A Hate and Provocative Speech Act in Social Media: A Forensic Linguistics Study

Authors

Sarifuddin Sarifuddin Universitas Hasanuddin
Maknun Tadjuddin Hasanuddin University
Ery Iswary Hasanuddin University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v4i3.18196

Abstract

This study aims to: (1) explain the types of provocative speech acts of Natalius Pigai on YouTube social media, (2) explain the forms of provocative speech acts on YouTube social media. The data in this study are languages that are supposed to contain provocative criminal acts on YouTube social media. The data source in this study is the social media YouTube. The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative method, data collection techniques in the form of viewing and documentation. The data were analyzed using the steps of (1) identifying, (2) classifying, and (3) analyzing. The results of this study indicate that: Natalis Pigai's utterances on social media contain literal indirect speech acts, while locutionary speech acts use declarative locutions, expressive illocutions, and get hearer to think about perlocutions (make the interlocutor think about). These statements violate the Criminal Code, Article 160 and Article 161 regarding sedition. Keywords: provocative speech acts, social media, forensic linguistics.

Keywords: provocative speech, social media, forensic linguistics.

References

Chaer, A. (2014). Linguistik Umum Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Chaer, A. (2012). Linguistik Umum : Edisi Revisi / Abdul Chaer.

Coulthard, M dan A. Johnson. (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Hamuddin, B., Syahdan, S., Rahman, F., Rianita, D., & Derin, T. (2019). Do They Truly Intend to Harm Their Friends?: The Motives Beyond Cyberbullying among University Students. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 9(4), 32-44.

Hamuddin, B., Rahman, F., Pammu, A., Sanusi Baso, Y., & Derin, T. (2020). Cyberbullying Among EFL Students’blogging Activities: Motives And Proposed Solutions. Teaching English with Technology, 20(2), 3-20.

Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman

McMenamin. (2002). Forensic Stylistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Nadar, F.X. (2009). Pragmatik & Penelitian pragmatik. Graha Ilmu.

Nasrullah, R. (2015). Media Sosial; Persfektif Komunikasi, Budaya, dan Sosioteknologi. Bandung : Simbiosa Rekatama Media.

Olsson, J. (2004). Forensic Linguistics (second edition). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Pusat Bahasa. (2008). Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Rahman, F., Abbas, A., Hasyim, M., Rahman, F., Abbas, A., & Hasyim, M. (2019). Facebook Group as Media of Learning Writing in ESP Context: A Case Study at Hasanuddin University. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 26(6.1), 153-167.

Santoso, I. (2013). Mengenal Linguistik Forensik: Linguis sebagai Saksi Ahli. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Sholihatin, E. (2019). Linguistik Forensik dan Kejahatan Berbahasa. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Subyantoro. (2019). Linguistik Forensik: Sumbangsih Kajian Bahasa dalam Penegakan Hukum. ADIL Indonesia Jurnal, 1(1), 36-50.

Suhariyanto. (2011). Komunikasi dalam Media Massa. Bandung: Simbiosa Rekatama Media.

Susanto. (2017). Potensi dan Tantangan Forensik Linguistik di Indonesia. ILSIA, (3), 5–7.

Verhaar, J. W. M. (2016). Asas-asas linguistik umum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Weda, S., Atmowardoyo, H., Rahman, F., & Sakti, A. E. F. (2021). Linguistic aspects in intercultural communication (IC) practices at a higher education institution in Indonesia. Eroupean Language Scientific Journal, 14, 2-6.

Wijana, I Dewa Putu. (1996). Dasar-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press