Social–Societal Context Element Changes in Cyberpragmatics Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1311.06Keywords:
cyberpragmatics, evidence of changes, multidimensional perspective, social–societal contextsAbstract
This article aims to describe evidence of change to the social–societal context seen from the cyber pragmatic perspective. The substantive data sources were texts on social media in which there were objects and data of this research. The data were collected by using the observation method equipped with note-taking techniques and recording techniques. Data were analyzed by applying the contextual analysis method. We applied the contextual analysis method or the extra lingual analysis method because of the cyberpragmatic perspective of this research with a virtual external context as the main determinant of its meaning. Before the analysis, data that were classified and typified properly were triangulated with the expert and consulted on relevant theories. The results show that the social–societal context element changes occur in the following context elements: (1) setting, (2) participants, (3) ends, and (4) instrumentalities. Setting element changes occurred in the aspects of venue, time, and atmosphere. The instrumental element changed in the aspects of the kinds of tools and the range of errand communication. The participant element changed in the aspects of perception of gender, age, and social status, and the last element, changed in the aspects of monodimensional goal manifestation and multidimensional goal manifestation.
References
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts ofacculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.
Beyer, P. (2007). Globalization and glocalization. In J. A. Beckford & J. Demerath, The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 98–118). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 17–66). Springer Netherlands.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5
Chen, J. (2017). Research trends in intercultural pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 37(4), 530–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2016.1204903
Clyne, M. (2006). Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation, and intercultural communication, 3(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.005
Culpeper, J. (2010). Historical sociopragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dewi, U. P., & Simanjuntak, R. R. (2017). Social networking and identity construction in computer-mediated communication: Cyberpragmatics analysis of fandom online community in YouTube commentaries. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Communication and Information Processing, 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1145/3162957.3163005
Fill, A. F., & Penz, H. (2017). The routledge handbook of ecolinguistics (1st edition). Routledge.
Finegan, E. (1985). Language: The social mirror. Linguistic Society of America, 61(3), 729–730.
Gerbig, A. (2010). The ecolinguistic reader: language, ecology and environment. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4, 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200308668051
Goddard, C. (2009). Not taking yourself too seriously in Australian English: Semantic explications, cultural scripts, corpus evidence, 6(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.002
González-Lloret, M. (2012). Pragmatics: Overview. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.academia.edu/9324037/Pragmatics_Overview
Haider, I. (2019). Assessing interlanguage pragmatics through interactive email communication. In S. Papageorgiou & K.M. Bailey, Global Perspectives on Language Assessment (pp. 17). Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Hymes, D. H. (1979). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes, Socio-Linguistics: Selected Reading (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.
Jaszczolt, K. (2018). Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 131–159. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0002
Kravchenko, A. V. (2016). Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics. Language Sciences, 54, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.12.002
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?. De Gruyter Mouton, 3(2), 167–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003
Locher, M. A. (2013). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 128–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.002
Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010
Locher, M. A., & Graham, S. L. (2010). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In M. A. Locher & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 1–16). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.0.1
Mahsun. (2005). Metode penelitian bahasa [Language research methods]. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Mey, J. L. (2003). Context and (dis)ambiguity: A pragmatic view. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00139-X
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: models and methods. In L. Milroy & M. Gordon, Sociolinguistics (pp. 1–22). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mühlhäusler, P., & Peace, A. (2006). Environmental discourses. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123203
Orsini-Jones, M., Lloyd, E., Cribb, M., Lee, F., Bescond, G., Ennagadi, A., & García Portillo, B. (2017). The Trouble with cyberpragmatics: embedding an online intercultural learning project into the curriculum. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2017010104
Palacio, M. A., & Gustilo, L. (2016). A pragmatic analysis of discourse particles in Filipino computer mediated communication. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-01
Patterson, M. L. (2010). Nonverbal communication. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead, The corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 1–2). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0610
Rahardi, K. (2016). Personal and communal assumptions to determine pragmatic meanings of phatic functions. Lingua Cultura, 10(2), 95-98. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i2.897
Rahardi, K. (2019a). Pragmatic perspective on phatic functions and language dignity in a culture-based society. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 4, 35–37. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v4i1.554
Rahardi, K. (2019b). Contexts as the determining roles of Javanese phatic ‘Monggo’: Culture-specific pragmatics perspective. Indonesian Language Education and Literature, 5(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.24235/ileal.v5i1.5035
Rahardi, R. (2020). Ketriaditisan konteks pragmatik tuturan tidak santun: perspektif kultur spesifik [The Triadicity of Pragmatic Contexts on Impolite Utterances: A Culture-Specific Perspective]. Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, 9, 106-128. https://doi.org/10.26499/rnh.v9i1.2340
Rahardi, R. K. (2017). Pragmatic phenomena constellation in specific culture dimension language study. International Journal of Humanity Studies (IJHS), 1(1), 84-92. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.v1i1.677
Rahardi, R. K. (2018, 5 - 6 May). Elemen dan fungsi konteks sosial, sosietal, dan situasional dalam menentukan makna pragmatik kefatisan berbahasa [The elements and functions of social, societal, and situational contexts in determining the pragmatic meaning of language practicality]. Prosiding Seminar Tahunan Linguistik Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia [Conference session]. https://repository.usd.ac.id/31870/
Rahardi, R. K. (2019). Integrating social, societal, cultural, and situational contexts to develop pragmatics course learning materials: Preliminary study. Jurnal Gramatika: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 5(2), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.22202/jg.2019.v5i2.3572
Rahardi, R. K. (2020a). On emblematic meanings of traditional medicinal herbs: Local wisdom values in the perspective of culture-specific ecopragmatics. Jurnal Arbitrer, 7(1), 16-25. http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id/index.php/arbitrer/article/view/187/134
Rahardi, R. K. (2020b). Pragmatik konteks ekstralinguistik dalam perspektif cyberpragmatics [Extralinguistic context pragmatics in the perspective of cyberpragmatics]. Amara Book.
Rasmussen, G. (2003). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(2), 253–261.
Ray, L. (2004). Pragmatism and critical theory. European Journal of Social Theory, 7(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431004044195
Roudometof, V. (2015). Theorizing glocalization: Three interpretations. European Journal of Social Theory, 19(3), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431015605443
Schneider, E. W. (1999). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Journal of English Linguistics, 27(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00754249922004426
Setyaningsih, Y., & Rahardi, R. (2020). Reduplication of word class of Indonesian prosedic morphology: Towards a semantico-pragmatic perspective. Jurnal Kata, 4(1), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.22216/kata.v4i1.5249
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17(1-2), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186
Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan aneka teknik analisis bahasa: Pengantar penelitian wahana kebudayaan secara linguistis [Methods and various language analysis techniques: An introduction to research on cultural vehicles in a linguistic manner]. Sanata Dharma University Press. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from http://www.library.usd.ac.id/web/index.php?pilih=search&p=1&q=0000128363&go=Detail
Suszczynska, M. (2011). Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2872–2875.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095521
Tarr, M. J., & Warren, W. H. (2002). Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nature Neuroscience, 5(11), 1089–1092. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn948
Verschueren, J. P. (1985). The pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wearing, C. J. (2015). Relevance theory: Pragmatics and cognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1331
Widiana, Y. (2015). A sociopragmatics study on social criticism in meme comics. Prasasti: Conference Series, 4(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.76
Wierzbicka, A. (2012). Cross-cultural pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton.
Wijana, I. D. P. (1997). Pragmatik dan pembelajaran bahasa asing [Pragmatics and foreign language learning]. Humaniora, 5, 26-30. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.1905
Williams, L. (2012). Pragmatics of second language computer-mediated communication. In L. Williams, The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0942
Wimberley, E. T., & Scott, P. (2017). Ecopragmatics. Common ground research networks. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://www.amazon.com/Ecopragmatics-Edward-T-Wimberley/dp/1612296122
Yu, K.-A. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew and Korean requests, 8(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.018
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yus, F. (2012). Cyberpragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yus, F. (2016). Towards a cyberpragmatics of mobile instant messaging. In J. Romero-Trillo, Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Society and Education in the Networked Age (pp. 7-26). Springer International Publishing.
