Kesantunan Berbahasa dan Identitas dalam Media Sosial

Lusi Lian Piantari(1), Sherien Sabbah(2),


(1) Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
(2) Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Online interaction has now become an inevitability. The rapid development of information technology has affected almost every aspect of life, including human interaction. Social media has become one of the most intensive venues for interaction. This research is based on the increasing intensity of conversations on social media, which has blurred the boundaries of politeness. Therefore, it is interesting to observe how participants strive to maintain this politeness. This study focuses on how linguistic politeness emerges on social media, specifically Twitter. One characteristic of social media conversations is the unlimited number of participants, as well as the diversity of their backgrounds. This often gives rise to conflict, especially when controversial topics are discussed. The research method employed is discourse analysis within a pragmatic approach to examine the politeness strategies used, particularly when conveying disagreement or dissatisfaction. This study describes the patterns of politeness strategies on Twitter and the identities performed by participants in interaction. The positive and negative politeness strategies are applied in social media interaction.

Keywords: Identity, Politeness Strategies, Social Media, Twitter (X)


Full Text:

PDF

References


Muntigl P, Turnbull W. Conversational structure and faceworking in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics. 2008;29(3):225-256.

Sifianou M. Disagreements, face, and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. 2012;44(12):1554-1564.

Langlotz A, Miriam A. Ways of communicating emotional stane in online disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics. 2012;44:1591-1601.

Meateosioan G. Struck by speech: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2003;9(2):167-193.

Leech G. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd; 1983.

Pomerantz A. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.

Thomas J. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman; 1997.

Renkema J. Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004.

Kempf W. Constructive conflict coverage: A social psychological approach. Berlin: Irena Regener; 2003.

Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness. London: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

Maybin J. Language, struggle and voice: The Bakhtin/Volosinov writings. In: Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage Publications; 2002.

Wilson D, Sperber D. Inference and implicature. In: Pragmatics: A reader. London: Oxford University Press; 1991.

Culpeper J. Impoliteness strategies. 2016.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36722/psn.v5i1.4991

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.