Twitter, Politeness, Self-Presentation

  • Maria SifianouEmail author
  • Spiridoula Bella


Responding to the recent call by politeness researchers for the need to study lay understandings of politeness, Sifianou and Bella explore the potential value of Twitter data as a source for studying lay people’s understandings of politeness. Focusing on public text data in Greek drawn from Twitter’s huge repository, they isolated 195 tweets which included the keyword phrases “politeness is/is not” in an attempt to identify specific views on what politeness means to Greek posters. What emerged from the analysis is that politeness is viewed in both positive and negative terms and is not restricted to verbal behavior. In addition, the views expressed appear to reflect the affordances of the medium which offer a platform for users to claim authority and knowledgeability.



This is part of a more extensive project on the concept of im/politeness in Greek funded by the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Special Research Account 70/4/11099). We are grateful to Harriet Mitrakou, who compiled the corpus using her expertise in corpus linguistics.


  1. Aijmer, K. (2015). Pragmatic markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 195–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Androutsopoulos, J. (2010). Localizing the global on the participatory web. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 203–231). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. Scholar
  5. Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2005). Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 18, 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2012). The narrative construction of identities in critical education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakhtin, M. M. (1953/1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beeching, K. (2006). Politeness markers in French: Post-posed quoi in the tourist office. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 255–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Bolander, B., & Locher, M. (2014). Doing sociolinguistic research on computer-mediated data: A review of four methodological issues. Discourse, Context & Media, 3, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolívar, A. (2008). Perceptions of (im)politeness in Venezuelan Spanish: The role of evaluation in interaction. Pragmatics, 18(4), 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014a). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014b). Editorial: The pragmatics of textual participation in the social media. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from
  17. boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January 6). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. HICSS-43. Kauai, HI: IEEE.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bucholtz, M. (1999). ‘Why be normal?’ Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28, 203–223.Google Scholar
  20. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2003). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 368–394). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7, 584–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Clancy, B. (2013). Do you want to do it yourself like? Hedging in Irish traveller and settled family discourse. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 129–146). London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  24. Culpeper, J. (2009). The metalanguage of impoliteness: Using sketch engine to explore the Oxford English corpus. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 64–86). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Culpeper, J. (2015). Epilogue: The “how” and the “what” of (im)politeness. In M. Terkourafi (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (pp. 267–275). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dayter, D. (2014). Self-praise in microblogging. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 169–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  30. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a). Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 535–559.Google Scholar
  31. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In R. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structure and social interaction (pp. 540–563). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bou-Franch, P. (2010). A genre approach to impoliteness in a Spanish television talk show: Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 689–723.Google Scholar
  33. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Sifianou, M. (2017). (Im)politeness and identity. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 227–256). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. García Vizcaíno, M. J. (2006). Using oral corpora in contrastive studies of linguistic politeness. In E. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse (pp. 117–142). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  35. Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Storytelling on the go: Breaking news stories as a travelling narrative genre. In M. Hatavara, L.-C. Hydén, & M. Hyvärinen (Eds.), The travelling concepts of narrative (pp. 201–224). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gilpin, D. R. (2011). Working the Twittersphere: Microblogging as professional identity construction. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 232–250). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  39. Halavais, A. (2014). Structure of Twitter: Social and technical. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 29–41). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  40. Hardaker, C., & McGlashan, M. (2016). “Real men don’t hate women”: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2011). The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. New Media & Society, 13(5), 824–842. Scholar
  42. Haugh, M. (2010). Intercultural (im)politeness and the micro-macro issue. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 139–166). Belin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1), 1–37. urn:nbn:de:0009-7-7611, SSN 1860-2029. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.deGoogle Scholar
  45. Herring, S. C. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse Web 2.0: Language in the media (pp. 1–26). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3–32). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hirschon, R. (2001). Freedom, solidarity and obligation: The socio-cultural context of Greek politeness. In A. Bayraktaroğlu & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the forty-second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  49. Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. Retrieved April 2, 2017, from
  50. Johnson, T. J., Zhang, W., Bichard, S. L., & Seltzer, T. (2011). United we stand? Online social network sites and civic engagement. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 185–207). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., et al. (2014). The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Greek cultural characteristics and academic writing. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 23, 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Locher, M. A. (2010). Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 1–5. Scholar
  58. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. Scholar
  60. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McEnery, T., Baker, P., & Cheepen, C. (2002). Lexis, indirectness and politeness in operator calls. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers in corpus research (pp. 53–69). Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Metzger, D. (2016). Highly tweetable: 5000+ awesome quotes to use on Twitter and social media. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  63. Mikros, G. K., & Perifanos, K. A. (2013). Authorship attribution in Greek tweets using multilevel author’s n-gram profiles. In E. Hovy, V. Markman, C. H. Martell, & E. Uthus (Eds.), Papers from the 2013 AAAI spring symposium analyzing microtext (pp. 25–27). Stanford, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ogiermann, E. (2009). On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Page, R. (2014). Saying ‘sorry’: Corporate apologies posted on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pak, A., & Paroubek, P. (2010). Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from
  70. Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1989–2006.Google Scholar
  71. Puschmann, C., Bruns, A., Mahrt, M., Weller, K., & Burgess, J. (2014). Epilogue: Why study Twitter? In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 425–432). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  72. Puschmann, C., & Burgess, J. (2014). The politics of Twitter data. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 43–54). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  73. Rogers, R. (2014). Foreword: Debanalising Twitter: The transformation of an object of study. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. ix–xxvi). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  74. Schnurr, S., Marra, M., & Holmes, J. (2008). Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 211–229). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  75. Senft, T. M. (2012). Microcelebrity and the branded self. Retrieved from
  76. Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sifianou, M., & Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). Rapport management theory and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2–3(3), 335–346.Google Scholar
  79. Squires, L. (2015). Twitter: Design, discourse, and the implications of public text. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 239–255). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Taylor, C. (2013). Negative politeness forms and impoliteness functions in institutional discourse: A corpus-based approach. In B. L. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 209–231). London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  81. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Tsaliki, L. (2010). Technologies of political mobilization and civil society in Greece: The wildfires of summer 2007. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(2), 151–161. Scholar
  85. Watts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 43–69). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  86. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 1–17). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  88. Zafiropoulos, K., Antoniadis, K., & Vrana, V. (2014). Sharing followers in e-government Twitter accounts: The case of Greece. Future Internet, 6, 337–358. Scholar
  89. Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13(5), 788–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and Literature, School of PhilosophyNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations