Politeness Strategies in Cross-Cultural Academic Communication between Mandailing Natal Students and Culturally Diverse Lecturers

Authors

  • Akhrif Yahsya STAIN Mandailing Natal
  • Didik Santoso UIN Sumatera Utara
  • Joemar Antonio Philippine Christian University
  • Suadi Suadi STAIN Madina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46870/lets.v7i2.2193

Keywords:

Academic Communication, Lecturer–student Interaction, Politeness Strategies, Pragmatics, Sociopragmatics

Abstract

Although politeness in academic communication has been widely discussed in pragmatic studies, limited research has examined how students from local cultural backgrounds employ politeness strategies when interacting with lecturers from different cultural backgrounds in Indonesian higher education settings. This gap is important to address because differences in cultural norms and communication styles may lead to misunderstandings and affect the effectiveness of lecturer–student interaction. This study aims to investigate the politeness strategies used by Mandailing Natal students when interacting with lecturers from different cultural backgrounds at STAIN Mandailing Natal. This study employed a qualitative pragmatic research design with a sociopragmatic approach. The participants consisted of 15 Mandailing Natal students and 6 lecturers from non-Mandailing cultural backgrounds. The data were collected through classroom observations, audio-recorded lecturer–student interactions, academic consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and field notes. The data were analyzed using pragmatic discourse analysis based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. The findings reveal that students predominantly employed negative politeness strategies, including indirect expressions, hedging, apologetic forms, and softened statements to show respect and minimize imposition toward lecturers. Students frequently avoided direct disagreement and tended to communicate cautiously due to cultural values emphasizing respect for authority and social harmony. In contrast, lecturers generally used more direct communication styles when giving feedback, instructions, and asking questions. These differences in communication styles sometimes created misunderstandings during classroom discussions and thesis supervision sessions. Students often hesitated to ask for clarification, while lecturers sometimes interpreted students’ silence as passiveness or lack of preparation. The study concludes that politeness strategies in lecturer–student interaction are strongly influenced by cultural values, social hierarchy, and academic roles. The findings highlight the importance of pragmatic and intercultural awareness in higher education communication in order to reduce misunderstandings and support more effective academic interaction.

References

Anugrawati, N., & Syam, U. K. (2024). Politeness Strategies in Selected Academic Settings: Insights from Lecturer-Student Interactions in Eastern Indonesia. REiLA : Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, 6(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v6i3.20409

Basuki, R. (2015). Kesantunan Berbahasa Dalam Wacana Interaksi Komunikasi di Lingkungan Universitas Bengkulu. BAHTERA : Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra, 14(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.21009/BAHTERA.141.02

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. . (2017). Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics : Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. St. Jerome Publishing.

Fairclough, Norman. (1989). Language and power. Longman.

Gass, S. M., Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Mackey, A. (2013). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606006

Goffman, Erving. (1967). Interaction ritual; essays on face-to-face behavior. Doubleday.

Gusnawaty, G., & Nurwati, A. (2019). A Learning Model of Bahasa Indonesia as a Foreign Language Based on Local Intercultural Politeness. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i1.23164

Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0018

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Hutchby, Ian., & Wooffitt, Robin. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance And Engagement: A Model Of Interaction In Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Jazeri, M., Soengkono Madayani, N., & IAIN Tulungagung, S. (2020). Kesantunan Positif Dan Negatif Dosen Dalam Interaksi Perkuliahan di IAIN Tulungagung. Jurnal Bahasa Lingua Scientia, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.21274/ls.2020.12.1.147-166

Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139382717

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009955

Kramsch, C. J. . (2019). Language and Culture. Oxford University Press.

Leech, G. N. . (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford University Press.

Locher, M. A. (2018). Politeness. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0916.pub2

Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work 1. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 1.

Marlina. (2022). Interpersonal Communication of Lecturers in Shaping the Student’s Character of STAIN Mandailing Natal.

Pasaribu, A. N., Saragih, E., & Gea, A. (2021). Politeness in Thesis Consultation by WhatsApp: Do Lecturers and Students Apply Different Strategies? Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.6376

Patton, M. Quinn. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.

Silverman. D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Data: A Guide to the Principles of Qualitative Research. Sage.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Sudar, S., Sukarni, S., Setiyono, J., Widoyoko, S. E. P., & Irianto, S. (2025). Language politeness in EFL student-lecturer interactions through technology-assisted communication. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v15i1.69949

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827826

Watts, R. J. . (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

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

Witsel, M. (2003). Teaching And Learning Issues In The Multicultural Classroom. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:31780032

Zulkarnain, I., Asmara, S., & Sutatminingsih, R. (2023). Tutur: language and traditional communication in the Mandailing community, Indonesia. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2211816

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30