This article investigates the influence of relationship closeness on the use of politeness markers in English and Uzbek social media discourse. The study is based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, particularly the notions of “face”, social distance, power relations and ranking of imposition. The analysis also draws on discourse-oriented approaches to relational work and computer-mediated discourse studies. The research uses real examples reported in reliable scholarly sources on English online interaction, Facebook compliments, Uzbek youth social media communication and Uzbek speech etiquette. The findings show that relationship closeness does not eliminate politeness; rather, it changes its linguistic form and pragmatic orientation. In close relationships, politeness is more often realized through positive politeness strategies such as solidarity, praise, informal address, joking, emojis and shared-group markers. In socially distant or asymmetrical relationships, speakers tend to use negative politeness strategies, including modal verbs, indirect requests, apologies, respectful pronouns, honorific verb forms and conventional etiquette formulas. The study concludes that English and Uzbek social media discourse share similar pragmatic goals but differ in their structural realization: English relies more on modal and syntactic indirectness, whereas Uzbek actively uses pronominal, morphological, address-based and cultural-etiquette devices.

politeness, relationship closeness, social distance, English discourse, Uzbek discourse, social media, Brown and Levinson, positive politeness, negative politeness, computer-mediated communication.

Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. – 345 p.

Herring S. C. Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Behavior // Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning / ed. by S. A. Barab, R. Kling, J. H. Gray. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. – P. 338–376.

Locher M. A., Watts R. J. Politeness Theory and Relational Work // Journal of Politeness Research. – 2005. – Vol. 1, No. 1. – P. 9–33.

Haugh M., Bousfield D. Mock Impoliteness, Jocular Mockery and Jocular Abuse in Australian and British English // Journal of Pragmatics. – 2012. – Vol. 44, No. 9. – P. 1099–1114.

Park J. Linguistic Politeness and Face-Work in Computer-Mediated Communication, Part 1: A Theoretical Framework // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. – 2008. – Vol. 59, No. 13. – P. 2051–2059.

Khamraeva B. Politeness and Tact in Uzbek Youth’s Social Media Interaction: A Pragmatic Perspective // Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics. – 2025. – Special Issue 5. – P. 511–516.

Muminova A. A. Uzbek Speech Etiquette: “You” Expressing Politeness and Affection // RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics. – 2015. – No. 3. – P. 95–103.

Park J. Linguistic Politeness and Face-Work in Computer-Mediated Communication, Part 2: An Application of the Theoretical Framework // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. – 2008. – Vol. 59, No. 14. – P. 2199–2209.

Placencia M. E., Lower A. Your Kids Are So Stinkin’ Cute! :-): Complimenting Behavior on Facebook among Family and Friends // Intercultural Pragmatics. – 2013. – Vol. 10, No. 4. – P. 617–646.

Placencia M. E., Lower A., Powell H. Complimenting Behaviour on Facebook: Responding to Compliments in American English // Pragmatics and Society. – 2016. – Vol. 7, No. 3. – P. 339–365.

Rhee S. Politeness and Impoliteness in Social Network Service Communication in Korea // Russian Journal of Linguistics. – 2023. – Vol. 27, No. 1. – P. 39–66.