should manifest appropriate attitudes, offer the teacher’s response on time to the students’ requests, and respect the confidentiality of the communication content (Mâță, 2022). Similarly, Julia, Kurnia, and Sudin (2018) have shown that communication between students and their peers and between students and their lecturers through social media decreased politeness and tended to ignore the ethics of communication. This is an interesting finding because Gervasio and Humphrey (2019) have found the opposite. They have pointed out that in social media discourse, university students use various politeness strategies that show evidence of their building and maintaining relationships among themselves. Another opposite finding is also shown by Farida and Yuliana (2019), who have stated that Sundanese students are aware of their ‘asymmetrical power relation’ with the lecturers since the dominant type of politeness shown by students is a negative one. Similarly, Shalihah and Zuhdi (2020) have found that most students use polite and formal language to their lecturers, which includes greetings, self-introductions, apologies at the beginning and/or at the end of text messages, intention in sending messages, thank-you notes and closing. There are several factors that may affect the way a person applies their type of politeness. Selgas (2022) have pointed out that factors such as cultural differences, gender language, gender performativity, and teachers’ announcement to which the students respond should be considered when determining significant differences in politeness strategies among students. Similarly, Fitriyani and Andriyanti (2020) have stated that factors like age difference, institutional position, power, and social distance may influence the politeness strategies in the interactions between students and teachers. Meanwhile, when students send emails to their professors, they should pay attention to the correct formal form and cultural differences (Trang, 2019). In addition, students are more likely to use their vernacular language, which is used as a softening mechanism for their presentation (Mahmud, 2019). The phenomenon in which students are assumed to have a tendency to ignore the principle of politeness can be seen in the following chat. This chat is sent from a student to one of his lecturers. “Ibu di mana? Bisa cepat nggak bu? Saya sudah de- pan kantor ibu.” “Where are you Maam? Can you hurry up? I'm al- ready in front of your office.” The utterance, to some extent, is considered less polite. The sender of the message does not consider whom the addressee is speaking to, so the form of the sentence and the choice of words used tend to be informal and tend to be ‘direct’. The question, “Where are you, Maam?” can cause obscurity on the side of the hearer of what is asked. It would be clearer and more polite if the question is expressed in a more complete sentence. Then in “Can you hurry up?” there is an impression that the student rules the lecturer, even though it is the student who needs to meet his lecturer. The third sentence, “I am already in front of your office,” suggests that the lecturer should be in her office in a minute. This example gives a little illustration of how young people nowadays communicate and convey messages to others, in this case, lecturers or people whom they should give more respect to. With regard to the theory of politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987) first have discussed what is called ‘face’. They say the face is the self-public image every member wants to claim for himself. According to Yule (1996), this concept of the face then underlies the theory of language politeness strategy because in communicating, the speaker will try to save the face of the addressee. Regarding this ‘face’, Brown and Levinson (1987) have classified it into two related aspects: (1) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e., freedom of action and freedom from imposition, and (2) positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. The face can then be considered as a desire (face wants). A negative face is an individual’s wish that every desire is not impeded by another party, while a positive face is the desire of every speaker so that he can be accepted or liked by others. Brown and Levinson (1987) have said that the concept of face is universal, and naturally, there are various utterances that tend to be unpleasant actions called Face Threatening Acts (FTA). Furthermore, the acts that threaten one’s face can be grouped into two types: acts that threaten the hearer’s positive face and those that threaten the hearer’s negative face. The acts that threaten negative In Pr es s 61Banjarese College Students’ .... (Menik Winiharti; Ahmad Mubarok) face include the expressions of (a) orders and requests, suggestions, advice, warnings, threats, challenges, (b) offer, promise, (c) praise, and strong negative feelings such as hatred and anger (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Meanwhile, the acts that threaten the positive face of the hearer include (a) Expressions of disapproval, criticism, acts of humiliation or disgrace, complaints, anger, indictments, and insults; (b) The expression of contradiction, disagreement, or challenge; (c) Uncontrolled expressions of emotions that make the hearer feel scared or humiliated; (d) Impolite expressions, mentioning things that are taboo or inappropriate in a situation, i.e., the speaker shows that they do not respect the hearer’s values and also disregard the things that the hearer fears, (e) Expressions of bad news about the hearer, or boasting good news about the speaker, which indicates that the speaker does not hesitate to reveal unpleasant things to the hearer, and does not care much about the hearer’s feelings; (f) Expressions about harmful things and divisive topics, such as political, race, religion, women’s liberation issues. In this case, the speaker generates an atmosphere that has the potential to threaten the face of the hearer, i.e., the speaker creates a dangerous atmosphere towards the hearer’s face; (g) Uncooperative expressions of the speaker toward the hearer, i.e., the speaker interrupts the hearer’s talk, expresses non-sequitur things and does not show concern (the speaker shows that they do not care about the desires of the hearer’s negative or positive face), (h) Expressions of addressing or other status identifications that show the status of the hearer in the first encounter. In this situation, the speaker might incorrectly identify the hearer, which hurts their feelings or embarrasses them either intentionally or not. Then Brown and Levinson (1987) have proposed five strategies that one might do in conducting an FTA. The first is bald on record. It performs speech acts directly; for example, “Lend me your pen!” (Yule, 1996). The second is off-record. It conducts speech acts in a disguised/indirect manner; for example, “Uh, I forgot my pen.” (Yule, 1996). The third is positive politeness. It performs speech acts using positive politeness strategies; for example, “How about letting me use your pen?” (Yule, 1996). The fourth is negative politeness. It performs speech acts using a negative politeness strategy; for example, “I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something?” (Yule, 1996). The last is to say nothing (but do actions that have a specific meaning); for example, (Yule, 1996). Regarding positive politeness strategies, Brown and Levinson (1987) have suggested fifteen strategies that a speaker can use. They are (1) Pay attention to the hearer’s preferences, desires, and needs; (2) Exaggerate attention, approval, and sympathy for the hearer; (3) Intensify the hearer’s attention by dramatizing events or facts; (4) Use group identity markers (address terms, dialect, jargon or slang); (5) Seek approval with general topics or repeating some/ all utterances; (6) Avoid disapproval by pretending to agree, pseudo-agreement, white-lies, hedging opinions; (7) Show matters that are considered to have similarities through small talk and presuppositions; (8) Use jokes; (9) Express understanding on the hearer’s desires; (10) Provide offers or promises; (11) Show optimism; (12) Engage speakers and hearers in activities; (13) Give questions or ask for reasons; (14) Express reciprocal relationships; and (15) Give gifts (goods, sympathy, attention, cooperation) to the hearer (Pramujiono, 2015). Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) have also discussed three influencing social factors in the use of FTA. They are power, social distance, and ranking of imposition. Social distance is the distance between the speaker and the hearer, which is considered a measure of social contact between the speaker and the hearer in knowing each other and their relations in a context. Power is the difference in power between the speaker and the hearer, which is a relationship statement that asserts the extent to which one can force others without losing face. Moreover, the last is ranking of imposition (in particular cultures), where the level of speech-threatening acts in certain cultural contexts; the relative status of speech act types in situations that are considered not too threatening to face. Pramujiono (2015) has further elaborated on these three social factors. Factor D (social distance) will affect the level of familiarity and solidarity between speakers and hearers. Then factor P (power) perceived by speakers and hearers will have an effect on the level of determination of the speaker’s desire toward the hearer. While the factor of Ranking of Imposition of speech acts in certain cultural contexts (R) implies how much ‘threat’ or how much ‘danger’ is perceived to be present in a particular cultural context. For this case, Rahayuningsih, Saleh, and Fitriati (2020) have found that these sociological factors – distance, power, and degree of imposition – indeed influence the interaction between EFL teachers and students in the classroom, specifically with regard to the choice of their politeness strategies. However, Hutahaean, Herman, and Girsang (2021) have found only two factors influencing how people in a variety show communicate. According to them, social distance is found to have the most decisive influence; the second is relative power, while imposition is not shown in the interaction. Based on the previous discussion and background, this research is conducted to know how undergraduate students use politeness when communicating online with their lecturers, especially in Banjarmasin. Therefore, the objectives of this research are to (1) describe the positive politeness strategies used by students towards their lecturers in online conversation; (2) find violations of politeness strategies that occur in the conversation; and (3) find the factors that influence the violation. In Pr es s 62 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 17 No. 1, July 2023, 59-66 METHODS This research uses a qualitative-descriptive approach because it intends to describe the students’ politeness towards their lecturers through online conversation. It is conducted at a private university in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan. Therefore, these students have a similar cultural background, which is Banjarese. The object of the research is students majoring in English Language Education who contact their lecturers through internet-based conversation applications, in this case, WhatsApp and Line. Therefore, the data source for this research is documented in the form of messages from students, which are sent to their lecturers through these applications. The data is collected by screen-capturing students’ messages to their lecturers delivered through Whatsapp and Line applications. After the raw data are collected, they are selected and identified based on the research problem related to the student’s language politeness when contacting their lecturers. There are a total of forty-three utterances selected. Then the next step is to classify these data according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness strategy. They are ranked based on the percentage of the occurrences. These data are then discussed and analyzed based on politeness strategies with regard to distance (D), power (P), and ranking of imposition (R) proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). In addition, the cultural factors regarding the use of politeness strategies are also discussed and analyzed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The results and discussion are presented in three sections. The first one discusses the findings about positive politeness strategies used by students with Banjarese cultural background using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness strategy. Then the forms of violating positive politeness that occurs are analyzed. The last section discusses the factors that influence the violation of the students’ positive politeness. Figure 1 Students’ Positive Politeness Strategy Toward Their Lecturers There are eleven positive politeness strategies used by students with Banjarese cultural background. Figure 1 describes the number of utterances, in percentages out of forty-three utterances, spoken by students who apply the positive politeness strategy. The eleven strategies are (1) Paying attention to the hearer’s preferences, desires, and needs. There are seven utterances (16%) using this strategy. This is the most-used strategy among others. (2) Exaggerating attention, approval, and sympathy to the hearer. Five utterances (12%) are found using this strategy. (3) Using group identity markers. This strategy is applied by three utterances (7%). (4) Showing matters that have similarities through small talk and presupposition. There are five utterances (12%) using this strategy. (5) Seeking approval by repeating part or all of the speaker’s/hearer’s talks, and it is found four utterances (9%). (6) Avoid disapproval by pretending to agree, pseudo-agreement, white lies, or hedging opinions. This strategy is applied in three utterances (7%). (7) Using jokes is found in six utterances (14%). (8) Giving promises is found in two utterances (5%). (9) Expressing understanding or understanding the hearer’s desires. There is only one utterance (2%) using this strategy. (10) Giving questions or asking for reasons is found in five utterances (12%). (11) Involving speaker and hearers in an activity is found in two utterances (5%). The occurrences of the strategy can be arranged in Table 1. Table 1 Students’ Positive Politeness Strategy in Frequency Strategy Number of utterances Percentage Strategy 1 7 16 Strategy 7 6 14 Strategy 2 5 12 Strategy 4 5 12 Strategy 10 5 12 Strategy 5 4 9 Strategy 3 3 7 Strategy 6 3 7 Strategy 8 2 5 Strategy 11 2 5 Strategy 9 1 2 Total 43 100 It can be clearly seen from Table 1 that the most-frequently-occurred strategy is strategy 1, which is paying attention to the hearer’s preferences, desires, and needs. It means that, to some extent, the students still have consideration toward their lecturers’ preferences, desires, and needs. The second most- frequently-occurred strategy is strategy 6, which is using jokes. It indicates that students, to some extent, do not hesitate to show or use jokes when they send messages to their lecturers. The least-frequently- In Pr es s 63Banjarese College Students’ .... (Menik Winiharti; Ahmad Mubarok) occurred strategy is strategy 9, which is expressing understanding or understanding the hearer’s desires. This finding is, in fact, rather contradictive regarding the finding showing that strategy 1 is the most frequently occurring strategy. In other words, students are regarded as being able to pay attention to their lecturers’ preferences, desires, and needs, but they are not able to understand them. The example of the students’ positive politeness strategies is discussed in these four conversations. Conversation 1: The strategy of avoiding disagreement by pretending to agree or using pseudo-agreement (Strategy 6) Student Ibu terimakasih banyak buat dukungan unt invents. Maaf kalo acaranya masih ada kekurangannya. Mudahan tahun dpn lebih baik lg. Makasih banyak bu…(emoticon menangis) Thank you very much for supporting the event, Ma’am. Sorry if the program was not perfect. We hope next year will be much better. Thanks a lot, Ma’am (emoticon crying). Lecturer You’re welcome. Overall, it’s success- ful. I gave 85/100 score for this year event. Congratulation. ESA & you… have done a good job! (emoticon thumb) Student Thankyou maaaaammm (emoticon grinning) The context of this conversation is that the student knows the program he has run is not perfect, then he apologizes to his lecturer. However, the lecturer gives compliments by telling the score directly. Actually, the student does not really agree with the compliment because he realizes that there is a lack in the program, but to appreciate his lecturer, he answers, “Thank you, Maaaaammm”, followed by grinning emoticons. As a matter of fact, this answer shows that the student is not sure about the results of the program. Furthermore, in terms of social distance (D), the speaker is aware of his status as a student who is socially different from his lecturer, so there is a distance between them. In terms of power (P), the student also realizes that his level of power is not the same as his lecturer’s. Whereas in terms of R, the speaker tries to save or not threaten the face of the hearer by saying ‘thank you’ even though he does not really agree with his lecturer’s saying. This, in fact, is in line with Rahayuningsih, Saleh, and Fitriati’s (2020) findings that the sociological factors influence the politeness strategies used. Conversation 2: Strategy for promising (Strategy 8) Student Mau minta izin bu. Nanti mau ngomong bu. I would like to ask permission, Maam. I want to talk about something. Lecturer Soal apa? Besok pagi jam stg 8. What is it? Tomorrow morning at 7.30 Student Masalah perkuliahan bu, inggih insyaAllah besok ke kantor ibu. About the lectures maam, Yes, in God’s willing I’m going to your office tomorrow. This conversation is started by a student asking permission to meet the lecturer. Then the lecturer agrees by scheduling their meeting for the next day. After that, the student answers by stating that the next day he/she would come using the sentence, “Inggih (Yes), InsyaAllah (In God’s willing), I’m going to your office tomorrow.” It shows that the student promises to come according to the schedule that the lecturer has specified. The use of 'inggih’ in Banjarese is a subtle speech level and shows that the speaker respects his/her addressee. Thus, in terms of D, the speaker is aware of his/her status as a student who has social distance from his/her lecturer and is in a less powerful position than the lecturer. Whereas in terms of R, the speaker tries to save or not threaten the face of the hearer by promising to comply with the schedule set by the lecturer. The factor of P is shown by the lecturer’s decision that the time the student meets would be at 7.30 on the following day. These factors are in line with the findings of Pramujiono (2015), Rahayuningsih, Saleh, and Fitriati (2020), and Hutahaean, Herman, and Girsang (2021) with regard to the influence of sociological factors. Conversation 3: The strategy expresses understanding or understand the hearer’s desire (strategy 9) Student Assalammualaykum Maam... Are you at campus now? Or whon will you be in campus?” Lecturer Sorry. I wasn’t in campus this morn- ing. But I’m teaching at 2 as usual. Student Oh ok Ma’am. Sorry… The context of this conversation is that the student intends to meet his/her lecturer on campus by asking if the lecturer is there that morning. The lecturer says that he/she is not on campus that morning, but there is a teaching schedule at 2 o'clock. Thus, the lecturer indirectly asked the student to meet him/ her around that hour. The student's sentence, “Oh ok ma’am. Sorry...”, shows that he/she could understand the lecturer’s activities and desire to meet the students on the schedule mentioned. Concerning D, P, and R, the sentence stated by the student shows the relationship between students and lecturers who have social distance, lecturer’s higher position (power), and no intention to threaten the lecturer’s face. This is in line with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) presentation In Pr es s 64 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 17 No. 1, July 2023, 59-66 about the influence of the three factors. Conversation 4: The strategy of asking questions or asking for reasons (Strategy 10) Student Inggih bu. Jadi kyapa bu. Tadi ibu Dayah berpesan supaya besok bisa on time kata beliau. Ternyata ada ppb (kelas bahasa) Yes maam. So how is it, ma’am? Mrs Dayah said we should be on time. Apparently, there is a language class. Lecturer Kalo begitu kalian harus datang lebih pagi supaya kelas dibooking. Jam 6.30 harus ada di sana. If so, you have to come earlier so the class is booked. You must be there at 6.30. The context of this conversation is that a student asks a question to the lecturer to get a solution about the room they booked, which turns out to be used for a language class. In this situation, the student asked, “Yes, ma’am. So how is it, ma’am?” which shows positive politeness, and again, the student uses Banjarese inggih, which shows speech level of being subtle. Therefore, in terms of social distance (D), it appears that the student respects the lecturer by addressing her ‘ma’am’ and using a polite question and the word choice ‘inggih’. Then in terms of power (P), the student also realizes that the lecturer has the power so that the utterances delivered sound polite. Likewise, with regard to the ranking of imposition (R), the speaker does not attempt to threaten the face of the hearer so that the utterances can be said to ‘save’ the lecturer’s face. In addition to the utterances that are categorized as having positive politeness strategies, the findings also indicate that on the students’ side, the politeness strategies are violated. Based on the data analyzed using the positive politeness strategies, there are five violations of positive politeness. It is revealed so because the utterances delivered by students do not show the positive politeness strategy; they even violate the strategy presented by Brown and Levinson (1987). These are three examples of utterances that are considered to violate the positive politeness. Conversation 5 Student Ibu, Anda di mana? Saya di depan ruangan anda. Bisa dipercepatkah (kedatangannya)? Saya Sibuk. Ma’am, where are you? I’m in front of your office. Can you be quick (to arrive)? I’m Busy. Lecturer Ok The context of the conversation is that the speaker, a student, is in front of the lecturer's office because the lecturer has asked the student to come to have a re-final test because he/she is not present at the scheduled time. The student asks the lecturer where he/she is while informing that he/she is in front of the lecturer’s office. However, the student gives instructions to the lecturer to arrive more quickly because the speaker is busy, and he/she has a business afterward. The violation of positive politeness in the above conversation is mainly shown in the utterance, "Can you be quick?" This can be classified as a violation of the hearer’s negative face because it sounds like commanding someone. When viewed using the D-P-R (Distance, Power, and Ranking of Imposition) variables, there is also a violation committed by the speaker. In this case, the speaker does not properly command the lecturer because the speaker is a student who needs the lecturer. In terms of distance, the relationship between the speaker and the hearer is between a student and a lecturer; thus, it is assumed that there is a social distance that does not allow the speaker to command the hearer; moreover, the conversation happens in the formal context. In terms of power, even the hearer has higher power toward the speaker because of his/her position as a lecturer of the speaker. In this case, the lecturer is supposed to have the power to control because the student needs the lecturer in this situation. Then in the case of the ranking of imposition (R), the speaker also seems to threaten the face of the hearer by commanding. The Banjarese culture adopted by the speaker and the hearer adheres to the value that politeness does matter, taking into account the age gap between the speaker and the hearer. Especially when viewed from the side of the hearer as a teacher, he/ she is a person who should be respected. Overall, the speaker’s utterance shows an act that does not respect older and respected people. Conversation 6 Student Maaf bu ternyata jadwal kami berubah dan pagi ini harus ppl, ketemunya tidak jadi pagi ini ya buu Sorry, ma’am, it turns out that our schedule has changed and this morning we must have ppl, reschedule our meeting ya ma’am This conversation occurred after the student and the lecturer agreed to meet based on the time scheduled. However, the student tried to cancel the meeting because he/she had another program to attend. The utterance he/she spoke, “reschedule our meeting ya ma'am,” shows that the student is trying to control the lecturer by canceling the appointment. It is clear that the student in this situation does not show his/her politeness. Thus, to some extent, he/she has violated the lecturer’s negative face. In terms of D, the student is less aware that between him/her and the lecturer, there is a social distance. By saying that, it is as if he In Pr es s 65Banjarese College Students’ .... (Menik Winiharti; Ahmad Mubarok) has a close relationship with the lecturer. In terms of P, the student acts like he/she has more power than the lecturer, as evidenced by his/her efforts to cancel the appointment with the lecturer on the grounds that he/she has another activity. Then in terms of R, the student seems to threaten the lecturer’s face by trying to control the lecturer. Regarding the factors that influence the violation of positive politeness among students with a Banjarese cultural background, there are some that can be implied. The first is the social distance and the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. This factor greatly affects the level of positive politeness among students. The closer the social distance is, the lower the level of politeness (and vice versa). The second factor is the context of the conversation. A certain context influences the intention of an utterance in the sense that the context deals with a situation that relates to an event that becomes the background of the utterance. The speech’s non-linguistic environment may be used as a tool to understand the meaning and purpose of an utterance. The next factor is the desire to over-praise the hearer (maambung). In Banjarese terms, the word maambung refers to excessive praise and paying attention to the hearer’s needs excessively. This is most likely to cause the violation of positive politeness, which is too threatening to the face of the speaker themselves. The speaker excessively praises the hearer for getting more attention and benefits. The fourth is deliberately asking for reasons. In this factor, speakers do not necessarily blame the addressee. The utterance is often in the form of interrogative sentences, which sometimes contain violations of politeness that indirectly threaten the addressee’s face. In addition, the speaker does not often pay attention to the variables of D, P, or R. The fifth factor is the rejection of something. This factor is often the cause of positive politeness violations for speakers who use strategies to avoid disagreement by pretending to agree, pseudo-agreement, white lies, or hedging opinions. This is most likely because speakers or hearers usually speak using interrogative answers (answers in the form of questions). In addition, such refusal can also be a statement. In refusing, students with a Banjarese cultural background may use polite language to get permitted by the lecturer. All of these factors confirm the findings of Selgas (2022), Fitriyani & Andriyanti (2020), and Mahmud (2019), who have shown that the participants’ cultural backgrounds influence their choice of politeness strategies. CONCLUSIONS To some extent, university students indeed still have politeness toward their lecturers when they communicate online, even though a few of them also show violations. The findings show that there are eleven positive politeness strategies from forty-three collected utterances used by students at a university in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, with a Banjarese cultural background. These eleven strategies are those paying attention to the hearer’s preferences, desires, and needs; the strategy of exaggerating attention, approval, and sympathy to the hearer; strategies to use group identity markers; the strategy to seek approval by repeating part or all of the addressee’s utterances; the strategy to avoid disagreement by pretending to agree or pseudo agreement, white lies, hedging opinions; the strategy showing matters that have similarities through small talk and presupposition; the strategy of using jokes; the strategy that expresses understanding or understand the hearer’s desires; the strategy to give promises; the strategy that involves speakers and hearers in activities; and the strategy of asking questions or asking for reasons. However, there are five utterances that indicate violations of students’ positive politeness. These five utterances all threaten the negative face of the hearer and do not obey the rules of the variables of distance, power, and ranking of imposition. In addition, the factors that may influence the violation of positive politeness are social distance, the context of the conversation, the desire to excessively praise, deliberately ask for reasons and rejection. Lastly, the factors that may influence the students’ politeness are distance, context, desire to over-praise the hearer, deliberately asking for reasons, and rejection. Overall, this research implies that, to some extent, the way undergraduate students communicate with their lecturers has changed, especially when they do it through online chat applications. Lecturers may anticipate this phenomenon and possibly give advice to their students when they meet in the classroom. Besides, this research is limited to online interaction between a few lecturers and undergraduate students in Banjarmasin. Thus, it may provide insight to further research to be conducted in other areas to find whether there are similarities or differences in the way the lecturers and students communicate online. REFERENCES Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farida, F., & Yuliana, D. (2019). Politeness strategies in WhatsApp text messaging between Sundanese students and lecturers. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language, Literature, Education, and Culture (ICOLLITE 2018), 257, 172-175. Fitriyani, S., & Andriyanti, E. (2020). Teacher and students’ politeness strategies in EFL classroom interactions. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 259-273. http://dx.doi. org/10.21093/ijeltal.v4i2.473. Gervasio, M., & Humphrey, K. I. (2019). Politeness strategies employed by Chuka University students in their social media discourse. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 7(8), In Pr es s 66 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 17 No. 1, July 2023, 59-66 53-64. Hutahaean, D. T., Herman, H., & Girsang, A. F. F. (2021). An analysis of the politeness strategies utilized by Pesbukers in their variety show. Wanastra: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 13(1), 39-46. https://doi. org/10.31294/w.v13i1.9218. Julia, J., Kurnia, D., & Sudin, A. (2018). The impact of social media on communication politeness: A survey of prospective primary school teacher students. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 5(3), 125-130. https://doi. org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v5i3.14492. Mahmud, M. (2019). The use of politeness strategies in the classroom context by English university students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15258. Mâță, L. (2022). Ethical rules of online communication between university teachers and students. In L. Mâță (Ed.), Ethical Use of Information Technology in Higher Education (pp. 99-112). Nugrahanto, A. D., & Hartono, R. (2020). Politeness strategies in lecturer-students classroom interaction at the Biology class Sanata Dharma University. International Conference on Science and Education and Technology (ISET 2019), 443(Iset 2019), 727- 731. Pramujiono, A. (2015). Representasi kesantunan positif- negatif Brown dan Levinson dalam wacana dialog di televisi. Bahastra, 33(2), 43-72. http://dx.doi. org/10.26555/bahastra.v33i2.2717. Rahayuningsih, D., Saleh, M., & Fitriati, S. W. (2020). The realization of politeness strategies in EFL teacher- students classroom interaction. English Education Journal, 10(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej. v10i1.33822. Rasyikin, C. (2018). Penyimpangan prinsip kesantunan berbahasa Indonesia di lingkungan SMP Negeri 2 desa Tampiala kecamatan Dampal Selatan kabupaten Tolitoli. Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 3(5), 1-10. Rejeki, S., & Azizah, A. N. (2019). Politeness strategies performed by EFL learners’ with English native speakers in medical students. Humaniora, 10(1), 41- 46. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v10i1.5312. Selgas, G. S. (2022). Politeness strategies on students’ responses to teacher’s online announcements. International Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.55493/5051. v7i1.4508. Shalihah, M., & Zuhdi, M. N. (2020). Language politeness in students’ text messages sent to the lecturers through WhatsApp application: A sociopragmatic study. EnJourMe (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 5(2), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.26905/enjourme.v5i2.4926. Trang, N. M. (2019). Exploring university students’ politeness via Vietnamese students’ emails of requests. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(3), 84-99. http://dx.doi. org/10.29252/ijree.4.3.84. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.