Politeness and Power in EFL Thesis Defenses: A Discursive Pragmatic Analysis of Institutional Oral Assessments
Abstract
Background. The study highlights a gap in research on politeness in EFL academic interaction, noting that previous studies focused on classroom discourse analyses. It emphasizes the need to examine real interaction during thesis defenses, particularly the influence of institutional power on sequential politeness practices in high-stakes assessment.
Purpose. This study examines the distribution and negotiation of politeness strategies between examiners and candidates during EFL thesis defenses, highlighting the interactional construction of institutional authority and face management in academic assessment.
Method. The study combines quantitative and qualitative analysis. It is based on eight undergraduate thesis defense sessions involving eleven examiners and eight candidates. The analysis covers 772 utterances coded according to Brown and Levinson’s politeness framework. The quantitative results show how politeness strategies were distributed across participant roles, while the sequential discourse analysis shows how these strategies were used and negotiated during the defense interaction. Since the utterances come from the same speakers and sessions, the statistical findings are interpreted cautiously and used mainly to identify patterns in the data.
Results. The findings revealed patterned variation in politeness strategy use between examiners and candidates, χ²(3) = 23.94, p < .001, with a moderate association (Cramér’s V = .346). Data showed that negative politeness was the most dominant strategy (58.5%). Candidates relied heavily on negative politeness (73%) to minimize imposition and display deference, whereas examiners employed a more varied distribution of strategies, including positive politeness (34%) and bald-on-record forms (20%), to manage evaluation, procedural control, and institutional authority. Sequential analysis further showed that examiner authority was most visible during questioning and challenge phases through turn management, epistemic stance-taking, interruptions, and repair sequences.
Conclusion. In summary, these results demonstrate that politeness strategies function as interactional resources for negotiating institutional power and evaluative relationships in EFL thesis defenses. Thus, the findings contribute empirically to research on institutional discourse and pedagogically support the inclusion of pragmatic preparation in EFL thesis defense training.
Downloads
References
Amer, F., Buragohain, D., & Suryani, I. (2020). Politeness Strategies in making requests in Jordanian call-centre interactions. Education and Linguistics Research, 6(1), 69-86 https://doi.org/10.5296/elr.v6i1.16283
Banat, S., Al-Natour, M. M., Almahasees, Z., & Al-Omari, N. M. A. (2024). A Pragmatic analysis of negative politeness strategies employed by Jordanian professors. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, 22(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.57239/pjlss-2024-22.1.00545
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, 22(4), 1-333.
Chaqmaqchee, O. M., & Jasim, Z. F. (2022). EFL undergraduate learners’ politeness strategies in the speech act of disagreement. World Journal of English Language, 12(8), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n8p1
Chen, L. C., Lin, C. Y., & Nguyen, K. C. (2024). The use of questions in master’s oral defences in English as an academic lingua franca in universities. ESP Today, 12(2), 269–294. https://doi.org/10.18485/ESPTODAY.2024.12.2.4
Creswell, W. J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, 53(9), 1–304.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. In Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research (1st Edition). Routledge. 1-230. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692388
Deveci, T. (2023). Compliment response strategies in institutional discourse within an Emirati context: Focus on power and gender differences in university student-professor exchanges in English. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.12008
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds) (1992), Talk at work (3–65). Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Discourse in social change. In Fairclough, N. (Ed) (2001) Language and power. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250-13
Fan, W. (2025). Impoliteness, power and ethics. Journal of Politeness Research, 21(2), 319–341. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2024-0070
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. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v4i2.473
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. In Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788387
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
Kamlasi, I., Pratama, H., Wahyuni, S., & Bahri, S. (2025). Exploring higher-order and lower-order oral questions: A revised blooms’ taxonomy of cognitive aspects in undergraduate EFL thesis defense examinations. Veredas Do Direito, 5(22), 1-33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n5.3803
Kamlasi, I., Pratama, H., Wahyuni, S., & Bahri, S. (2026). Speech act analysis of oral presentation of thesis abstracts by Undergraduate EFL thesis defence. English Learning Innovation, 7(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.22219/englie.v7i1.42562
Kamlasi, I., & Sahan, A. (2022). An analysis on politeness of non-verbal communication in an English as a foreign language classroom. VELES Voices of English Language Education Society, 6(1), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v6i1.5190
Keyton, J. (2018). Interaction analysis: An introduction. In Brauner, E., Boos, M., & Kolbe, M. (Eds.), (2018). The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis. Cambridge University Pres. 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.002
Kusmanto, H., & Widodo, P. (2022). positive politeness strategies during online learning: a cyberpragmatic study. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(3), 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i3.24021
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Latrech, A., & Alazzawie, A. (2023). The use of politeness strategies in teacher–student interaction in the Omani EFL classroom. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 3(2), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/sjls-06-2022-0052
Lin, C. Y., & Lau, K. (2021). “I found it very special and interesting”: Evaluative language in Master’s thesis defenses in Taiwan universities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (53), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101035
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
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
Maros, M., & Rosli, L. (2017). Politeness strategies in twitter updates of female english language studies Malaysian undergraduates. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(1), 132-149. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-10
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organizations in the classroom. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
Muliadi, N., Ratminingsih, N. M., & Marsakawati, N. P. E. (2023). Politeness strategies applied by students in the context of classroom in vocational school. Lingua Scientia, 30(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.23887/ls.v30i1.52052
Mulyono, H., Amalia, D. R., & Suryoputro, G. (2019). Politeness strategies in teacher-student WhatsApp communication. PASAA, (58), 295- 318. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.58.1.11
Murphy, J. (2019). I’m sorry you are such an arsehole: (non-)canonical apologies and their implications for (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 223-232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.014
Pan, Z. (2025). The Use of I Think as Different Types of markers in English conversations. Languages, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10060145
Pratama, H., Nurkamto, J., Rustono, & Marmanto, S. (2017). Second language learners’ comprehension of conversational implicatures in english. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 23(3), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2303-04
Samad, I. A., & Adnan, Z. (2017). Using a genre-based approach to prepare undergraduate students for an english thesis defence examination: an experimental study to address the ‘pedagogical controversy.’ Linguistik Indonesia, 35(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v35i1.56
Samad, I. A., Fitriani, S. S., Nomnian, S., Ys, S. B., & Sofia. (2024). Students’ and lecturers’ experiences in courses provided for the english thesis defense examinations. Studies in English Language and Education, 11(1), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i1.33080
Sapitri, P. A., Chasanah, A., Putri, A. A., & Paulima, J. (2020). Exploring Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies: An explanation on the nature of the politeness phenomenon. REiLA: Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, 1(3), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v1i3.3801
Suparno, D., Fitriana, I., Nadra, N., Gunawan, F., & Boulahnane, S. (2023). Redefining politeness: Power and status in the digital age. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2218195
Susandi, A., Zamzani, Prabowo, M., & Yulianto, B. (2024). Portrait of students’ language politeness in elementary school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(1), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i1.24872
Utari, A. R. P., Mujiyanto, J., Suwandi, & Fitriati, S. W. (2025). Analyzing attitudinal language in undergraduate thesis defenses: An appraisal theory. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(12), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025576
Valdellon, I. G. R., & Cuarte, R. R. (2024). A pragmatic analysis on politeness strategies used in online class. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(6), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.30878
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Wei, J. (2024). I think and I know: Authority and solidarity in UK government Covid briefings. Journal of Pragmatics, (223), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.02.002
Yang, X., & Maarof, N. (2024). Effects of exposure to L2 input and language proficiency on pragmatic competence during study abroad. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i2.1118
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zhou, L., & Zhang, S. (2022). A multifunctional analysis of off-record indirectness in Chinese interactions. Language Sciences, (90), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101459
Copyright (c) 2026 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
