STYLE VARIATION AND POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL-BASED CHATBOTS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Human social existence relies heavily on pragmatics. Consequently, failure to understand certain communicative features leads to unsuccessful interactions, as interlocutors' communicative needs remain unmet, especially in the digital age, where communication occurs through or with machines. This study, therefore, investigated key pragmatic aspects of the language use of selected LLM-based chatbots, including how they vary their language style across prompts and contexts, the consistency of their politeness strategies, and the influence of prompt genre on stylistic features. Grounded in the Speech Adaptation in Human–Computer Interaction theory, the study employed a comparative qualitative method to analyze 36 purposively stratified screenshots from five notable LLM-based chatbots. The results show that the chatbots differ in sentence length, phrasing, formality, prompt adaptation, humour, human simulation, idioms, and structural signposting, as well as in the frequency of contractions and passive constructions. The study also revealed that the chatbots consistently respond to face-threatening acts with respect, empathy, self-criticism, and willingness to cooperate. Significant findings include: Perplexity has the lowest frequency of contractions and least human simulation; Claude produces the longest responses; only ChatGPT withholds silence, shows the highest adherence to clear prompts, and cannot tell time; Gemini is the least versatile stylistically; and Copilot employs more semiotic devices but cannot generate specific APA 7th edition references using Digital Object Identifiers.
JEL Classification Codes: 035, Y80, Z13.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
AlAfnan, M. A., & MohdZuki, S. F. (2023). Do Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have a Writing Style? An Investigation into the Stylistic Features of ChatGPT-4. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology, 3(3), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.37965/jait.2023.0267
Bansal, P. (2024). Prompt engineering importance and applicability with generative AI. Journal of Computer and Communications, 12, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2024.1210002
Barus, P. A., Zhani, V. U., Siregar, K. A., Rizky, M. A., & Siregar, D. Y. (2024). Politeness and Impoliteness in Digital Communication: A Pragmatic Study in English. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 8(3), 47445–47450. Retrieved from https://jptam.org/index.php/jptam/article/view/23066
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X
Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2005). Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In J. van Kuppevelt, L. Dybkjær, & N. Bernsen (Eds.), Advances in natural, multimodal dialogue systems (pp. 23–54). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2018). Research design and methods: A process approach (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Bowman, R., Cooney, O., Newbold, J. W., Thieme, A., Clark, L., Doherty, G., & Cowan, B. (2024). Exploring how politeness impacts the user experience of chatbots for mental health support. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 184, 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103181
Brennan, S. E. (1991). Conversation with and through computers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158952
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Brummernhenrich, B., Paulus, C. L., & Jucks, R. (2025). Applying social cognition to feedback chatbots: Enhancing trustworthiness through politeness. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13569
Cassell, J. (2001). Embodied conversational agents: Representation and intelligence in user interface. AI Magazine, 22(3), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v22i4.1593
Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/332051.332075
Cassell, J., & Bickmore, T. (2003). Negotiated collusion: Modeling social language and its relationship effects in intelligent agents. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(1–2), 89–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024026532471
Choi, Y., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2025). System prompt optimization with meta-learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.09666
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2001). Language, situation, and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 185–210). Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Fathira, V., & Masbiran, G. (2025). Politeness in making requests: A study on EFL learners’ communicative strategies and attitudes. EJI (English Journal of Indragiri): Studies in Education, Literature, and Linguistics, 9(2), 598–612. https://doi.org/10.61672/eji.v9i2.3083
Giles, H. (2001). Couplandia and beyond. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 211–219). Cambridge University Press.
Google Cloud. (n.d.). Prompt engineering for an AI guide. Google. Retrieved from https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-is-prompt-engineering
Hallmark University Library. (n.d.). What are prompts? LibGuides. Retrieved from https://hallmark.libguides.com/c.php?g=1312147&p=9645092
Ikabina, I. (2024). Application of politeness theory in digital communication: Impacts and implications for online interactions. International Journal of Educational Research Excellence (IJERE), 3(2), 640–644. https://doi.org/10.55299/ijere.v3i2.889
Irvine, J. T. (2001). “Style” as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 21–43). Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press
Ke, Z., Ming, Y., & Joty, S. (2025). Adaptation of large language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.03931
Miri, S. M., & Shahrokh, Z. D. (2019). A short introduction to comparative research. [Conference paper]. Presented at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
Muñoz‑Ortiz, A., Gómez‑Rodríguez, C., & Vilares, D. (2024). Contrasting linguistic patterns in human and LLM‑generated news text. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57, 265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2
Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761289
Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
Pawlik, L. (2025). How the choice of LLM and prompt engineering affects chatbot effectiveness. Electronics, 14(5), 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14050888
Pedrazzini, F. (2025). Multilingual LLMs: Progress, challenges, and future directions. PreMAI. Retrieved from https://blog.premai.io/multilingual-llms-progress-challenges-and-future-directions/
Promptlayer. (n.d.). What is a prompt format? Retrieved from https://www.promptlayer.com/glossary/prompt-format
Reinhart, A., Brown, D. W., Markey, B., Laudenbach, M., Pantusen, K., Yurko, R., & Weinberg, G. (2024). Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(8), e2422455122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422455122
Resnik, P. (2025). Large language models are biased because they are large language models. Computational Linguistics, 51, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00558
Setiawan, A., & Sulthan, F. (2025). The Speech Politeness of Z-Generation in the Digital Era. ELTALL: English Language Teaching, Applied Linguistic and Literature, 6(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.21154/eltall.v6i1.10792
Yule, G. (2023). The study of language (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009233446
Zhang, X., Hu, Y., Liu, F., & Dou, Z. (2025). P3: Prompts promote prompting (arXiv:2507.15675v1) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.15675