Purpose of the study: The paper aims to unfold politeness in online communication among retailers and clients and debates some ways where cultural values of communication can be taught and thus re-learned.

Methodology: The qualitative approach was adopted where discourse analysis method used to review and analyse the updates and comments from Facebook and WhatsApp of conveniently collected data for this study.

Main Findings: The study suggest a deterioration of cultural values in communication is at an alarming level among retailers and clients in online communication.

Applications of this study: The study will benefit online businesses. Area of studies include business management and communication. Other sub- areas include culture and ethic relations.

Novelty/Originality of this study: The study is new to Malaysian business context where multi-racial and multilingual environment play significant roles.


  1. Arendholz, J. (2013). (In) Appropriate Online Behaviour: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publication Company.
  2. Brennan, S. E. & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). “Why do Electronic Conversations Seem Less Polite? The Costs and Benefits of Hedging.” Proceedings, International Joint Conference on Work Activities, Coordination, and Collaboration (WACC ’99), 227-235, San Francisco, CA.
  3. Chen, G. M. & Ng, Y.M.M. (2016). Third-person perception of online comments: Civil ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior. 55, 736-742 Accessed April 15, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015. 10.014
  4. Chen, G. M. & Ng, Y.M.M. (2017). Nasty online comments anger you more than me, but nice ones make me as happy as you. Computers. 71, 181-188. Accessed April 15, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017. 02.010
  5. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and Internet. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics. New York: Routledge.
  7. Ernisa Marzuki. (2013). Linguistic Features in SMS Apologies by Malay Native Speakers. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 179 13(3), Retrieved from http://journalarticle. ukm.my/6601/1/4228-9737-1-SM.pdf
  8. Haugh M. and Watanabe, Y. (2017). In Vine, B. (ed.). (Im)politeness theory in book: Handbook of Language in the Workplace. London: Routledge. pp.65-76
  9. Hermes Katz M. (2016) Politeness Theory and the Classification of English Speech Acts Politeness Theory and the Classification of English Speech Acts. Unpublished thesis. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/16605
  10. Kujath, C. L. (2011). “Facebook and Myspace: Complement or Substitute for Face-To-Face Interaction?” Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking 14:75-8. https://doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.031
  11. Mak B.C.N. and Lee C. (2015). Swearing Is E-Business: Expletives in Instant Messaging in Hong Kong Workplaces. In: Darics E. (ed) Digital Business Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057 /9781137405579_7
  12. Maras, M. H. (2012). Computer Forensic. London: Jones and Barlett Learning International.
  13. Om Prakash and Rajesh Kumar (2017). Linguistic (Im)politeness and Public Discourse in Media Sphere. International Journal of Innovations in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 3(1).
  14. Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, S., Dhruv G., Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. September 2013, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 547–566
  15. Redmond, M. V. (2015). Face and Politeness Theories. English Technical Reports and White Papers. 2. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_reports/2
  16. Rosner, L., Winter, S., and Kramer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior. 58, 461-470 https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb .2016.01.022
  17. Samoriski, J. (2002). Issues in Cyberspace. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  18. Shortis, T. (2001). The Language of ICT. London: Routledge.