Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte

Kjell Vandevyvere

Politeness strategies in B2C communication on social media.

A case study on Volkswagen Belgium’s Facebook page.

Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van

Master in de Meertalige Communicatie

Academiejaar 2015-2016

Promotor Prof. Dr. Van PraetCo-promotor: Ms. Xiaorui ZhangVakgroep Vertalen,Tolken en Communicatie

Page � of �1 74

Page � of �2 74

AcknowledgementsI wish to thank several people for their contribution to this paper and their support throughout this process. First of all, I would like to thank my promoter Prof. Dr. Van Praet as well as my co-promotor Ms. Xiaorui Zhang for their professional guidance and advice. I am very grateful for the time they have spent to find and introduce interesting articles, discuss ideas and problems, give feedback about my writing and partially proofread this paper. Secondly, I would also like to thank my friends and family for their support, especially my dear friend Daniel Murphy, who helped me with translations and also proofread this paper.

Page � of �3 74

TableofContents1. Introduction 6

1.1. Volkswagen in Belgium 61.2. Research purpose 71.3. Research questions 7

2. Theoretical framework 82.1. Discourse Analysis 82.2. Face and Face Work 92.3. Face-threatening acts 10

2.3.1. Acts that threaten the other’s negative face 102.3.2. Acts that threaten the other’s positive face 112.3.3. Acts that threaten the speaker’s face 11

2.4. Politeness Theory: three super-strategies 122.4.1. Off-record strategy 132.4.2. Negative politeness strategies 142.4.3. Positive politeness strategies 152.4.4. Selecting the appropriate strategy 16

2.5. Sociological variables 182.6. Face work on Social networking sites 192.7. Online communities on Facebook 20

3. Research Methodology 223.1. Why Volkswagen Belgium and Politeness Theory? 223.2. Data collection method 223.3. Data analysis 24

4. Data Analysis 264.1. General observations 264.2. Positive strategies in category one 26

4.2.1. Notice, attend to other’s needs and wants 274.2.2. In-group identity markers 284.2.3. Avoid disagreement 284.2.4. Presuppose or assume common ground 304.2.5. Joke 314.2.6. Indicate similar wants 324.2.7. Offer 334.2.8. Promise 354.2.9. Be optimistic 364.2.10. Include VW and addressee in the same activity 374.2.11. Give reasons 38

Page � of �4 74

Word count: 17.969 words

4.3.Negative strategies in category one 394.3.1. Question 394.3.2.Hedge 404.3.3. Apologise: admit the infringement 414.3.4. Apologise: overwhelming reasons 414.3.5. Impersonalise 414.3.6. Go on record as incurring a debt 43

4.4.Positive strategies in category two 434.4.1. Notice, attend to the other’s needs and wants 434.4.2. Intensified interest 464.4.3. Seek agreement 474.4.4. Avoid disagreement 484.4.5. Assume or presuppose common ground 484.4.6. Joke 494.4.7. Indicate similar wants 504.4.8. Offer 504.4.9. Promise 514.4.10. Be optimistic 534.4.11. Include VW and the addressee in the same activity 544.4.12. Give reasons 554.4.13. Ask for reasons 564.4.14. Fulfil the addressee’s wants (gift) 56

4.5.Negative strategies in category two 574.5.1. Question 574.5.2. Hedge 584.5.3. Minimise the imposition 594.5.4. Apologise: overwhelming reasons 594.5.5. Impersonalise 604.5.6. Go on record as not indebting the addressee 60

4.6. Summary 615. Conclusion 636. References 657. Appendices 68

Page � of �5 74

1. Introduc9onOn September 18 2015 the American Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Violation of the Clean Air Act to Volkswagen AG, alleging that multiple models were equipped with software that circumvents EPA emission standards for nitrogen oxides. The initial purpose of this study was to analyse Volkswagen’s responses to this ‘Dieselgate’ crisis on their Belgian Facebook Page from a Politeness Theory perspective. In Belgium, the crisis was not as prevalent as in the USA, however, and therefore the analysis of the effect of Politeness Theory strategies (as described by Brown and Levinson in 1978 and 1987) on customer interaction will be twofold. Not only the strategies used by the company to deal with customer responses relating to matters concerning the misleading software will be discussed, but there will also be a broader focus on strategies which are used in neutral situations or in interactions where fans show a certain sympathy towards Volkswagen.

Although Politeness Theory is nearly forty years old and it was not designed for new media like Facebook, it is still a widely used instrument for discourse analysis. Politeness Theory has been used many times to analyse language-in-use in crisis situations and research in computer-mediated discourse is burgeoning, yet there is still limited research on the use of politeness strategies on Facebook (Bedijs, Held & Maaß 2014).

In this Introduction I will elaborate about the Dieselgate crisis and the Volkswagen company in general. Afterwards, the research purpose and research questions of this study will be presented. In the second chapter I will provide a theoretical framework focusing on Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory, Face, Face-Threatening Acts and social variables that are involved in facework. The third chapter explains the research methodology used for collecting and analysing the data, while the next chapter will contain the data analysis itself. The last chapter is the discussion and conclusion of this case study.

1.1.VolkswageninBelgiumIn Belgium, Volkswagens and other cars from the Volkswagen Group are distributed by D’Ieteren Auto. This family-owned business has been distributing cars from the Volkswagen Group for more than 65 years now. It is the biggest car distributor in Belgium with a market share of around 20%. As many other car distributors and dealers they were affected by the Dieselgate crisis, which was disclosed on September 18 2015. (http://www.new.volkswagen.be/nl/volkswagen/geschiedenis.html)

This Dieselgate scandal can be referred to as what Gee calls a ‘Conversation with a capital C’. “Conversations are public debates, arguments, motifs, issues, or themes that large numbers of people in a society or social group know about” (Gee 1999, p112). Everything that is being said

Page � of �6 74

about this subject belongs to the conversation and people know what the different perspectives are, even though they only agree with one of them.

1.2.ResearchpurposeThis study aims to explore which mitigating strategies might be most successful in different situations: which strategies are best to deal with face-loss after a crisis, which are best to build positive relationships with customers and how do they influence customer satisfaction and interaction? This study contributes to research on crisis communication on social media, and it could also point out which strategies are useful to improve customer interaction.

1.3.Researchques9ons1. Which negative and positive politeness strategies are used in face-threatening situations, such as the Dieselgate crisis and complaints, and which of them help to solve the issue?2. Which negative and positive politeness strategies are used in face-enhancing and face-neutral situations and which of them work best to increase engagement?

Page � of �7 74

2. Theore9calframeworkPoliteness Theory is an important concept in discourse analysis. It is based on Goffman’s concept of face, i.e. a positive image of oneself that each individual wants to maintain (1972). Interacting with others may damage this image, though, and therefore facework is needed in interactions. In their theory, Brown and Levison (1992) discuss several mitigating strategies that may be used in attempt to maintain face. Their claim that these strategies are universal has received some criticism, though. Ide (1989) and Matsumoto (1989), among others, have critiqued the ethnocentric bias of the theory. Although this criticism may be partially justified, it is not important for this study, as the study focusses on a case in the Western world. To facilitate the discussion of this case, some key concepts such as ‘face’, ‘facework’ and ‘face-threatening acts’ will be introduced first. Later in this chapter, some important sociological variables and Brown and Levinson’s mitigating strategies will also be discussed.

2.1.DiscourseAnalysisBrown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory is a particular framework that is used for discourse analysis. To improve the understanding of this theory, a short introduction about discourse analysis might be useful.

It is impossible to talk about discourse analysis without mentioning James Paul Gee, who wrote many publications about the subject. Simply said, discourse is the study of language in use (Fairclough 2014/Gee 1999), but actually it is a much more complicated concept, because it is used in many disciplinary fields and, consequently, it has many overlapping and conflicting definitions (Fairclough 2014). In summary, discourse is a very important concept “for understanding society and human responses to it, as well as for understanding language itself” (Jaworski & Coupland 1999).

Language is interesting to analyse, because “each time a person uses language, that person does so in ways that fit the conventions (‘are grammatical’) and that, at the same time, are unique, expressing what that person has to say and how they have chosen to say it” (Gee 1999, p.16). In the disciplinary field of discourse analysis, researchers consider why the content is written like it is, in what alternative ways it could have been written, and why it has not been written in one of these alternative ways.

Language is always affected by its context. Cicourel (1992) states that language and other practices are interdependent. To understand communication, it is important to understand the context. Gee (1999) calls this combination of language and context ‘Discourse’ with a capital ‘D’.

Page � of �8 74

Ide & Watts (1992) argue that Politeness Theory has an important advantage over other theories concerned with politeness, because it is based on Goffman’s notion of face and face work. Moreover, it is linked with Grice’s maxims (1967), without having to alter them. Central in Brown and Levinson’s theory (1992) is a rational person who chooses to follow or deviate from Grice’s maxims in order to maintain his face and his interlocutor’s face in the most efficient way possible.

2.2.FaceandFaceWorkFace and face work are concepts that were described by Goffman in his essay ‘On Face Work’. He defines ‘face’ as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (1972, p.5). The concept ‘line’ that is used in this definition is a “pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (1972, p.5). Brown & Levinson define face as “something that is emotionally invested and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction” (1992, p.13). Goffman (1972) argues that every person has a face that he or she will try to maintain, but at the same time each person is also expected to respect the face and feelings of the other interlocutors. Face is not always present, though, as it is only foregrounded in communication, especially when it is under threat (O’Driscoll 1996). “The assumption that every socialised individual has a face turns social interaction in the interplay of reciprocal face maintenance and face saving into a constant process of impression management” (Bedijs, Held & Maaß 2014, p.17). We can conclude that face is constantly affected by interaction and therefore not a stable concept. In interaction, speakers have to cooperate and negotiate every move to co-construct each other’s faces.Naturally, a speaker will tend to use certain strategies to maintain his own face and the face of others. Sometimes the speaker will primarily want to defend his own face and in other situations the emphasis may be on the protection of the other’s face. In general, though, these two perspectives may be expected at the same time. According to Brown and Levinson (1992), the reason for this cooperation in maintaining face is that everyone’s face depends on the maintenance of the other’s face. Goffman (1972) calls these protective strategies facework. It is used to counteract threats to someone’s face, but the amount of facework that is needed in a particular situation depends on several factors. This will be further discussed in the next subchapters. Facework “is not a social requirement that must always be satisfied, but a means of manipulating a given relationship and/or situation” (Lim 1994, p.227). It reflects the speaker’s real relational intentions and conversational aims (Lim 1994). As already stated, it is a silent agreement that all interlocutors will try to avoid destroying someone else’s face, although the

Page � of �9 74

maintenance of face is only a condition and not the objective of interaction. Gaining face for oneself, on the other hand, can be an objective of facework (Goffman 1972), and it mostly is in commercial contexts.

Brown and Levison distinguish two faces, namely positive and negative face. They define negative face as “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction — i.e. to freedom of action and freedom of imposition”, and positive face as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants” (Brown & Levison 1992, p.61). In short, negative face is one’s desire to be free to act, while positive face is one’s desire to be liked.

2.3.Face-threateningactsFace-threatening acts (or FTAs) are “activities that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (Brown and Levison 1992, p. 70). Because interlocutors cooperate to maintain eachother’s face, they use mitigating strategies in their interaction to counteract face threats. The impact of a FTA on one’s face depends on several culturally specific factors and other aspects such as interpersonal relationships, affection, presence of others and the raking of the imposition (Brown and Levison, 1992). The easiest way to prevent a threat to face is to avoid all situations in which such a threat might occur (Goffman 1972, p.15).

Brown and Levinson (1992) distinguish several kinds of face-threatening acts, which will be discussed in the following subsections. Firstly, those that threaten the negative face of the hearer/reader, further referred to as ‘the other’, will be discussed. Afterwards, the acts that impose a threat to the other’s positive face will be handled. Lastly, threats to the speaker’s face will be considered.

2.3.1.Actsthatthreatentheother’snega9vefaceThe first category of acts that may threaten the other’s negative face are those in which the speaker puts some pressure on the other to do something or to refrain him from doing something. Acts that belong to this category are orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminders, threats, warnings and desires (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Offers and promises belong to the second category. These acts imply some future act from the speaker towards the other, which may pressure the other to accept or reject something. They may also incur a debt on the other, because the speaker did or will do something beneficial for him (Brown & Levinson 1992).

The third category are those acts that indicate a strong desire towards the other or one of his possessions. The other may feel threatened because he feels the need to protect himself and/

Page � of �10 74

or his possessions. Acts belonging to this category are compliments and expressions of envy, admiration or strong emotions towards the other (Brown & Levinson 1992).

2.3.2.Actsthatthreatentheother’sposi9vefaceActs that involve a possible threat to the other’s positive face will be discussed in the next categories.

The first category of acts that may threaten the other’s positive face are those which show that the speaker disapproves of some aspects of the other’s positive face. Acts that belong to this category are expressions of disapproval, criticism, contempt or ridicule, complaints and reprimands, accusations, and insults. Also expressions that indicate that the speaker thinks that the other is wrong, such as challenges, contradictions or disagreements are part of this category (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Brown and Levinson (1992) placed acts that show that the speaker is indifferent about the other’s positive in a second category. It is easier to divide this category into several subcategories. First of all, there are expressions of violent emotions. The speaker might also mention taboo topics or dangerously emotional topics, and consequently disrespect the other’s values or increase the possibility that more FTAs will follow. Thirdly, if the speaker boasts about himself or shares bad news about the other, it may look indifferent towards the other. Not paying attention to the other or interrupting him, also shows a lack of interest in the other’s positive face. A last subcategory is the misuse of address terms or other status-marked identifications, as this might show disrespect.

2.3.3.Actsthatthreatenthespeaker’sfaceThreats to the speaker’s face are also divided in two categories: those that affect his positive face and those that affect his negative face. Although these acts are primarily a threat to the speaker, they might also harm the other’s face, as both interlocutors are cooperating to maintain face (Brown & Levinson 1992).

The first category are those acts that primarily threaten the speaker’s negative face. Expressing thanks or accepting offers, threatens the speaker’s negative face, because he is forced to accept a certain kind of debt. When the other thanks the speaker or apologises, the speaker is socially obliged to accept this, and therefore his freedom is also restrained. Excuses are a way for the speaker to justify some action that was not appreciated by the hearer, and usually lead to a confrontation between the two. A response to the other’s faux pas may cause embarrassment to the other, but pretending not to have noticed it may frustrate the speaker himself. Lastly, by making unwilling promises and offers the speaker commits himself to some action he does not want to do. This may also offend the other’s positive face (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Page � of �11 74

This paragraph deals with threats to the speaker’s positive face. Apologies are a threat to the speaker’s positive face, because he indicates that he regrets an earlier FTA. When receiving a compliment the speaker may feel constrained to denigrate the object of the compliment, or to compliment the other in return. Other actions that may lead to face loss for the speaker are breakdowns of physical control over his body, self-humiliation, self-contradictions, confessions and non-control over emotions, such as laughter or tears (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Lastly, face-threatening acts are not always explicit. A speaker can also threaten the other’s face with a series of acts that are not FTAs themselves, but hide a deeper meaning of criticism. These are called face-threatening intentions (Brown & Levinson 1992).

2.4.PolitenessTheory:threesuper-strategiesTo minimise the face threat in communication, speakers use several techniques that reduce the directness or show familiarity with the other. Brown and Levinson (1992) distinguish three universal ‘super-strategies’ for redressive actions. Each person, group or culture has its own set of face saving practises, though, which are drawn from this framework of three strategies. Which

Page � of �12 74

Overview of potential face-threatening acts

FTA’s Speaker Reader

Positive face Apologies, replying to a compliment, breakdowns over physical control over o n e ’s o w n b o d y, s e l f -h u m i l i a t i o n , s e l f -contradictions, confessions, loss of control over emotions …

Expressions of disapproval, c r i t i c i sm , con tempt o r ridicule, complaints and reprimands, accusations, i n s u l t s , c h a l l e n g e s , c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , disagreements, expressions o f v i o l e n t e m o t i o n s , references to taboo topics, b o a s t i n g o r b e l i t t l i n g , interrupting, showing lack of interest, misaddressing …

Negative face Expressing thanks, accepting offers, excuses, making unwilling promises or offers, reacting or neglecting a faux pas, excuses …

O r d e r s , r e q u e s t s , s u g g e s t i o n s , a d v i c e , reminders, threats, warnings, desires, offers, promises, expressions of envy or admiration …

strategy should be used in which situation depends on the context and the relationship between the speaker and the other.

The three super-strategies in the framework are ‘off-record’, ‘negative politeness’ and ‘positive politeness’. Off-record is simply the avoidance of direct impositions. When using the off-record strategy the speaker has the possibility to deny the imposition that was indirectly intended by it. Negative politeness strategies express restraint or give the other an opportunity to opt out. Positive politeness strategies, finally, are expressions of solidarity, that focus on the relationship between the interactants to obtain something. (Brown & Levinson 1992)

Before a speaker decides to say something, he has to decide if what he wants to say is more important than the potential face threat involved. If he decides to do the FTA, he can either do this on record or off record. The difference between the two is that with on-record utterances, the speaker’s intention is unambiguous and with off-record utterances it is not. On-record FTAs are either said baldly or with face redressive action. Bald on record is the most direct way to say something and will only be used in certain circumstances. In most other circumstances the speaker will use redressive action to counteract the potential face threat. The speaker can choose to use positive, negative or a hybrid mix of politeness strategies for this face-redressive action (Brown & Levinson 19992).

2.4.1.Off-recordstrategyThe off-record strategy is the least direct. In communication, speakers typically say less than what they mean to say (Grice 1967), the off-record strategy is a good example. When using this strategy the speaker gives himself a way out, because the communicative intention may be interpreted in different ways (Brown & Levinson 1992).

E.g. Two people are sitting in a room with an open window and one says: “It’s cold in here”. The speaker wants the other to close the window, but he does not ask him directly.

Off-record strategies are based on the violation of Grice’s Maxims. In his seminal paper ‘Logic and Conversation’ (1967), Grice stipulated four basic maxims for efficient communication. The maxims of quality states that the speaker should always try to speak the truth. According to the maxim of quantity the speaker should not say more or less than is required. With the maxim of relevance Grice means that a speech act should always be relevant for the ongoing conversation. The maxim of manner, lastly, states that the speaker should speak clearly, and avoid ambiguity and obscurity. The want to pay attention to face is an important motivation to neglect Grice’s maxims (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Page � of �13 74

Brown and Levinson (1992) define four off-record strategies. The first one is violating the maxim of relevance. Speakers usually violate this maxim with hints, association clues and by presupposing. The second strategy is violating the maxim of quantity with a tautology, understatement or overstatement. A tautology is a non-informative speech act in which the speaker encourages the other to look for an informative interpretation.A violation of the maxim of quality is the third strategy. This maxim can be violated with contradictions, irony, metaphors and rhetorical questions. Lastly, the speaker may also violate the maxim of manner with unclear communication, which may become clear through the context. To violate this maxim, the speaker can overgeneralise, be vague or ambiguous, and give incomplete information. He may also pretend to direct the FTA to someone else.

2.4.2.Nega9vepolitenessstrategiesNegative politeness strategies are mainly directed at the other’s negative face. They are used to assure that the speaker respects the other’s wants and freedom. These strategies usually only apply to a particular face want that is threatened. These strategies are also useful for creating or maintaining a social distance between interlocutors (Brown & Levinson 1992). The strategies will briefly be discussed here and those that appear in the corpus will be discussed more thoroughly in the data analysis. The same applies for positive politeness strategies.

The first negative politeness strategy is to be conventionally indirect (Brown & Levinson 1992). This means that the speaker goes on record, but indicates his desire to have gone off record. For this strategy to succeed, the speaker can only make requests with which the other is potentially able to comply. The politeness of this strategy depends on the context and social variables.

The second strategy is not to presume or assume that the other desires or believes something implied in the FTA. This can be prevented by questions or hedges. Hedges are particles, words or phrases which modify the degree of directness. They show that what has been said on record, might have more properly been said off record (Brown & Levinson 1992). Not coercing the other is the third strategy. Firstly, the speaker may give the other the possibility not to do the act that is requested by the speaker. He can do this with conventional indirectness or hedges. Another option is for the speaker to be pessimistic. He can express doubt, and use negatives, subjunctives or remote-possibility markers to indicate that he does not expect that the other is likely to comply with the request. The speaker can also alter the variables that determine the degree of the FTA. One option is to minimise the imposition, another option is to flatter the other by giving deference (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Page � of �14 74

The fourth negative politeness strategy is communicating that the speaker does not want to infringe the other’s freedom. Firstly, he can do this with an apology. There are four kinds of apologies he can use: he can admit the infringement, indicate reluctance to do so, give overwhelming reasons or beg for forgiveness. Secondly, the speaker can impersonalise himself or the other by using performatives, imperatives, impersonal verbs, and passive and circumstantial voices. He can also avoid, pluralise or replace the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ to create some distance between the people involved and the FTA. This distance can also be created with the use of a different tense, deictic place switches and an adjustment to the other’s point of view. Thirdly, the speaker may state the FTA as a general rule or nominalise the action to dissociate the people involved from the FTA (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Lastly, the speaker can choose to redress some other face wants of the other by going on record as incurring a debt to the other or not indebting him (Brown & Levinson 1992).

2.4.3.Posi9vepolitenessstrategiesPositive politeness strategies are directed towards the other’s positive face. The speaker shows appreciation for the other’s wants or expresses similarity between the two and/or their wants. The speaker will also need these strategies to restore potential damage after a breach of face respect. This is called the ‘Balance principle’. Additionally, these strategies are a metaphorical extension of intimacy between the speaker and the other, even if this is a complete stranger. The speaker can therefore also use these strategies as a ‘social accelerator’ to create a connection with the other (Brown & Levinson 1992).

The first set of strategies a speaker can use for positive politeness is claiming a common ground with the other. He can do so by claiming that some want of the other is admirable or interesting. A speaker can give a compliment, for example. “Compliments are speech acts which maintain, improve or support the addressee’s face. They are used as a positive politeness strategy which notices the addressee’s interests, wants, needs and goods” (Al Azzawi 2001, p.1). Compliments may also be face-threatening, though, in case the person on the receiving end selects the wrong response. As they are part of an adjacency pair — i.e. two adjacent speech acts, ordered as a first and second turn, where the first turn requests a certain second turn (Levinson 1983) — the compliment should either be refused or accepted, based on certain sociological variables. The speaker can also notice a change in the other’s situation or indicate that he is not embarrassed by the other’s faux pas. The next step is to intensify or exaggerate interest in the other’s want to address his positive face. Another way to claim common ground is stressing that both the speaker and the other belong to the same group, by using in-group identity markers and group jargon. Lastly, the speaker can claim a common perspective. He can seek agreement on safe topics or avoid disagreement by hedging or pretending to agree on some issue. Another way for

Page � of �15 74

the speaker to search for a common perspective is to switch places with the other, presuppose that he knows the other’s wants, that they have the same values or that they have a familiar relationship. Joking is a way of claiming a common perspective, as well, because jokes rely on mutual knowledge (Brown & Levinson 1992).

Conveying that the speaker and the other are involved in the same activity is the second set of positive politeness strategies. The first way for the speaker to convey this, is by indicating that he knows what the other wants and that he is willing to change his own wants to fit in with those of the other. The second option is to claim reflexivity between the wants of the speaker and those of the other. The speaker can do this by demonstrating his good intentions with an offer or promise, by being optimistic, i.e., assuming that the other is likely to help him, by explicitly including both the other and himself in the activity, or by giving or asking for good reasons. The third option is for the speaker to assume or assert reciprocity between the other and himself (Brown & Levinson 1992).

The last of Brown and Levinson’s (1992) positive politeness strategies is to directly fulfil the other’s wants for something. This can be a material gift in face-to-face conversation, but it is not necessarily something tangible. Consequently, gifts are also possible in online conversations, by means of a coupon for example.

2.4.4.Selec9ngtheappropriatestrategyBrown and Levinson claim that every person will use the same kind of strategies under the same conditions, because particular strategies have certain payoffs and other advantages. Before choosing to do the FTA or selecting an appropriate strategy to minimise the threat the speaker will consider three (or more) wants. Firstly, he will consider the want to communicate the content of the FTA. Afterwards he will consider the want to be efficient or urgent, and the want to maintain the other’s face. When the speaker decides to do the FTA he will nearly always want to minimise the threat. A polite utterance is a compromise between saying as much as possible and avoiding the risk of a conflict, i.e., maintaining each other’s face (Werkhofer 1992). There are circumstances, however, in which the speaker will choose not to use any mitigating strategy. When the want to be urgent or efficient is bigger than the want to maintain the other’s face, the speaker will go bald on record. With a task-oriented focus, such as instructions or recipes, face-redressive action is less important than the efficiency of the communicative act. Secondly, the speaker will also go bald on record if he feels that he is more powerful than the other, or if he does not fear any retaliation or non-cooperation. He can also choose not to use redressive action if he wants to be rude or if he doesn’t care about the other’s face. Lastly, the speaker will not use any politeness strategies if the FTA is primarily in the other’s interest, for example, when giving sympathetic advice and warnings, or granting permission for something requested by the other. In some cases it is even more polite to go bald on record. Welcoming, bidding farewell or

Page � of �16 74

offering something are invitations for the other to impose on the speaker’s face. If the risk is small that the hearer does not want to receive such invitations, then firmer invitations are considered more polite.

When it is not appropriate to go bald on record, the speaker will consider how much face-redressive action is needed for a particular FTA. This depends on several variables that will be discussed in subsection 2.5. Positive politeness is the least face-redressive. For small requests, speakers across many languages, tend to stress social similarity to obtain their goal. Negative politeness strategies are more face-redressive and more formal. They are used for requests that are slightly bigger. Off-record strategies, lastly, are the most face-redressive, because their communicational intention is hidden and can therefore be denied. Speakers go off-record when they doubt if they should make the request at all. The same order of strategies is also true for other FTAs, such as criticism, offers, complaints, etc. (Brown & Levinson 1992).

As mentioned before, each strategy has certain payoffs that the speaker will consider beforehand. If the speaker decides not to do the FTA, he will not damage the other’s face, but neither will he reach his goal. When going off record the speaker can take credit for being tactful and non-coercive. He can also avoid responsibility for the potential face damage the FTA may cause. Additionally, the speaker gives the other the opportunity to offer something and show that he respects the speaker. On-record strategies are more direct and therefore clearer than off-record strategies. When going on record the speaker can put pressure on the other, take credit for being honest or outspoken, indicate that he trusts the other and avoid the danger of being seen as a manipulator or being misunderstood. Moreover, he gives himself the opportunity to

Page � of �17 74

Brown and Levinson 1992, p.60

repair whatever damage he has potentially caused with the FTA. With positive politeness strategies the speaker can minimise the FTA by showing that he and the other belong to the same group. In doing so, the speaker intends to minimise the debt implication of the FTA. With negative politeness strategies the speaker pays respect to the other’s negative face. In this way, the speaker can lessen a future debt or maintain a certain social distance with the other.

Some researchers have claimed that these super-strategies can be mixed in discourse, but none have been able to provide sufficient evidence. When two or more strategies were found, there were usually several different FTAs, each with different degrees of face threat, and subsequently each requesting different mitigating strategies. Nevertheless, it is sometimes possible to use a hybrid strategy with both positive and negative strategies, the outcome of which is usually positive politeness (Brown & Levinson 1992).

2.5.SociologicalvariablesCommunication is always dependent on contextual aspects such as relationships, setting, layout, gesture, accent, and typography (Jones & Norris 2005, Scollon 2001). This context is indefinitely large and any aspect of it can affect the meaning of a speech act (Gee 1999). Consequently, the choice for a strategy in a particular situation depends on many sociological variables and other context-related aspects. The main variables, as mentioned by Brown and Levinson (1992), are D, P and R. These three factors comprise all contextual information that is needed for the choice of a strategy. Speakers may use facework in an attempt to rerank one of these social variables in order to obtain their goal. D is the social distance that exists between the speaker and the other in a symmetric relation. For a speaker to be successful in communication, It is important that he has a good understanding of the relationship with the other. If the speaker has a good understanding of the relationship, he will know how to act in order to obtain a desired response from the other (Goffman 1990).

P is the relative power-relation between the speaker and the other in an asymmetric situation. Goffman states that “the more power and prestige the others have, the more a person is likely to show consideration for their feelings” (Goffman 1972, p.10). On the other hand, when the speaker feels he has more power than the other, he will usually use less redressive action. Using strategies that rerank this relation may be used to change a request into an offer, for example (Brown & Levinson, 1992).

The last variable, R, is the ranking of the imposition in a particular culture. The value of this variable depends mainly on the values of P and D. So in order to calculate this value, the

Page � of �18 74

speaker most know P and D first (Ide & Watts 1992). With high R values, certain aspects of positive politeness may also occur in an off-record strategy (Brown & Levinson 1992).

The result of these three factors is called the weight of the FTA. The weight of a FTA correlates with the amount of redressive action that is needed. Miscalculating this value may lead to an additional threat. It is not only harmful to use insufficient redressive action, being too polite (or using too much negative strategies) may also be seen as an insult, because this could imply that the speaker thinks that D or P is greater than it actually is. When the speaker thinks that the distance is smaller, on the other hand, he might also insult the other by being too informal (or using too much positive strategies) (Brown & Levinson 1992) or by not communicating the appropriate polite attitude. This might not only be interpreted by the other as a lack of politeness, moreover, it could be seen as the holding of an aggressive attitude (Goffman 1972).

2.6.FaceworkonSocialnetworkingsitesIn earlier stages of the web, there was only professional content production and read-only consumption, but with the introduction of social media, interaction between users of the web has become possible. Everyone can now create content and interact with other people’s content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008). Thanks to this digital revolution computer-mediated communication, and computer-mediated discourse in particular, have become an interesting topic for discourse analysis (Herring 2001). Although the aforementioned concepts were originally designed for spoken interaction, many attempts have been made to adapt established methods to these new online environments. New techniques are more likely to supplement these concepts than to replace them (Androutsopoulos & Beißwenger 2008, Herring 2004). Bedijs, Held and Maaß (2014) also noted that online interactions are part of real life and that users bring experiences, feelings and their identity with them when they interact on online platforms. Consequently, concepts such as face and identity are also in play in online interaction —Fröhlich (2014) even argues that face is probably the best concept to analyse computer-mediated communication— As a result, users will also do facework and use mitigating strategies when communicating on online platforms and on social media in particular. According to Bedijs, Held and Maaß “social media include all online platforms that focus on interaction between the users — regardless of the technical conditions” (2014, p.10). Self-presentation of the users and mutual perception are key characteristics of social media. Facebook is a social media channel, but more specifically it is a social networking site. These sites offer web-based services to individuals, who can construct a profile, add friends or connections and see what connections other people within the system have (Boyd and Ellison 2007).

In their call for papers in 2010 for politeness in social media Heyd and Puschmann stated that

Page � of �19 74

“while face work could previously be classified unambiguously in terms of linguistic and non-linguistic actions, the digitally constructed self also ‘acts’ via language when symbolically engaging in interpersonal activities such as liking, poking, friending, following, banning and muting.” These actions replace certain behaviour and acts of non-verbal communication that are inexistent in online communication. They also argue that ‘face’ has taken on a new meaning in social media and that establishing an online identity is one of the central activities of internet users. Especially for companies and brands it has become extremely important to establish a successful online identity. The construction of an online identity and facework in online environments is multidimensional (Bedijs, Held & Maaß 2014). On the one hand, the producer of the content will do self-directed face work in an attempt to enhance his own face (and identity), on the other hand, he will do relational face work to express social awareness. “Face and facework of Social Media are, therefore, hybrid constructs that represent new and major challenges for sociopragmatic research” (Bedijs, Held & Maaß 2014, p.21).

2.7.Onlinecommuni9esonFacebook“Existing offline communities can be transferred or expanded to online contexts; or the affordances of new media can be used to create completely new media” (Peuronen 2011). Many companies intend to do this by creating a page or profile on one or more social networking sites. In these (new) online communities members share a face. If one member commits an improper act in the presence of third parties, it may lead to face loss for the entire community (Goffman, 1972). Or, for example, when the Dieselgate scandal was leaked, it harmed the image of the entire Volkswagen community.According to Spencer-Oatey, communities exist, because

“people have a fundamental belief that they are entitled to an association with others that is in keeping with the type of relationship that they have with them. This principle […] seems to have three components: involvement (the principle that people should have appropriate amounts and types of “activity” involvement with others), empathy (the belief that people should share appropriate concerns, feelings and interests with others), and respect (the belief that people should show appropriate amounts of respectfulness for others)” (2005, p.100).

Members of a community have shared interests, cultural identifications, values and specific language practices. It requires experience, knowledge and expertise about the topic to be a part of this community (Peuronen 2011).

Facebook, Inc. is a California-based company founded by Mark Zuckerberg and it is now one of the most successful companies in the world. As a social networking site, Facebook deals with language differently than traditional texts. “In contemporary Web 2.0 environments language

Page � of �20 74

comes integrated in visually organised environments, verbal exchange tends to be more fragmented and dependent on multimodal context, and meaning is constructed through the interplay of language and other semiotic means” (Thurlow C. & Mroczek K. 2011, p 279). Every visitor can interact with others through text, likes, clicks, comments, etc.

Facebook offers the opportunity for both synchronous and asynchronous communication. Facebook messenger allows participants to respond immediately and it shows when the other is typing, so this is synchronous communication. Wall posts and comments, on the other hand, are asynchronous communication and this will be analysed in this study. Because the communication is asynchronous, it should be remembered that writers have time to think about their texts before they write them. Consequently, they should be able to structure the message and use appropriate strategies to mitigate face-threatening acts (Ehrhardt 2014).

When someone writes a comment in an online environment, such as a Facebook fan page, he takes a position towards the producer of the content and the prior readers and their comments (Walton & Jaffe 2011). Moreover, passive users are also able to observe this public engagement. Therefore, the text-producer should not only be aware of the relationship that he tries to build with his interlocutor, but he should also know that whatever he says, can enhance or diminish the relationship with other non-active users (Jeon & Mauney 2014).

Page � of �21 74

3. ResearchMethodologyIn this chapter the data collection method and the data analysis method will be discussed. First, the choice for Volkswagen Belgium will be discussed. Afterwards the data collection method will be explained and some general information about the data will be presented. Lastly, some details about the transcription and appendix will be considered.

3.1.WhyVolkswagenBelgiumandPolitenessTheory?The data for this study was collected on Volkswagen Belgium’s Facebook Page. As already briefly mentioned in the introduction, Volkswagen was chosen, because of the Dieselgate crisis. This looked like a promising topic for discourse analysis, definitely from a Politeness Theory perspective. The crisis was quickly picked up by news media and it was a key topic of discussion on social media for several weeks on end. Initially, data was collected from several Facebook pages: Volkswagen Belgium, Volkswagen USA and Volkswagen Ireland. It was interesting to notice the differences between these three pages. While there was a rather negative atmosphere on the page for American fans and customers, there were not too many complaints on the Irish and Belgian pages. There was another difference, however, between the Anglo-Saxon pages and the Belgian page: both in Ireland and the USA, the company actively spread more information about their cars and the Dieselgate crisis soon after its disclosure. On Volkswagen Belgium’s page, on the contrary, there was no reference to any customer care website or any other support page until January 2016 — unless, these posts or comments had already been deleted by the first time data was collected on November 16th.

3.2.Datacollec9onmethodThe description of the data collection method is a very important part of a study, because it reveals the researcher’s train of thoughts. Duranti and Goodwin argue that the analyst is accountable for reflecting in methodology the interpenetration of contexts in a way which “does not hide his or her sources of information and research choices but makes them into a common resource to be shared with the readers in an attempt to unveil the hidden processes of the selection of information which guides participants and analysts alike in the course of their daily lives” (1992, p. 292).

The data was collected at several dates between 16 November 2015 and 17 March 2016 on Volkswagen Belgium’s Facebook Page, which is liked by a just fewer than 150,000 people (May 2016, https://www.facebook.com/VolkswagenBelgium/?fref=ts). On average, the social media team post around three messages per week, mostly fan pictures, contests, information about new car models, and advertisements. Most messages are shared both in Dutch and in French, but only those in Dutch comments to these messages are analysed in this study. The Volkswagen social media team seem to monitor the Belgian account on a daily basis and

Page � of �22 74

according to Facebook, they typically reply to messages within a couple of hours. Still, when we messaged them to enquire about the number of employees monitoring the account and their language background, we never got a response.

For this study the role of a lurker, i.e. “someone who reads messages posted to a public forum such as a newsgroup but does not respond to the group” (Hine 2000, p.106) was adopted. Firstly, all wall posts were considered, but then it was decided to analyse only those posts which resulted in interaction. In the second instance, all Dutch comments by Volkswagen Belgium, the comments to which they replied and the Facebook post under which they appeared were collected with screen shots and pasted in a table in Evernote, resulting in 149 conversations between the Volkswagen social media team and fans of their Facebook page. These 149 conversation appeared under 29 different wall posts — actually, 30 because 2 Dutch conversations were found under a French wall post. A new note was created for every wall post and these are numbered in chronological order (from #1 to #29). The conversations between Volkswagen Belgium’s social media team and their Facebook fans are pasted in a table in the note that corresponds with the right wall post. These conversations also have a number, starting with the number of the wall post to which they belong (e.g. #15.16). The wall posts are ranked chronologically in the corpus, but the comments do not always appear in chronological order, because comments often appear in order of relevance on Facebook. For most of the analysis

Page � of �23 74

Print screens of Volkswagen Belgium’s Facebook page: likes & response time

the chronological order was not important, however. Comments for which chronological order did matter, were of course placed in the right order.

The first interaction after the Dieselgate crisis was only observed on October 26th, more than a month after the Dieselgate crisis. Interaction about the crisis itself was not observed until January 2016. In the 149 conversations Volkswagen interacted with approximately 170 fans. Many more fans commented on these 29 wall posts, but the social media team did not interact with all of them. In most of these conversations the team only take one turn and about half of the conversations consisted of only two turn-takings in total. In these 149 conversations VW commented 188 times.

Some names appear between <> tags in the transcription of the comments; this means that those persons were tagged by Volkswagen Belgium in the comment. When possible, emoji’s were transcribed as on the picture below and a Facebook’s thumbs up is transcribed as (like). Pictures and links that appeared in the comments are replaced with the italic text ‘link’ or ‘picture’.

Because 99% of the sampled comments are written in Dutch, it was necessary to translate them into English. For discourse analysis purposes it seemed best to stick to the original as much as possible. As many comments contain grammar mistakes, several translations will also contain ungrammatical sentences. Sometimes the translations had to be slightly adapted, though, to improve the readability.

3.3.DataanalysisThe comments by Volkswagen were analysed from a discourse analysis perspective and more specifically politeness strategies were considered. Additionally, some remarks were made in the corpus based on Steven van Belleghem’s The Communication Manager (2012).

Page � of �24 74

Transcription of emoji’s

For the analysis the conversations were split into two categories based on the context of the fan’s comments. Comments that concern the Dieselgate crisis, complaints and other issues, and that consequently pose a threat to Volkswagen Belgium’s face, belong to the first category. The second category contains all other comments, i.e. those with positive community-oriented intentions or a face-neutral context.

For the first research question the politeness strategies that were used to interact with comments from category one will be considered. Strategies used to interact with comments from the second category will also be analysed to answer the second research question.

After the analysis, the number of different strategies in each category was counted. It was also counted how many times each strategy was used in each category. This information was gathered in two tables (Appendix). The first table contains all strategies that were used to interact with comments from category one (those threatening Volkswagen Belgium’s face), while the second table gives an overview of the strategies used in face-enhancing or face-neutral conversations. Each table has a different column for negative and positive strategies, and additional columns that show in which comment the strategy was used and how many times it was used.

In the corpus, each conversation is analysed as a separate unit of analysis and some links between similar situations are exposed. First, all the strategies that were used to interact with comments from category one will be discussed, followed by those that were used to interact with comments from category two. The data analysis will provide a general observation of each strategy and a brief analysis of its success, based on the number of likes and turn-takings. This information can be found in table 3: likes and replies. Some conversations will also be highlighted in the data analysis, but for more detailed analyses of each conversation I would like to refer to the corpus (Appendix). Lastly, a summary will be provided that will focus on the second part of the research questions: which strategies work to solve issues, based on positive replies and likes, and which strategies work to increase engagement, based on likes and replies.

Page � of �25 74

4. DataAnalysisIn this chapter the data will be discussed in several subsections, the first of which contains some general observations. The next subsections will deal with positive and negative strategies in both negative and positive circumstances. The last subsection will provide a summary of the findings.

4.1.Generalobserva9onsIn both categories the social media team use more positive politeness strategies than negative politeness strategies. In category one they use eleven different positive strategies, compared to six different negative strategies. In category two fourteen positive strategies were observed versus six negative strategies.

In general, the Volkswagen social media team use several standard messages to deal with certain problems. In #16.3 and #16.16, for example, they use exactly the same message to invite two people to take eco-driving courses. (“Als je graag zuiniger wil leren rijden, dan kunnen we je met plezier vertellen dat we een cursus eco-driving organiseren in samenwerking met VOC: link Tot op de cursus? ;)”). They also do this to congratulate winners of a contest, refer to their customer care website, etc.

Salutations and closings were not analysed, as they always have the same purpose and it is not really a contribution to the analysis. Moreover, it would cause a disruption in the statistics. It is interesting to notice, though, that they use several opening salutations and that there is some evolution in the closings, as well. They usually start off with a salutation, such as “Dag Benny” in #1.4. Sometimes the salutation is more informal, as in #20.4: “Hey Stijn” and #22.2: “Hoi Steven”, or more formal, as in #23.3: “Beste Ghislaine”. There is no clear pattern in the use of different styles, though, but one possible explanation could be that different employees use different styles. Sometimes the social media team also wish the other person a nice day at the end of the comment (#11.1 “Fijne dag verder”), but the appearance of this closing is rather random until 8 February. From then onwards they end almost every comment with “Nog een prettige dag, het Volkswagen-team”. Of course there are also some replies where no salutations or closings were used, but they do address almost every customer by their name, which is in fact already a positive politeness strategy.

4.2.Posi9vestrategiesincategoryoneFirstly, positive politeness strategies in negative circumstances will be discussed. Interactions that pose a threat to Volkswagen’s face, such as complaints and remarks about the Dieselgate crisis, are considered as negative circumstances. In situations where the social media team had to deal with such problems, eleven different positive strategies were observed, of which ‘offer’ was the most frequently used.

Page � of �26 74

4.2.1.No9ce,attend to other’s needs and wantsThe speaker, or in this case Volkswagen’s social media team, should take notice of their fans’ conditions and comment on them if it looks like the fan would want the social media team or someone else to notice them. Noticing the fans’ wants or interests is used as a strategy to address their positive faces (Brown & Levinson 1992). Giving a compliment or expressing thanks are some examples of this strategy that were both used by Volkswagen.

In category one, this strategy was used three times. In two conversations it was used to deal with a complaint, but the strategy was not applied in the same way. In #15.13 the social media team thanked their fan for reporting a problem and in #23.1 they complimented their fan on her car, after she had complained about their fan picture policy. VW had posted a fan picture of a Passat, and afterwards the fan complained that they never post fan pictures of older cars. To support her argument she explained how reliable older cars are compared to new models. In their reply, VW shifted the attention from the issue about the fan pictures to Kim’s car. In both cases VW attempted to restore their own positive face by addressing their fans’ positive faces. In #15.8, lastly, the social media team do not only comment to the compaint, but they also address another fan who had already dealt with the complaint.

Although Volkswagen have interacted successfully with Kim before, the strategies used here did not seem to work. Perhaps Volkswagen’s social media team should have apologised, instead of

#23.1 Kim: “Apparently they always forget the oldies.This one has 25 years of service but apparently they forget that. The new ones are worn within 5 years. This one still starts even with broken spark plugs. That is still a good mechanism that they now do not make anymore !!!”Abdullah: “Old cars always strong carspicture”Kim: “Sirocco right ? Nice car ;)”VW: “Hey <Kim>, then you have really taken care of it, of your ‘oldie’! ;)”

Page � of �27 74

focussing on positive politeness strategies to deal with this complaint. The use of the notice-strategy was successful in #15.13, however, as the fan liked their comment.

4.2.2.In-groupiden9tymarkersIn-group identity markers and in-group language are used to stress the positive or close relationship between the interactants (Brown & Levinson 1992). This strategy was only observed once in all the conversations, namely in the previously discussed situation (#23.1), where Kim complained that VW never post pictures of ‘oldies’ on their Facebook Page. VW repeated this word ‘oldie’ to focus on the relationship with Kim and the community in general. Just like complimenting her on taking such good care of her car, they stress this relationship to address her positive face and shift the attention from the initial issue. As mentioned in the previous subsection, the comment did not lead to any further engagement.

4.2.3.AvoiddisagreementAvoiding disagreement is a good strategy to avoid threatening someone else’s face and preventing loss of face for oneself. Indirectly, it also addresses the other’s positive face, because avoiding disagreement shows respect for the other’s opinion (Brown & Levinson 1992). The strategy was used four times to avoid conflicts with dissatisfied customers.

In #15.16b the social media team cleverly refer to a previous comment by the customer to protect their own positive face and their product. In his first comment Tommy uses the word ‘pech’ to indicate that he has had nothing but problems with his car. First VW say that they regret this and that they really try to prevent car problems. Tommy is not really satisfied with this explanation, though, and he says that he does not understand why a new car can break down like that. Once VW hear about the problem, they try to protect their face and refer to the word ‘pech’ again, only this time they refer to its other meaning: bad luck. So, they agree with Tommy, but actually they abuse the meaning of the word ‘pech’ to protect their own face.

Page � of �28 74

In #15.20b they misunderstood Julien’s comment, because they had not considered the context — from #15.10 and #15.13 they could have deducted that he is not a very satisfied customer at this moment. They said that it is exciting that Julien is going to his car dealer, but they did not know that he was going there to get his car fixed. Instead, they probably thought that he was going to buy a new car. This misunderstanding was not well-perceived by Julien, and he directly disagrees with VW by saying that it is not exciting at all. After this comment the social media team realise that they were wrong the first time and they avoid disagreement with Julien by admitting that it is indeed not exciting at all.

#15.16 Tommy: “Never another VW. I have a Passat and since I have it I have had nothing but problems >.<”VW: “Hi <Tommy>, we regret that you have bad experiences with your Passat. :( We do all we can to deliver cars of high quality. Our network of local dealers is of course ready to fix your Passat and to help you to have nice moments in your car from now on! :)”Tommy: “That is just the problem. I have had my Passat fixed and it cost me a lot of money. Not at a local dealer, because they did not make any effort. They said your warranty is over. Technical problem and by consequence a new engine. I find it strange that a car of only 4 years old and a connecting rod with less than 120.000 km and always on time for the maintenance. The mechanic that fixed it, that person deserves a lot of respect, because he really tried his best. First and last vw”VW “You're unlucky, indeed, <Tommy> …

Page � of �29 74

In #16.14 and #29.1, lastly, they attempt to address the others’ positive faces by avoiding disagreement on subjects that do not concern car problems. Opposed to the first two interactions, these two problems were very successfully dealt with, as they both led to two likes. This may have been caused by the fact that the strategy was mixed with several other strategies, such as giving reasons. This allows them to not only avoid threatening the other’s face, but also to enhance their own positive face, by explaining the situation.

4.2.4.PresupposeorassumecommongroundPresupposing or assuming a common ground addresses the other’s positive face, because it shows that both conversation parters are on the same level (Brown & Levinson 1992). There were seven conversations in which VW presupposed or assumed a common ground with a customer or other people who complained about something on their Facebook page. In three comments, #15.16a (also discussed in the previous subsection), #22.1 and #22.3, they indicate that they also feel sorry that the customer had a bad experience with one of their cars. In all three comments they use the word ‘jammer’ (pity, shame, too bad).

#15.20 Julien: "I have just been to my VW-dealer, now let's wait :)”.VW: “Exciting, <Julien>! :)”Julien: “I don’t think its EXCITING actually. a 37.000€ car and then pass through something like this is bad. I hope VW will take its responsibility for this (pensive)”VW: “Oops, <Julien>, you meant that you went to your dealer for maintenance and not that you had o r d e r e d a n e w c a r . S o r r y f o r t h e misunderstanding! This is indeed not exciting. Despite all our care during each phase of the production process, each cars remains a construction of many different components and the probability of a defect can, unfortunately, never be ruled out for a 100%. Hopefully your car is still under warranty? VW  gives two years for all its cars and the possibility to extend the warranty with a WECARE contract. During the Motor Show you’ll get 24 months for free with such a 36 month WECARE contract.”Julien: “My car is 4 months out of warranty but such a problem is not related to any electric or mechanic component. we’ll see. After all, I am not the only last generation vw golf cabrio with this problem”

Page � of �30 74

In #16.21 and #19.1 they received a complaint from customers who received a notification about their free ticket action, after the action was already expired. In both cases they indicated that they feel sorry that the action has expired, once with the word ‘jammer’ and once with a synonym: ‘spijtig’. They try to address the fans’ positive faces by focusing on mutual feelings, but they do not apologise for sending the email too late.

In #21.1 the social media team also sympathise with their fans about an issue that does not directly concern their cars or services. The social media team agree with the fan that electric cars are too expensive and they say that they also regret this, but they indicate that they cannot solve the problem at the moment.

The setting was slightly more positive in #20.3: the fan really likes the Tiguan, but he was unhappy that he could not test the car. The social media team could have assumed a common ground by saying that they also regret that he could not make a test drive, but they presuppose a more positive common ground instead. After they offered him a way to test the car, after all, they show that they want him to feel completely persuaded to buy the car after the test drive. This was the only time the strategy was received positively by the addressee. In some other situations VW’s comments were liked, but never by the addressee. In conclusion, Indicating a shared opinion about something regrettable seems to be a rather unsuccessful strategy.

4.2.5.JokeThree times the social media team use a joke to deal with a remark about the Dieselgate crisis. This might be a successful strategy, because “joking allows us to manipulate talk and participants in various ways, by presenting a self, probing for information about the attitudes and affiliations of our interlocutors, realigning ourselves with respect to them, and, of course, injecting humour into a situation, which helps to relieve tension and foster friendly interaction” (Norrick p.5). The social media team probably use humour in an attempt to change a negative atmosphere into a more positive one, and protect their own face.

In #15.9 they break Grice’s Maxim of Relevance to change the topic. Not answering his question defeats the expectations, which makes it funny (Jeon & Mauney 2014/ Goatley 2012) and it

#22.1 Jordy: “Golf variant is completely my thing!”VW: “We love to hear that, <Jordy>! :)”Jordy: “Unfortunately I will have to stay with my golf 4 at the moment :) Which actually is not too bad either :)”VW: “There are indeed worse things than that, ‘Jordy’! ;)”

Page � of �31 74

allows them to refer to the initial purpose of their Facebook post. For Roy and other readers to understand this, it is necessary that they are aware of the context. If they are not, Volkswagen’s positive face is very much at risk with this comment and it could also damage the reader’s positive face.

The social media team do not really make a joke themselves, but they interact with someone who made a bad joke about the Dieselgate crisis. The fact that Jelle tries to be funny with a remark about the emissions shows that his behaviour “is not in keeping with the type of relationship that has been implicitly mutually agreed upon. In fact the teller can be seen as lacking in both empathy and respect for her or his hearer” (Bell 2009, p.158).

Jelle’s joke threatened Volkswagen’s positive face, but the social media team stayed positive and interacted with the joke. Jelle probably tried to enhance his own positive face by trying to make other people laugh, but no one liked his comment. Possibly, Jelle did not enhance, but harm his own positive face, because a threat to someone else’s face is also a threat to one’s own face. Moreover, he also threatened the community here and this has a negative effect on the positive face of every member. Afterwards, Jelle liked Volkswagen comment to his ‘failed’ joke. Did he like Volkswagen’s reply or did he admit his ‘defeat’? Either way, the joke-strategy looks successful in this situation.

4.2.6.IndicatesimilarwantsVolkswagen’s social media team have indicated five times that they have the same want as one of their customers. Showing that you want the same thing addresses the other’s positive face,

#1.3 Roy: “With or without the new software?”VW: “We don’t know that song, <Roy>? ;)”Roy: “It’s one without an end :)!”

#15.9 Jelle: “Can you just go inside or do you need a gas mask?”VW: “You can just go inside <Jelle>, because al our cars that we offer on sale on the Belgian market comply with all standards. You will read everything about it here: link Have a nice day!”

Page � of �32 74

but it is also beneficial for your own positive face (Brown & Levinson 1992). In these four situations the team indicate that they hope something for their customers. In #15.20 and #20.4 customers complained about a car problem and in both conversations the team hoped that the car was still under warranty.

In #19.3, #20.9 and #22.2 they also indicate that they know what the customer feels and that they want the same thing, namely that the first customer enjoyed his visit to the Motor show, that the second one will receive his car soon and that the last one will still be able to enjoy a beneficial interest rate to buy a new car. Although this strategy is a sign of sympathy, it was never liked by the conversation partners. In the first conversation, it even led to a new negative reply, so this strategy looks rather unsuccessful to deal with problems.

4.2.7.OfferThis strategy addresses the other’s positive face as well as the speaker’s positive face, because politely offering something to someone should positively influence his perception of the speaker (Brown & Levinson 1992). In some cases it was mainly used by Volkswagen to protect their own positive face. Offering something was the most frequently used strategy, as it was used 24 times, half of which in conversations about the Dieselgate crisis. The strategy was mostly used to offer links to external websites for more information. With this strategy the social media team intend to help their conversation partners, thus they address their positive faces and hope to gain face for themselves in the act. In these 24 comments eight different topics can be distinguished: fice returning subjects and three stand-alone situations.

The most frequent topic concerns the Dieselgate crisis. In relation to this issue the social media team refer their conversation partners to three different pages: the homepage of the customer care website and two subpages on the website. In two conversations this strategy was successful, one of which was discussed in subsection 4.2.5. In the other one, #15.12, the addressee wrote a comment to thank Volkswagen for their explanation. The main goal of the strategy seems to have been to protect their own face.

#20.9 Bart: “After about 20 years ford chose for a  Volkswagen stock car (golf). Normally we would receive it this week but unfortunately they had an accident with it! Fortunately we could chose a new one with the same conditions. The disadvantage is that we have to wait about 8 weeks now :( ."VW: “”Very sorry to hear that, <Bart>! We hope the 8 weeks will be over quickly!"

Page � of �33 74

The second issue concerns free tickets for the Motor Show. Three times Volkswagen received a complaint about their promise to give away free tickets. In these situations the social media team offered a link to the page on the website of the Motor Show where visitors can buy tickets. They attempted to restore some face for themselves by offering a solution to their conversation partners, but the strategy was never successful in this scenario.

The social media team also had to deal with three complaints about cars that were no longer under warranty. In these situations they did not offer a link to a website, but they offered more information about their WECARE package, an extended warranty package that was offered with a great discount during the Motor Show. Although the intention was to help the customers, they never liked Volkswagen’s comment. Perhaps because there seems to be a hidden sales motive, or maybe they did not find the solution appropriate for their problem. Either way, the strategy was not successful in this scenario and it even led to a negative comment in #15.20 (already discussed in 4.2.3 and 4.2.6).

Two customers also complained about their cars’ fuel consumption. In these two conversations the social media team invited their customers to join an eco-driving course that they are

#15.12 Susanne: “Good luck during the Motor Show! It's a pity, though, that VW drivers with  ‘cheat' software still have not been invited to go to their car dealer. Unfortunate Volkswagen Belgium.”Jeffrey: “I drive an Audi, received my letter 4 months ago to bring him in”Susanne: “That's good news Jeffrey D. Unfortunately we haven’t. Let's wait and see.”VW: “Hi Suzanne, that's because VW wants to create a customer care package first. So that you won't end up without a car when you bring yours in, for example. In 2016 there will definitely be an obliged call-back action, if you want to stay up-to-date about it, you can always have a look at link Have a nice day!”Suzanne: “Thanks for the elaborate explanation and information Volkswagen <Volkswagen Belgium>  (like)"VW: “You're welcome, <Suzanne>! :D”

Page � of �34 74

organising. Although this seems rather rude, one of the two conversation partners liked their offer (this was already briefly discussed in the general observations).

In two conversations about electric cars the social media team offered advice about subsidies that are offered by the government to people who buy electric cars. In these scenarios they tried to address the other’s positive face by offering useful information on how to save money. At the same time they also promote their own cars, of course. One of these interactions was successful.

Lastly, there are three other situations in which the social media team offer something to their interlocutors. In #20.6 and #23.3 they just offer some written advice about an issue and in these situations the strategy was not very successful. The strategy was successful in #20.3, however, as Mario thanked them for their explanation about how to book a test drive, after he had complained earlier that he could not test the Tiguan at the Motor Show.

4.2.8.PromiseThe social media team promised their addressees something in twelve comments to rebuild the relationship between them after a complaint or issue. Just like in the previous subsection some returning topics were observed.

In #15.7, #15.8, #15.13 and #22.3 they received a complaint and they promised that they would consider this remark and try to improve in the future. In these cases the social media team indicate that they appreciate the feedback, thus they address the other’s positive face. They also try to improve their own positive face, because they promise to solve the issue. Only in #15.13 did the conversation partner like Volkswagen’s promise.

In three other situations customers complained about a problem with their car. Three times the social media team briefly explain how cars are manufactured and they promise that the

#15.13 Julien: “Already saw several VW golf new model with this problem on the entire roof.picture”VW: “Hi <Julien>, thanks for your message, we will definitely look at this. Have a nice day! :)”

Page � of �35 74

manufacturer pays high attention to quality control during the production process. They do this to protect their own face and to show that they do a lot of effort for their customers.

In the other conversations the social media team addressed their conversation partner’s positive faces by promising that they would do something for them or that someone of the company would help them to fix their problems. In terms of likes and comments, this strategy was not very successful, as it only resulted in one like.

4.2.9.Beop9mis9cOptimism focusses on the relationship between the conversation partners. The speaker assumes that the relationship is strong and that the other will accept what he says (Brown & Levinson 1992). There were six situations where Volkswagen received a complaint and where the social media team used optimism as a part of their strategy to deal with these complaints.

In #15.19 the social media team used this strategy to deal with a remark about the Dieselgate crisis. When a customer asked if their cars at the Motor Show also have cheat software, they optimistically reply “Oh no! :D” to introduce their standard reply with a link to the customer care website. In terms of likes and comments, this added optimism was not a contribution to their strategy.

In two situations someone complained about the free tickets that were no longer available and the social media team replied with a link to the Motor Show’s website, where admission tickets can be bought. It is optimistic to assume that these people will be interested to buy tickets after they complained that they could not obtain free tickets.

In two other situations people complained about the fuel consumption of their cars. In these cases the social media team invited them to eco-driving courses. With this strategy they try to protect their product by blaming the driver for the high consumption, so this is rather threatening to the addressees’ faces. Especially the last sentence “see you at the course?” is very optimistic. After they just publicly threatened their addressees’ positive faces by criticising their driving

#15.19 Jan: “Also cheat software?”VW: “Oh no, Jan! :D All cars that are sold on the Belgian market comply with the current standards. If you have anymore questions concerning the problems with the software, you can find more information here: link Have a nice day!”

Page � of �36 74

skills, they still hope to see them at the driving courses. Nevertheless, this strategy was not completely unsuccessful, as one of the two drivers liked Volkswagen’s comment.

#23.2 is similar to the previous situation, but the topic is slightly different. The fan in this situation complains that the social media team never share pictures of older cars (The conversation appears in the next subsection). After three complaints, the team says that they have changed that and invite the fan to send a picture of her car. They are very optimistic to assume that she will still want to send a picture and their optimism is unsuccessful. In the next comment, she says that she is already too disappointed, although she was a big fan. Addressing her positive face with a focus on their relationship was not successful as the relationship was already to badly damaged in the fan’s opinion.

4.2.10.IncludeVWandaddresseeinthesameac9vityThe social media team used this strategy only once: to stress the attention that they are paying to the other. They invite Kim to send a picture so they can put it on their Facebook page. Asking this and including her in the activity of sharing fan pictures should address her positive face, but she is not satisfied with this offer, as she has already sent pictures in the past and they were not published then.

Page � of �37 74

4.2.11.GivereasonsGiving reasons to explain a problem was the second most frequently used strategy to deal with issues on the Facebook page. The social media teams used this strategy fourteen times to explain something and protect their own face. They used this strategy to explain why there were no more free tickets, why they cannot guarantee that a car will not break down, why fuel consumption is often higher than indicated, etc. This strategy resulted in some likes and they even managed to turn things around in one situation. In #15.12 the customer complained that there had not yet been a callback for cars that were affected by cheat software. After Volkswagen gave a solid explanation for this, the customer thanked them, so Volkswagen were able to turn a dissatisfied customer into a happy customer. It must be said, though, that she was not completely dissatisfied before, as she started her comment by wishing Volkswagen good luck at the Motor Show.

#23.2 Kim: “What should I say then?picture”Luc: “that you cannot see much through your window ;)”Kim: “Yes all attention always goes to the new cars never the old that is what I mean.”VW: “Hey <Kim>, we are always happy with a beautiful FanPic. If you have some in high quality (big size), you can always send them in a personal message! :D”Kim: “When I asked you did not do it yet. Would have liked that when it became 25 but still nothing. Are always the newest models and the most expensive.”VW: “Hey <Kim>, now we do show them, so if you have a nice picture of good quality, send it’ :)”Kim: “I am already very disappointed was a faithful vw fan really regrettable.”

Page � of �38 74

Because this strategy resulted in some likes and a customer commented to thank them for giving reasons, this was the most successful positive politeness theory to deal with issues.

4.3.Nega9vestrategiesincategoryoneThe Volkswagen social media team used significantly less negative strategies — Fourteen negative strategies in thirteen different comments, compared to 79 positive strategies.

4.3.1.Ques9onThe social media team used a question only once as a politeness strategy. In a situation where two customers complained about problems with their cars, the social media team attempted to address their positive faces by offering to help them. This offer threatened their negative faces, though, as they asked for personal information. To mitigate this face-threat the team used a question, along with a hedge and a reason why they do this FTA.

#15.12 Susanne: “Good luck during the Motor Show! It's a pity, though, that VW drivers with  ‘cheat' software still have not been invited to go to their car dealer. Unfortunate Volkswagen Belgium.”Jeffrey: “I drive an Audi, received my letter 4 months ago to bring him in”Susanne: “That's good news Jeffrey D. Unfortunately we haven’t. Let's wait and see.”VW: “Hi Suzanne, that's because VW wants to create a customer care package first. So that you won't end up without a car when you bring yours in, for example. In 2016 there will definitely be an obliged call-back action, if you want to stay up-to-date about it, you can always have a look at link Have a nice day!”Suzanne: “Thanks for the elaborate explanation and information Volkswagen <Volkswagen Belgium>  (like)"VW: “You're welcome, <Suzanne>! :D”

Page � of �39 74

4.3.2.HedgeA hedge was used in four situations. This strategy is usually used to minimise a face-threat, but in three situations the threat was already small. In #5.1 and #20.6 the social media team invited the other to impose on their negative face. Although this is not really threathening the other’s face, they mitigate this comment with a hedge. #16.24 addresses the other’s postive face as extra information is offered, but it is also mitigated with a hedge. In terms of politeness strategies, these three comments are definitely among the most polite comments in this study, but in terms of likes and comments they were not successful.

#20.4 Stijn: “(I) hope that they can finally fix mine 5th time in the garage new caravelle”Patrik: “Boy, that’s bad for such an expensive car!”VW: “Hey <Stijn>, hopefully your car is still under warranty, because VW gives a two-year warranty for all its cars. We also offer an extension of the warranty through a WECARE contract, in which you can choose to cover all maintenance and repair costs for an established period of time or number of kilometers. During the Motor Show, you will get 24 months of a 36 months contract for free. Despite all our care during each step of the process, every car remains a construction of many different components and the probability of a failure can, unfortunately, never be ruled out for a 100%…”Stephane: “Patrik Cosyns indeed! My golf of less than 4 years old broke down twice the last two months and of course no longer under warranty! EGR valve and waterpump: not normal wear and tear on a 4-year old car but apparently is normal at VW nowadays…”Filip: “2 years in these times is ridiculous? They should oblige each car manufacturer to give 5 years warranty. Nowadays everything on a car breaks down because there are so many

components 😉 ”VW: “Hi <Stijn> and <Stephanie>, can you send us a PM with your contact information, so we can check how we can help you?”

Page � of �40 74

In #15.19 a hedge was used in a situation concerning the Dieselgate crisis. The social media team offered a link to their webpage with more information about the car software, but they mittigated this with a hedge, because inviting the fan to do something, threatens his negative face. This combination of strategies was not successful either.

4.3.3.Apologise:admittheinfringement#15.20 is the only conversation in which the social media team openly admit an infringement. It is also the only comment in the entire study where they use the word ‘sorry’. The reason why they apologise here and not in other comments is probably because they had threatened the other’s face in an earlier comment, as they had wrongly interpreted the context, or not interpreted it at all. They used several more strategies that have already been discussed earlier (text and translation in subsection 4.2.3), nevertheless, their comment led to another negative comment. This shows that it is hard to repair a broken relationship after a face-threat, even with a combination of several positive and negative strategies.

4.3.4.Apologise:overwhelmingreasonsIn #19.3 the social media team apologise that they cannot offer free tickets for Sundays, but they do so with an overwhelming reason to protect their own positive face. It does not seem to be successful in this situation, as there is now further engagement.

4.3.5.ImpersonaliseThis was the most frequently used negative strategy. In two of the six situations it was used to address the other’s face and in the other four conversations the strategy was used to protect Volkswagen’s own positive face.

#5.1 Jan: “If you have a lot of time to wait for the delivery”VW: “Hi Jan, If you’re interested in a specific model + version, you can just let us know in a PM. Then we’ll calculate the exact delivery term for you :). Good evening!”

#19.3 Niels: “Nice, seducing people with free tickets. Unfortunately they are not valid on Sundays :/“VW: “Hi <Niels>, for organizational reasons it is, unfortunately, not allowed to give away free tickets on Sundays. That is out of our reach. Hopefully you were still able to enjoy a nice Show!”

Page � of �41 74

In #15.6 and #15.10 Volkswagen tried to protect their own face and blame the other for not getting free tickets. They said that they should have applied for free tickets, but they mitigated this FTA by impersonalising the procedure and they even made it look like a general rule. In #15.6 the strategy was not very carefully considered, though.

“Je moest je aanmelden op de site” is an impersonal statement, because it is presented as a rule, but the choice for the second person was not very careful, as Andy may have felt addressed personally.

In three other situations where people complained about the Dieselgate crisis, Volkswagen distance themselves from the cars, although they argue that they have nothing to hide. Four times they use a passive construction like “the cars that are being sold on the Belgian market” instead of “the cars that we sell”, for example.

Lastly, in #22.2b they use a change of perspective to distance themselves from a mistake they made in their internal communication.

#15.6 Andy: “In the news, they said that we would receive free tickets for the Motor Show if we drive a vw with the wrong software. Until now we have not received anything, pity.”VW: “Hi <Andy>, you had to apply on the website, but the action is over unfortunately:  link … You can still easily buy tickets online though: link”

Page � of �42 74

Steven complains that his local dealer does not know until when the special conditions last. This is not the dealer’s fault, but Volkswagen’s, because they did not inform their dealers timely. Volkswagen try to protect their own positive face, though, as they avoid mentioning who had to inform the dealers.

4.3.6.GoonrecordasincurringadebtVolkswagen’s social media team once slightly indicated that they incurred a debt on a conversation parter. In #15.13 (cfr. 4.2.8) they thanked the person for informing them about the problem. With this strategy they address the other’s positive face, but they also impose a future threat to their own negative face.

#15.13 was the only comment with a negative politness strategy in categry one that was liked by the fan.

4.4.Posi9vestrategiesincategorytwoThere were more interactions in a positive or neutral context than in a negative context on the Facebook Page and this is also clearly visible in the number of strategies used here. The social media team used 217 positive strategies, belonging to fourteen different categories.

4.4.1.No9ce,a^endtotheother’sneedsandwantsIn positive and neutral situations this strategy was more frequently used than in negative circumstances. The social media team used this positive strategy 47 times, making it the second most frequently used strategy in category two. The strategy was used in several recurring scenarios such as complementing on a picture, congratulating, saying thanks for a compliment and indicating that a want is admirable. All of these acts are mainly directed at the other’s

#22.2b Steven: “Prolonged conditions?”VW: “At your local dealer, <Steven>! ;)”Steven: “First it was yesterday, just know he called that today us the last day! About him I don’t know!!!”VW: “Hi Steven, our local dealers did not know yet that the Show conditions were prolonged until the end of the month. They were informed about this on the 2nd of February. Hopefully you can still enjoy it! Have a nice day, the Volkswagen-team.”

Page � of �43 74

positive face, either directly, by saying something nice about the other, or more indirectly, by completing an adjacency pair, such as compliment/acceptance or rejection.

The social media team complimented on pictures of cars that were sent in by fans in #3.2a, #3.2b, #8.2, #26.3 and #27.1. People who share a picture of their car on Facebook are proud of it and they are probably hoping that other people will like their picture. Liking and even commenting with a compliment is definitely a good strategy to address the fans’ positive faces. They also complimented two fans on their choice after they had been asked what their favourite Volkswagen model is. Three of the seven compliments were liked by the fan involved and two of the fans replied to the compliment.

Five times the social media team congratulated their fans. Four of them had bought a new car. By congratulating them, Volkswagen show that they admire this purchase, consequently they address the customers’ positive faces. In #20.11 they even used the strategy twice, as they also thanked the customer for his trust. Similarly, they also thanked a customer for her trust in #15.11b. They did not do so explicitly in this case, but with a Facebook like. In #8.1 they also congratulate the fan, only not because he has bought a new car, but because his car is 25 years old. The strategy is very successful in this scenario, as every customer engaged with Volkswagen afterwards: four of them liked the comment and two of them commented again, although one comment was not very relevant to Volkswagen’s.

#8.2 Sigi: “No cabrio but a 1.3 of 85 with 350000 km”VW: “Nice :)!”

#27.2 Frank: “Way too much to sum them all up”VW: “And if you’d really have to pick one? ;)”Frank:“Then I go for the sambabus T1”VW: “Good pick!”

Page � of �44 74

In eight conversations the social media team notice and comment on the fan’s wants. They use different strategies to do so. They once comment with a thumbs up and once with a smiley. They also invite several fans to come to the Motor Show or engage with them in a different way. Five of these expressions are liked by the fans, so this strategy looks rather successful to address a fan’s positive face and build a Facebook community with more engagement. In #13.1 the fan even reaffirmed his faithfulness to Volkswagen.

In nine other situations they also notice a particular interest, namely the want to visit the Motor Show. Most times they reply to this want by saying something like ‘see you soon’. In these situations they also address the fans’ positive faces, because they interact with them. This use of the strategy was not very successful for further engagement, but led to four likes, nonetheless.

Volkswagen’s social media team also thank eightteen fans for some kind of compliment about their cars or service. They used three different replies in these situations: two times they just posted a thumbs up, six times they thanked the fan, eight times they wrote something like ‘nice to hear that’, and once they combined the last two replies. Their comments are liked four times in these situations and three times they led to another comment. Comments that thank the fans

#20.11 Diego C: “I am happily expecting the new golf all star that I bought super beautiful car just my dream finally bought it thank you Volkswagen"“VW: “And thank you, <Diego>, for your the trust i n Vo l k s w a g e n ! ( A n d o f c o u r s e a l s o congratulations on your Golf Allstar :D )"

#13.1 Sven: “I am very happy with my VW. I've had it for 12 years now and never had any costs”VW: “Hi <Sven>, nice to hear that! We wish you many more happy years. :)”Sven: “Rest assured that the next one is another vw"

#16.19 Ellen: “see you Friday the 22nd… I am coming to have a look at the polo :)"VW: “Definitely do that, <Ellen> :). See you then!"

Page � of �45 74

are not liked and did not lead to new comments. Expressing that they are glad to hear some want is more successful, probably because this shows more interest in the fans than just thanking them.

#10.2, lastly, is a unique situation, as Volkswagen’s social media team do not only thank the customer for his reply, but also notice his faux pas. After they asked their fans what the most special purchase was that they ever brought home in their Volkswagen, some of them replied: “My children”.

Although it is understandable that their children are the most special thing they ever transported, they are not something you buy, and hence this comment is not relevant. The social media team does not baldly say that this fan said something strange or stupid, but they just put the word ‘aankoop’ (purchase) between quotation marks to indicate that the fan’s reply was not really relevant, as children are not a purchase. Bart is not the only one, however, who mentions his children, but he is the first, and therefore others might have followed his example. Someone even replied this, after the social team had already indicated that ‘my children’ is an irrelevant reply.

4.4.2.IntensifiedinterestShowing intensified interest in the fans is a very good way to address their positive faces. In three conversations the social media team ask a fan about his favourite Volkswagen (#15.18 and #27.2, cfr. 4.4.1) or opinion (#17.19). This is also intensified interest, because they take some time to address this fan personally and ask him about his opinion. This led to a new comment is each conversation. Two other comments also led to more engagement: in #15.14, Volkswagen showed intensified interest in their conversation partner by calling him one of their biggest fans (See subsection 4.4.10 for text and translation) and in #3.2 they asked a fan about a picture that she posted. Since most other conversations between Volkswagen and their fans are only made

#16.25 Rina: “Mine is 3 years old and am still proud of it every day."VW: “Glad to hear that, <Rina>! :)"

#10.2 Bart: “My children after they were born and came back home for the first time.”VW: “A moment and a ‘purchase’ never to forget :)!”

Page � of �46 74

up of two turn-takings, this strategy looks very successful to spark engagement. The other comments, #3.1 and #10.3 only resulted in a like, but this is positive engagement nonetheless.

In #3.1 the social media team show interest in the fan’s travels and additionally, it could be considered an off-record question, because of the wink emoiji. It was not perceived by the fan as a question, though, as he only likes the comment and does not sat where he is going. Directly asking where he is going, might have the same effect in terms of showing intensified interest, but it would be more threatening to Benjamin’s negative face.

The social media team indirectly look for more engagement in #10.3 as well. They show intensified interest by engaging with what Bruno said. Moreover, it is said slightly jokingly and it is close to seeking agreement. The chance is rather small that is was actually custom made, but they are still looking for some kind of confirmation about this statement. In conclusion, this strategy was one of the most successful strategies in the last months, as it resulted in 100% engagement.

4.4.3.SeekagreementIn seven conversations the social media team use this strategy to engage with a comment and address the fans’ positive faces. This strategy is characterised by the use of the wink emoji. In three of the seven comments they also use a particle (‘eh’ and ‘toch’) to indicate that they seek agreement. Their attempts were not very successful, though, as only two people commented and only one of them agreed.

#3.1 Benjamin: “Wherever the roads take us”VW “We're curious <Benjamin> ;)!’

#10.3 Bruno: “My bike, it fits inside my transporter!”VW: “custom made then ;)”

Page � of �47 74

This is the only conversation in which the strategy was successful. This was arguably also the easiest situation, as they seek agreement about a want that has already been made clear.

4.4.4.AvoiddisagreementJust like the comments that sought agreement, those that attempt to avoid disagreement are characterised by a wink emoji. In #19.2 and #20.12 they are not completely related to this strategy, though, as there appears another strategy in between the emoji and the avoid disagreement-strategy. Avoiding disagreement is used to protect the others’ faces, but also to protect their own face. #7.1 and #22.1b are mainly directed at the others positive face and are somewhat intended to be funny, while the other two are mainly directed at Volkswagen’s own positive face. The first two were successful in attracting engagement, the latter were not.

4.4.5.AssumeorpresupposecommongroundThis strategy was used in sixteen conversations, which can be divided into two categories: those situations in which the social media team assume or indicate an agreement, and those where they empathise with their fans. Both uses have in common that they try to address the fans’ positive faces by focusing on something they have in common.

#20.2 Patrick: “And I am happily expecting a polo !!! I look forward to it after having had a Peugeot for 38 years !!”Diego: “You will not regret your purchase (like) a top car the polo :D :D”VW: “Congratulations <Patrick>! A good choice, isn’t it <Diego>! ;)”Diego: “Indeed (like)(like)(like)”

#22.1 Jordy: “Golf variant is completely my thing!”VW: “We love to hear that, <Jordy>! :)”Jordy: “Unfortunately I will have to stay with my golf 4 at the moment :) Which actually is not too bad either :)”VW: “There are indeed worse things than that, ‘Jordy’! ;)”

Page � of �48 74

In nine of the ten conversations where they indicated or assumed an agreement about a perspective, they used an emoji (eight winks and one smiley). Although using an emoji was a key to success in other strategies, it did not work with this one. Only one of the ten assumptions was liked, even though it was the most risky one.

The social media team assume that Quinten enjoyed the test, but what makes them think that? As they indicated in several comments, they were not at the Motor Show themselves, so this must be a guess. Considering that Quinten likes their comment, this was probably a good guess, though.

In the other six comments the social media team sympathise with the fans with words like ‘jammer’ and ‘helaas’. They do so to address their positive face, but also because it may have a positive influence on the fans’ perception of Volkswagen, and hence enhance their own positive face. In these situations the strategy was not successful either.

4.4.6.JokeJokes are useful for positive face maintenance as they often require mutual knowledge based on shared experiences (Jeon & Mauney 2014). With some jokes Volkswagen’s social media team do not only address their conversation partner, but also the other visitors of their Facebook page.

#18.5 Quinten: “Been there done that"VW: “And enjoyed it too! ;)"

#1.19 VW: “Hi Benny, you have won a T-shirt. Congratulations! Will you send us a PM with your address and T-shirt size? Thanks!”Thijs: “my parents don’t allow me to send our address”VW: “Hi <Thijs>, that’s a pity. Of course we can’t send the T-shirt than …”VW: “But maybe you could send your address in a private message, <Thijs>? We guarantee that we will treat your information confidentially. Kind regards!”Thijs: “but my parents say I can’t do that srry”

Page � of �49 74

Telling jokes addresses the other’s positive face, because it is a test to see if the conversation partners are on the same wavelength. Failure to understand a joke, however, may threaten both the teller’s as the other’s positive face (Goatly 2012). Only three jokes led to a like and one of these three also led to a new comment, the other jokes were just ignored.

4.4.7.IndicatesimilarwantsIndicating that they share the same wants as their fans and customers was another very successful strategy, as it also resulted in 100% engagement. Volkswagen’s social media team address the positive faces of their fans by indicating that they wish or hope something for them. Four out of five comments were liked by the fan and #13.1 was even more successful, as it resulted in a comment in which the customer reaffirmed his loyalty to the brand (see subsection 4.4.1. for text and translation).

4.4.8.OfferWith an offer Volkswagen address the readers’ positive faces, because they try to help them. This is the most popular strategy, as it accounts for about 25% of the total strategies used. Mostly, the social media team offer help with an answer to a question or a solution to a problem. When they answer a question, they often also give a link which leads to more information. The engagement with comments that include this strategy was average. About one in four fans liked or commented on Volkswagen’s offer. Including a link to a website with more information did not influence the engagement.

#16.8 Elke: “It’s a beast :D”VW: “Rawr! ;)”

#26.2 Christel: “I ordered a New Beetle altstar but 5 months waiting pfff”VW: “It is definitely worth the wait! We already wish you a lot of driving fun!”

Page � of �50 74

In four conversations they do extra facework and offer more information than was solicited, but in three of the four it is combined with an answer to an earlier question. In terms of likes and comments, this extra information did not work to increase engagement.

4.4.9.PromiseOf the 22 comments with a promise, only four are liked. Does this mean that fans do not trust Volkswagen, or is this just not a successful strategy to look for engagement? The social media team made four kinds of promises, which were all mainly directed at the other’s positive face.

Nine times the social media team promised that something would happen. Although this is not explicitly directed at the fans’ positive faces, it does include facework, because they promise something that is wanted by them. Even though this should make the fans happy, only one shows his happiness or appreciation with a like.

#4.1 This person quite boldly asks for the price of the toys.Yves: “What is the price”VW: “Hi <Yves>, of course that depends on what product you choose :). Via this link you’ll get an overview of all our gift ideas for kids: link”

#20.16 Antonio: “There are 2 versions of the tiguan at the motor show, one is the tiguan edition, but does anyone know what version the other one with the foglights is"VW: “Hi <Antionio>, that is the ’Sport & Style’. You can find all information and details here: link"

#1.2 Stefaan: “Have the winners of the contest already been announced?”VW: “Just a little more patience, <Stefaan>, the winners will be announced as soon as possible!”

Page � of �51 74

Twice Volkswagen’s social media team promised that some action by the fan would lead to some expected result. In #16.27 they promise that the fan will find the expected information if he clicks the link and in #25.1 they promise that he will be informed timely, if he follows their Facebook page on a regular basis.

In two other conversations the social media team cannot answer a question themselves, so they say that the fans should direct their question to their local dealer, because he can answer their question. Although, they do not directly help the fans, they try to address their positive face by promising that one of their partners will be able to answer their questions.

The last category of promises are those in which the social media team say that they will do something for the fan. In most of these conversations they promise that they will try to find the right answer to the fans’ questions. In two other conversations they promise that they will keep the fan up-to-date about something. Two other promises are twofold. In #1.2 they promise that something will happen, but indirectly this involves Volkswagen keeping the fan up-to-date. In #25.1 the social media team promise that the fan can stay informed by following the Volkswagen Belgium Facebook page, so they indirectly promise to keep him up-to-date here as well.

#16.27 Geert: “Sturdy car (car) maybe something for me?"VW: “Hi Gert, you will definitely find all information for a convincing answer to you question here: link"

#15.4 Ellen: “What are the reductions for the tiguan?”VW: “Hi <Ellen>, did you know that we have a website full of promotions? Quickly have a look on link. If you prefer a personal pricing estimate for a Tiguan, you can visit your VW-dealer. :)”

#1.2 #1.2Stefaan: “Have the winners of the contest already been announced?”VW: “Just a little more patience, <Stefaan>, the winners will be announced as soon as possible!”

Page � of �52 74

4.4.10.Beop9mis9cOptimism addresses the other’s positive face, because it stresses the speaker’s confidence in the other. The social media team used some kind of optimism in eleven comments, but this strategy was not that successful to spark more engagement with the fans. Like other strategies that were used in positive circumstances, it was also often accompanied by a wink emoji.

Four times the social media team write “just a little more patience”, twice accompanied by a wink and once by a grin emoji. This strategy focusses on the other’s positive face, because they indicate that it will not take long and it is optimistic, because they are hoping that the fan will have enough patience to wait. #26.2 is very similar, because here they say that is definitely worth it to wait five months for a Beetle Dune.

In #15.1 they offer a fan a way to buy cheap tickets after she asked for free tickets. They address her positive face by trying to help as much as possible and they assume that she will buy the tickets.

#15.14b is arguably the clearest example of this strategy. The fan say that he will give them a Pablo button, but the social media team is not present at the Motor Show. Nevertheless, they say that he can just leave them one. Suggesting and assuming that he will leave such a button is a good example of the optimism strategy. Volkswagen address his positive face by showing trust in him and they give him an opportunity to address their positive face by leaving a button. This entire interaction and this strategy look successful to boost the community feeling.

In #16.7a, #16.7b and #17.1 they indirectly suggest two fans that they should buy a Volkswagen. Each time they stress this suggestion with a wink emoji. Luc, in #16.7, is very interested in the

#26.2 Christel: “I ordered a New Beetle altstar but 5 months waiting pfff”VW: “It is definitely worth the wait! We already wish you a lot of driving fun!”

#15.14 Jakke: “I’ll come and say hi on Monday and Tuesday!”VW: “Definitely do that, <Jakke>. Don’t forget to mention that you are one of our biggest Facebookfans :).”Jakke: “<Volkswagen Belgium> who do I ask for? :’) :p get a pablo button”VW: “The VW social team is unfortunately not there, but you may always leave a button ;)!”

Page � of �53 74

Tiguan, but he has to order a new company car before May and he is not sure if the car will be available by then. In the first comment Volkswagen says that the car will be available timely for the fan to buy it, and with the wink emoji they suggest that he should buy it. Another fan is inspired by Luc’s enthusiasm about the Tiguan and wonders if he should also buy one. Again Volkswagen’s comment suggests that he should.

With this optimism they address the fans’ positive faces, because they show a lot of trust in them. Although, buying a new car is a big investment, Volkswagen’s comments are rather short and playful. This indicates that they really trust these people’s commitment to Volkswagen.

4.4.11.IncludeVWandtheaddresseeinthesameac9vityIncluding your conversation partner in the same activity is a good strategy to address his positive face, because it show that you are cooperators (Brown & Levinson 1992). In #14.1, for example, the social media team invite the Facebook fan to participate in an activity. This addresses her positive face, because it shows that Volkswagen cares for her opinion and want her to participate in this activity.

#16.7 Luc D.: “Dear VW, amazing car for which I came to the Motor Show today. Is on my shortlist (I have to order in May). It’s a pity that we could not sit inside. Will there also be a 2.0 TDI 150hp DSG and is the CO2 then value lower or equal to 128gr? When at the dealer’s?”Luc K.: “Is it that nice then? I need a new one … should I choose a Tiguan after all instead of a Range Rover ????”Luc D.: “I was doubting between x1 and Tiguan. Range not in our car policy. Tiguan is AWESOME :) but not available (yet) in 2WD DSG. Will be X1 after all which is a lot less beautiful.VW: “Hi <Luc>, we will directly inquire about the CO2 value for you.. The good news is that the Tiguan is available from March 2016, so perfectly

on time for your order! 😉 ”VW “<Luc>, of course we think you should! :)”

Page � of �54 74

In #27.2 the social media team use the same strategy to invite someone to participate in an activity and give his opinion. Twice this was a successful strategy to engage with their fans, because they both replied to Volkswagen question and participated in the activity.

4.4.12.GivereasonsGiving reasons for doing a FTA mitigates the threat, because the speaker can explain why he does something or asks for something. Moreover, the speaker can show that what he says is in the other’s interest, thus addressing his positive face. The social media team used this strategy seventeen times, but it only led to likes in some of the comments.

Six times the social media team ask or suggest the other to do something and give a reason why. In #16.13, for example, they hint that the fan should buy the car. They propose a solution for his financial problem and secondly, they give a reason why he should buy the car now. To give this reason, they refer to an earlier comment by a friend of Tom’s. Consequently, they address two persons’ positive faces with this comment and both persons also liked it. In #17.1 they also suggest that the fan should buy a car and again they mitigate this with a reason. This was also a successful comment.

#14.1 Kim: “Definitely amazing seats. They would feel more comfortable than my cold hard seats.Old school is nice but in the winter you do miss the luxury. Which vw car is it I am curious ;)"VW “The right answer has already emerged several times.  Do not hesitate to make a guess ;)!”Frederik: "I think she knows, though. ;)”Kim: “Gti then”

#16.13 Kevin: “<Tom D.> <Jensy v.> <Kevin D.> Motor Show stuff ;)”Tom: “I can start saving xD Nice successor for my current tiguan xd”Kevin: “Indeed, would be a beautiful successor ;)”VW: “Or you could also benefit from the beneficial Motor Show financing at a 0% interest rate, <Tom>. Like that the succession is immediately

secure 😉 ”

Page � of �55 74

In two of these situations (#16.1 and #16.7e), they ask for the fans’ personal information. This can be considered as a serious face threat, but Volkswagen try to mitigate this by indicating the benefits for the fans, i.e. to stay up-to-date.

In the nine other comments with a reason, Volkswagen use this reason to back up an answer and protect their own positive face. In #16.5 they cannot give a full answer to a fan’s question, but they explain that this is, because the information will only be released once the car is launched. In other words, Volkswagen want to address Lore’s positive face by answering her question, but they cannot do it properly. Hence, they also give a reason to protect their own positive face.

4.4.13.AskforreasonsAsking for reasons shows that the speaker and the other are cooperators, hence it addresses the other’s positive face (Brown & Levinson 1992). In #17.1, the only comment with this strategy, the social media team ask why Wesn is still doubting to buy the car, after he had indicated himself that it would be a valuable car in the future.

4.4.14.Fulfiltheaddressee’swants(gia)One of the most outspoken ways to address the other’s positive face is with a gift that fulfils his wants. This does not necessarily have to be a material gift, but it is each time Volkswagen use this strategy. Volkswagen gave away free shirts to sixteen fans who had participated in a contest. Another time they explained a fan how he could apply for free tickets for the Motor Show.

#16.5 Lore: "Can be ordered in March 2016, but when can it be delivered? Thanks for your reply.”VW: “Hi <Lore>, about three months after the order - dependent on the engine, the finishes and the options that you picked. Definitely contact your local dealer, he will be able to tell your the exact delivery date. Have a nice day!”

#17.1 Wesn: “It will be worth a lot of money within 50 years because there won’t drive around many of these (thinking)”VW: “And now already a lot of driving fun! So why doubt any longer huh, <Wesn M.>! ;)”

Page � of �56 74

Fifteen other fans received exactly the same message. Although giving away free shirts is a considerable effort to address positive face, it did seem not very successful to solicit more engagement on the Facebook page. Some fans liked Volkswagen’s comment and a few replied, but ony one of them thanked Volkswagen for the gift.

4.5.Nega9vestrategiesincategorytwoThe social media team used relatively more negative strategies in positive and neutral interactions than in negative ones. Six different categories were observed, for a total of 59 negative strategies.

4.5.1.Ques9onBy asking a question, the speaker shows that he does not assume that the other wants something. When the speaker asks a question, he gives the other more freedom to choose to comply with his request or not. In other words, this strategy minimises the threat to the other’s negative face (Brown & Levinson 1992). In #1.8 and the other comments in which they announce that the fan will receive a free shirt, they ask for personal information. These questions also contain several hedges, because they impose a considerable threat to the other’s face.

In #15.4, #16.9b and 16.12b the social media team use a question as an introduction to a FTA. These FTAs are rather small, though, as they also include some information that is in the reader’s interest. In #16.2a the question is also used to introduce information, but here the information is already included in the question. Although the main intention of these comments was to help the fans, no-one engaged with Volkswagen.

#1.4 VW: “Hi Benny, you have won a T-shirt. Congratulations! Will you send us a PM with your address and T-shirt size? Thanks!”

#1.8 VW: “Hi Arlette, you have won a T-shirt. Congratulations! Will you send us a PM with your address and T-shirt size? Thanks!”Arlette: “PM sent Thanks in advance and good luck !!”

Page � of �57 74

In #18.3 and #20.5, lastly, the social media team ask the fan to reconsider buying a Volkswagen car, after giving them information about the special loan conditions. These questions are a bit playful and are intended to be funny to reduce the imposition to the other’s negative face. Both fans liked this playful suggestion to buy a car.

In conclusion, only the last use of this strategy was successful in terms of engagement.

4.5.2.HedgeHedges are used to reduce the directness of a request or some other FTA. Hedges intend to minimise the threat to the other’s negative face. In #2.1, for example, the social media team invite Tony to have a look at their website. This may threaten his negative face, because it will cost him time to find the answer and he is instructed to do something. To minimise this threat Volkswagen use hedges, such as ‘anders eens’. In #15.15 and #16.4 hedges are used similarly to address the other’s negative face.

#15.4 Ellen: “What are the reductions for the tiguan?”VW: “Hi <Ellen>, did you know that we have a website full of promotions? Quickly have a look on link. If you prefer a personal pricing estimate for a Tiguan, you can visit your VW-dealer. :)”

#20.4 Sven: “Finding a dream car is not the problem :). Paying it will rather be a problem.”VW: “Hi <Sven>, at this moment you can get financing at a 0% interest rate at the Motor Show. Maybe it is worth a consideration, after all?”

#2.1 Tony: “super cool vw I wonder when it will be released in belgium”VW: “Hi <Tony> you could have a look at our website, there you' l l find al l necessary information: link”

Page � of �58 74

The hedges were often combined with the questions from the previous subsection. This is the case in #1.4 - #1.20, #18.3a and #20.5. Here, they are also used to address the other’s negative face.

In #16.7d and #18.4b, lastly, longer phrases, introduced by the word ‘moest’ (should) were used as a hedge. In the former the social media advise the fan to buy an alternative car, in case he should not have the patience to wait for the one he wants. The hedge is used to introduce the advice, but it also necessary to minimise the threat to the other’s negative face. Without hedge this advice would have been a rather direct and probably unsolicited call to action. In the latter, the hedge is part of an expression that addresses the other’s positive face, as the social media team says that the fan can always contact them in case he should have any questions. This is a rather general expression, and honestly, it would be strange to just read ‘you can always contact us’.

4.5.3.Minimisetheimposi9onIn one situation Volkswagen minimised the imposition to mitigate a possible threat to the other’s negative face. The comment in which it is used is a very firm invitation to visit Volkswagen at the Motor Show — this addresses Ronny’s positive face. Because the invitation is this firm, Ronny may feel obliged to visit them. To minimise the possible imposition of this invitation, the social media team used the word ‘even’, which means just a moment. In other words, they invite him to come to their stand, but the possible face threat is minimised, because they indicate that he does not have to stay there very long.

4.5.4.Apologise:overwhelmingreasonsThe social media team apologised on four occasions to protect their own positive face. By giving an overwhelming reason they state that some issue is not their fault, but some third party’s fault, thus they try to avoid losing face by blaming someone else. In #11.1 and #16.11c they blame the manufacturer for not being able to give them the solicited information. This is rather curious, because I suppose blaming the manufacturer does not protect their own positive face, as they are the same company, at least by name. This makes me think that D’Ieteren, the Belgian Volkswagen distributor, is in charge of this Facebook page, and not Volkswagen itself. Either they forgot that their names are linked, or they did not think twice about what they were writing.

#15.2 Ronny: “Am thereTonight”VW: “You should definitely come by to say hi, Ronny, we are in Hall 11. See you! :)”

Page � of �59 74

In #20.1a and #20.8a Volkswagen indirectly blame the Motor Show organisers to protect their own positive face. Two fans complained that they could not see a certain car at the show, and the social media team explained that they did not have enough space to display all their models. In other words, fans should not think less of Volkswagen for not displaying all their models, because they were not able to do so due to a lack of space.

4.5.5.ImpersonaliseImpersonalising is another negative politeness strategy to mitigate FTAs. It can either be used to address the other’s negative face, or to protect one’s own positive face by distancing oneself from the problem, which is the case in #15.5 and #17.2. The former concerns the Dieselgate crisis, and thus it is similar to previously discussed conversations with impersonalisations. In the later Volkswagen use a perspective switch to protect their own face. In stead of saying that they do not manufacture or sell the car with this colours, they never refer to themselves, but only to the car.

4.5.6.Goonrecordasnotindeb9ngtheaddresseeIn two situations the social media team indicated that the fan should not feel indebted to address his positive face. In #14.2 and #15.12 the social media team did something for the fan, but they indicate that the fan is not indebted to them (‘graag gedaan’ = you’re welcome). They address the fans’ positive face, because they did something ‘free of charge’.

#11.1 Dan: “a few years ago there were rumours about an UP GT, how much longer will it take?”VW “Hi Dan, unfortunately we did not receive any further information from the Volkswagen factory about the Up! GT. We’ll keep you informed in case they do (manufacture one). Have a nice day.”

#17.2 Jessica: “Is this for advertising purposes or can you really buy the car in these colours?? :)”VW: “Hi <Jessica>, it was a special jacket for the Love Bugs Parade that will take place on Sunday 14th of February 2016 in Brussels. Unfortunately, it won’t be on the market in this version.”

Page � of �60 74

4.6.SummaryOf the 149 interactions observed in this case study, 37 were put in category one. This means that about one in four interactions on Volkswagen’s Facebook page were potentially face-threatening towards the company. Giving reasons and offering something (mostly more information) were the most frequently used strategies in these interactions. These were also the only strategies that led to a positive reply, namely an expression of thanks by the person who complained. Twelve other fans also liked the relpy to their complaint, so it may be assumed that they appreciated or accepted Volkswagen’s comments. These comments consisted of various politeness strategies. In the end, assuming a common ground and indicating similar wants are strategies that should perhaps be avoided, as they both received zero likes and even led to three more face-threatening comments. All negative politeness strategies, except for incurring a debt, were not successful either. These strategies were only used in fourteen situations, hence advice about these strategies would hardly be representative.

Assuming or presupposing a common ground was not successful to increase engagement either, as only one out of sixteen comments with this strategy was liked and not even one received a reply. Indicating similar wants, however also unsuccessful to solve issues, worked out

#15.12 Susanne: “Good luck during the Motor Show! It's a pity, though, that VW drivers with  ‘cheat' software still have not been invited to go to their car dealer. Unfortunate Volkswagen Belgium.”Jeffrey: “I drive an Audi, received my letter 4 months ago to bring him in”Susanne: “That 's good news Jeffrey D. Unfortunately we haven’t. Let's wait and see.”VW: “Hi Suzanne, that's because VW wants to create a customer care package first. So that you won't end up without a car when you bring yours in, for example. In 2016 there will definitely be an obliged call-back action, if you want to stay up-to-date about it, you can always have a look at link Have a nice day!”Suzanne: “Thanks for the elaborate explanation and information Volkswagen <Volkswagen Belgium>  (like)"VW: “You're welcome, <Suzanne>! :D”

Page � of �61 74

very well to increase engagement. Five comments with this strategy led to four likes and one reply, signifying 100% engagement.

Showing intensified interest in a fan was also 100% successful to increase engagement, as seven comments with this strategy led to five replies and three likes. Asking for reasons had 100% engagement as well, but it was only used once and it was just liked by the other, while it normally requieres a reply.

In comments where the desired effect was to increace engagement, only three negative politeness strategies worked, but the other three were only used once or twice. Comments with questions and hedges were liked and replied to most, but they were mostly combined with a gift, which definitely influences the results. Not considering the comments that also include a gift, these strategies still lead to more than 33% engagement each, though. Comments in which the social media team apologised with an overwhelming reason, lastly, were replied to in 50% of the interactions (two out of four).

Page � of �62 74

5. ConclusionThis research has shown which politeness strategies Volkswagen’s social media team use most frequently to interact with Facebook fans in both face-threatening and face-neutral or face-enhancing circumstances. The intended use of these strategies has been analysed, but these answers are never final. As Gee states: “Our answers to these questions are always tentative. They are always open to revision as we learn more about the material, social, cultural, and historical contexts in which the words were uttered or written. However, at some point, what we learn may well cease to change our answers to these sorts of questions in any very substantive way.” (1999, p.73) Lastly, the success of these strategies has been measured, based on the likes that comments with a specific strategy received and the presence or absence of a reply to Volkswagen’s comments. This analysis has given some insight into which strategies work to increase engagement and which don’t. Additionally, it has shown that assuming or presupposing a common ground is never a successful strategy, neither to solve issues nor to increase engagement. Showing intensified interest and indicating similar wants, in contrary, have both proven to be useful strategies to increase engagement.

Should Volkswagen’s social media team focus on using only the most successful strategies in their communication then? I do not think so, as the choice of strategies depends mainly on the context and some situations are just more likely to produce more engagement. Some strategies have also not been used very frequently, so it is hard to determine if they are successful or not. Apologies, for example, were barely used by the social media team. Several times I argued that they should have apologised for something, but as they only did so six times in the entire corpus, it is impossible to determine if they should use this strategy more often or not.

For future studies in this area it might be useful to gather more information about the company being analysed. In-depth interviews with employees could provide useful information about company policy and the social media manager’s actions. These interviews could solve questions that have been left unresolved in this study. An answer would probably be found to why different salutations and closings were used, and to who is managing this page: D’Ieteren or Volkswagen. The social media team of this Facebook page was contacted, but they did not reply to the message.

Because the information was gathered at several moments and information constantly appears and disappears on Facebook, some interesting data may have been overlooked or lost. As it was only later decided to check which comments were liked by whom, it was not possible to check this for each and every comment, as some had already been removed. Consequently, the statistics about likes may not be 100% correct. Not many comments were liked in the disappeared posts, though, so this will only have a small influence on the results, if any. There’s

Page � of �63 74

also a slight possibility that some likes or replies were missed, because they might have appeared after the screenshots were taken. As most screenshots were taken at least one or two week after the post had been published and most posts were checked again later, it seems rather unlikely, that any data was overlooked this way, though.

In mosts comments a combination of two or more different politeness strategies was used. Negative politeness strategies rarely appeared unaccompanied by a positive politeness strategy and positive politeness strategies were often accompanied by another positive politeness strategy. Therefore, engagement is usually caused by a combination of strategies and not by one single strategy. Nevertheless, it is intersting to see that the presence of some strategy always leads to engagement and the presence of another barely had any effect.

Although this case study still has some flaws and it is not representative enough to give solid advice about using politeness strategies on social media, it may provide some interesting food for thought for Volkswagen Belgium and other companies alike. The social media team should always remember that they are a company dealing with customers. Therefore, it is interesting to look at Schneider & Bowen’s Customer Needs Model (1999). First of all customers are people before they are consumers and secondly people consider their fundamental needs to be more important than their specific expectations as customers. As a consequence, companies should always look at their customers as people, not as consumers. To pursue their goals, avoiding impoliteness (i.e. using face work) should be a high priority for companies (Stalpers 1992). They should also be aware of the fact that the need for a positive self-image underlies how customers want to be treated in interaction (Bastos & de Oliveira, 2006). This probably also explains why positive politeness strategies were generally more successful than negative politeness strategies.

Most probably these politeness strategies were applied unconciously, so their intended use is not always clear. For future research it might be interesting to be more involved with the social media team and actively apply politeness strategies to test their effect on engagement and solving issues. It might definitely also be useful to conduct a similar case study with another company or on another medium such as Twitter.

Page � of �64 74

6. References

Al-Azzawi, J. N. (2011). Compliments and positive politeness strategies. Journal of the college of basic education, 111-126.

Androutsopoulos, J., & Beißwenger, M. (2008). Introduction: Data and methods in computer-mediated discourse analysis. Language@ Internet, 5(2), 1-7.

Bastos, L.C. & de Oliveira, M. (2006). Identity and personal/institutional relations: people and tragedy in health insurance customer service. in De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 188-213.

Bedijs, K., Held, G., & Maaß, C. (2014). Face work and social media. Zürich: Lit.

Bell, N. D. (2009). Impolite responses to failed humor. In Norrick and Chiaro 2009: 143-63.

Boyd, D. (2007). m., & Ellison, NB (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1992). Politeness : some universals in language usage. Repr. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Cicourel, A. V. (1992). 11 The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from medical encounters. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, (11), 291.

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6).

Ehrhardt, C. (2014). Politeness and Face Work in German Forum Communication. in Bedijs, K., Held, G., & Maaß, C. (2014). Face work and social media. Zürich: Lit. 83-108.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity press.

Fröhlich, U. (2014). Reflections on the Psychological Terms Self and Identity in Relation to the Concept of Face for the Analysis of Online Forum-Communication. Bedijs, K., Held, G., & Maaß, C. (2014). Face work and social media. Zürich: Lit. 109-132.

Gee, J. Paul. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method. London: Routledge.

Goatly, A. (2012). Meaning and humour. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual : essays on face-to-face behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. S.l.: s.n.

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds)., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 612-634

Page � of �65 74

Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New media & society, 6(1), 26-36.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua-journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication, 8(2-3), 223-248.

Ide, S., & Watts, R. J. (1992). Politeness in language : studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2014). The discourse reader. Routledge.

Jones, R. H, & Norris, S. (2005). Discourse in action : introducing mediated discourse analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics).

Lim, T. S. (1994). Facework and Interpersonal Relationships. The Challenge of Facework, 209-229.

Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals–observations from Japanese. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 207-222.

Norrick, N.R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Jeon, L., & Mauney, S. (2014, April). “As Much As I Love You, I’ll Never Get You to Understand”: Political Discourse and ‘Face’Work on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin.

Jones, R. H., & Norris, S. (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge.

O'Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1-32.

Peuronen, S. (2011). “Ride hard, live forever”: Translocal identities in an online community of extreme sports Christians. in Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. R. (2011). Digital discourse : language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 154-176.

Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse : the nexus of practice. London: Routledge.

Schneider, B. & D.E. Bowen 1999. Understanding costumer delight and outrage. Sloan Management Review, 41(1): 35-45

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im) politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.

Page � of �66 74

Stalpers, J. (1992). Between matter-of-factness and politeness. na.

Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. R. (2011). Digital discourse : language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Belleghem, S. (2012). The conversation company: Boost your business through culture, people and social media. London: Kogan Page.

Walton, S., & Jaffe, A. (2011). “Stuff White People Like”: Stance, Class, Race, and Internet Commentary. Digital discourse: Language in the new media, 199-219.

Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and power of politeness (pp. 155-199). na.

Websites:

Facebook. (n.d.) . Retr ieved May 21, 2016, f rom https: / /www.facebook.com/VolkswagenBelgium/?fref=ts.

Geschiedenis. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://www.new.volkswagen.be/nl/volkswagen/geschiedenis.html.

Heyd, T., & Puschmann, C. (2009, November 13). Sociolinguistics and CMC. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://sociocmc.blogspot.be/2009/11/cfp-from-face-to-facebook-performing.html.

VTM Nieuws. (2015, October 2). Dieselgate: Check hier of uw wagen besmet is. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/160788-dieselgate-check-hier-uw-wagen-besmet

Page � of �67 74

7. Appendices

Table 1: Poliness strategies in category one Table 2: Politeness strategies in category two Table 3: Likes and replies

Corpus: Evernote

h t t p s : / / w w w . e v e r n o t e . c o m / p u b / t j e n n e /corpuspolitenessstrategiesinb2ccommunicationonsocialmedia.-kjellvandevyvere

Page � of �68 74

Page � of �69 74

Page � of �70 74

Category one: face-threatening interactions

Positive politeness strategies Negative politeness strategies

Avoid disagreement #15.16b #15.20b #16.14 #29.1b

4 Apologise: admit the infringement

#15.20b 1

Give reasons #15.10 #15.12a #15.16b #15.20b #16.3 #16.14 #16.16 #20.4a #20.4b #21.1 #22.2b #23.3 #29.1a #29.1b

14 Apologise: give overwhelming reasons

#19.3 1

Include in same activity

#23.2a 1 Hedge #5.1 #15.19 #16.24 #20.6

4

In-group language #23.1 1 Impersonalise #12.1 #13.3 #15.6 #15.10 #15.19 #22.2b

6

Joke #1.3 #15.9 2 Incurring a debt #15.13 1

Notice #15.8 #15.13 #23.1 3 Question #20.4b 1

Offer #12.1 #12.2 #13.3 #13.4 #15.6 #15.7 #15.8 #15.9 #15.10 #15.12a #15.16b #15.19 #15.20b #16.3 #16.16 #16.21 #20.3a #20.4a #20.6 #21.1 #22.4a #22.4b #23.3 #29.1b

24

Optimism #15.10 #15.19 #16.3 #16.16 #16.21 #23.2a

6

Presuppose/assume common ground

#15.16a #16.21 #19.1 #20.3a #20.9 #21.1 #22.3

7

Promise #5.1 #15.7 #15.8 #15.12a #15.13 #15.16a #15.16b #15.20b #20.4a #20.4b #22.3 #23.3

12

Similar wants #15.20b #19.3 #20.4a #20.9 #22.2b

5

Table 1:

Page � of �71 74

Category two: face-neutral and face-enhancing interactions

Positive politeness strategies Negative politeness strategies

Ask for a reason #17.1 1 Apologise: overwhelming reasons

#11.1 #16.11c #20.1a #20.8a

4

Avoid disagreement #7.1 #19.2 #20.12 #22.1b

4 Hedge #1.4 #1.5 #1.6 #1.7 #1.8 #1.9 #1.10 #1.11 #1.12 #1.13 #1.14 #1.15 #1.16a #1.17 #1.18a #1.18b #1.19a #1.19c #1.20 #2.1 #11.1 #15.15 #16.4 #16.7d #18.3a #18.4b #20.5

27

Fulfill the other’s wants = gift

#1.4 #1.5 #1.6 #1.7 #1.8 #1.9 #1.10 #1.11 #1.12 #1.13 #1.14 #1.15 #1.17 #1.18b #1.19a #1.20 #14.2b

17 Impersonalise #15.5 #17.2 2

Give reasons #2.1 #15.15 #16.1 #16.2a #16.5 #16.7d #16.7e #16.12b #16.13 #16.15 #17.1 #17.2 #18.9 #19.2 #19.4 #22.5 #25.1

17 Minimise the imposition

#15.2 1

Include in same activity

#14.1 #27.2a 2 Not indebting #14.2a #15.12b 2

Intensified interest #3.1 #3.2a #10.3 #15.14a #15.18a #17.9 #27.2

7 Question #1.4 #1.5 #1.6 #1.7 #1.8 #1.9 #1.10 #1.11 #1.12 #1.13 #1.14 #1.15 #1.17 #1.18b #1.19a #1.19c #1.20 #15.4 #16.2a #16.9b #16.12b #18.3a #20.5

23

Joke #7.1 #10.2 #10.3 #16.8 #16.10 #18.1 #18.6 #20.7

8

Table 2:

Page � of �72 74

Notice #3.2a #3.2b #8.1 #8.2 #8.3 #10.2 #13.1 #13.2b #13.5 #13.6 #15.2 #15.3 #15.11a #15.11b #15.14a #15.18a #15.18b #16.9a #16.18 #16.19 #16.20 #16.22 #16.23 #16.25 #16.28 #16.30 #17.5 #17.6 #17.8 #17.10 #18.2 #18.7 #18.8 #18.9 #18.10 #20.1a #20.1b #20.2 #20.8b #20.10 #20.11 #20.13 #22.1a #26.3 #27.1 #27.2b

47

Offer #1.18a #1.16b #1.19c #2.1 #4.1 #4.2 #6.1 #9.1 #13.2a #14.2b #15.1 #15.4 #15.5 #15.15 #15.17a #15.17b #15.18b #16.1 #16.2a #16.2b #16.4 #16.5 #16.6 #16.7a #16.7c #16.7e #16.9b #16.11c #16.12a #16.12b #16.13 #16.15 #16.24 #16.26 #16.27 #16.29 #16.31 #17.4 #18.3a #18.3b #18.4a #18.4b #20.1 #20.3b #20.5 #20.8a #20.12 #20.14 #20.16 #22.2a #25.2 #26.1b #26.4

53

Optimism #1.1 #1.2 #15.1 #15.14b #16.7a #16.7b #16.15 #17.1 #17.4 #20.3b #26.2

11

Presuppose/assume common ground

#1.19b #10.1 #10.2 #15.1 #15.14b #15.20a #16.9a #16.17 #16.22 #17.2 #17.5 #17.11 #18.4a #18.5 #20.7 #26.1b

16

Page � of �73 74

Table 3:

Success rate based on likes and replies

Strategy Category one Category two

Positive politeness strategies

Likes Number of comments with this strategy

Likes Replies Number of comments with this strategy

Ask for a reason / / 1 0 1

Avoid disagreement

2 4 2 0 4

Gift / / 4 5 17

Give reasons 3 14 6 3 17

Include in same activity

0 1 0 2 2

In-group language 0 1 / / /

Intensified interest / / 3 5 7

Joke 1 2 3 1 8

Notice 1 3 20 7 47

Offer 3 24 13 13 53

Optimism 1 6 3 2 11

Assume/presuppose common ground

0 7 1 0 16

Promise 1 12 4 6 22

Seek agreement / / 1 3 7

Indicate similar wants

0 5 4 1 5

Promise #5.1 #15.7 #15.8 #15.12a #15.13 #15.16a #15.16b #15.20b #20.4a #20.4b #22.3 #23.3

12

Similar wants #15.20b #19.3 #20.4a #20.9 #22.2b

5

Page � of �74 74

Negative politeness strategies

Likes Number of comments with this strategy

Likes Replies Number of comments with this strategy

Apologise: admit the infringement

0 1 / / /

Apologise: overwhelming reasons

0 1 0 2 4

Hedge 0 4 7 6 27

Impersonalise 0 6 0 0 2

Minimise the imposition

/ / 0 0 1

Not indebting / / 0 0 2

Incurring a debt 1 1 / / /

Question 0 1 6 6 23