Emic-Epistemological Politeness in Digital Public Discourse: An Integrative Discursive Pragmatics Approach

Authors

  • R. Kunjana Rahardi Universitas Sanata Dharma
  • Agatha Umifriska Ariyani Sanata Dharma University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v44i2.1106

Keywords:

emic–epistemological politeness, discursive pragmatics, social criticism, multimodality

Abstract

This study examines emic–epistemological politeness in social media discourse from the perspective of integrative discursive pragmatics, drawing on politeness theory and epistemic pragmatics as its theoretical framework. It argues that politeness is not merely a strategy of interpersonal mitigation, but an epistemically grounded and reflexive resource for articulating social criticism within digital public spheres. The study explores how discursive practices are strategically employed to negotiate meaning, manage face relations, and construct epistemic legitimacy in response to socio-political issues. Employing a qualitative design within an interpretative–constructivist paradigm, the study utilizes critical discourse analysis. The data consist of selected social media utterances expressing social criticism, collected through non-participatory observation and systematic digital documentation. A purposive sampling technique was applied. The analysis is guided by an integrative discursive-pragmatic framework that incorporates situational, social, cultural, and cybertextual dimensions, with particular attention to multimodality and facework. Findings indicate that emic–epistemological politeness is realized through interconnected discursive strategies. Factual–persuasive constructions foreground moral accountability in public governance, while persuasive generalizations, often grounded in the epistemic authority of public figures, intensify critiques of political integrity. Reframing strategies destabilize dominant normative discourses by reconfiguring moral and socio-political relations. In addition, implicit delegitimization operates as an indirect yet effective critical resource, while contrastive strategies expose inequalities in social recognition, particularly in gendered responses to sensitive issues.

Author Biography

R. Kunjana Rahardi, Universitas Sanata Dharma

References

Barbulet, G. (2013). Social media - A pragmatic approach: Contexts and implicatures. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.083

Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. In Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203552308

Beeching, K., & Woodfield, H. (2015). Researching Sociopragmatic Variability: Perspectives from Variational, Interlanguage and Contrastive Pragmatics (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Blitvich, P. G. C., & Bou-Franch, P. (2018). Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions. In Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6

Clift, R., Wolfe, N., Fbi, C. L., Searle,John, Liu, B., Brône, G., Zima, E., Dendale, P., Tasmowski, L., Coon, C. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Tagliamonte, S. A., Baayen, R. H., Haugh, M., Selting, M., Ilie, C., Culpeper, J., Volume, M., Arundale, R. B., Yue, L. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness in stylistic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics.

Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2021). (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.018

Dicerto, S. (2018). Multimodal meaning in context: Pragmatics. In Multimodal Pragmatics and Translation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69344-6_3

Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003

Knain, E., Fredlund, T., & Furberg, A. (2021). Exploring student reasoning and representation construction in school science through the lenses of social semiotics and interaction analysis. Research in Science Education, 51(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09975-1

Lee, T. K. (2017). Cybertext: A topology of reading. In Modern Chinese Literature and Culture (Vol. 29, Number 1).

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Recursion in Pragmatics. Language. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0005

Mahsun. (2007). Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya (Edisi Revisi). Raja Grafindo Persada.

Malloy, J., & Aarseth, E. J. (1998). Cybertext, perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Leonardo Music Journal, 8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1513408

Mulyana, N. (2021). Politeness strategies on Instagram: A cyberpragmatics perspective. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Linguistik dan Sastra (SEMNALISA).

Norrick, N., & Haugh, M. (2015). Interdisciplinary perspectives on pragmatics: A festschrift for Jonathan Culpeper. In Journal of Pragmatics (Vol. 86). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.07.007

O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Face, communication and social interaction, by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Michael Haugh (eds.). Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.008

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. In International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447

Park, J. (2017). Multimodality as an interactional resource for classroom interactional competence (CIC). Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460977

Pflaeging, J., Wildfeuer, J., & Bateman, J. A. (2021). Empirical multimodality research: Methods, evaluations, implications. In Empirical Multimodality Research: Methods, Evaluations, Implications. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110725001

Pradeep, P., Krishnamoorthy, S., Pathinarupothi, R. K., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2021). Leveraging context-awareness for internet of things ecosystem: Representation, organization, and management of context. Computer Communications, 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2021.06.004

Rahardi, R. K. (2016). Personal and communal assumptions to determine pragmatic meanings of phatic functions. Lingua Cultura, 10(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i2.897

Rahardi, R. K. (2017). Linguistic Impoliteness in the Sociopragmatic Perspective. Jurnal Humaniora. https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.24954

Rahardi, R. K. (2019). Contexts as the determining roles of Javanese phatic ‘Monggo’: Culture-specific pragmatics perspective. Indonesian Language Education and Literature. https://doi.org/10.24235/ileal.v5i1.5035

Rahardi, R. K. (n.d.). Revealing the Determining Roles of Cybertext Contexts in Socio-Semiotic Multimodal Perspective. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-91-6_70

Rahardi, R. K. (2022). Triadicities of Indonesian phatic functions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(12), 2641–2650. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1212.22

Rahardi, R. K., & Firdaus, W. (2023). Expert judgements of integrated cyberpragmatics learning model with socio-semiotics multimodality-based cybertext contexts. Aksara, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.29255/aksara.v35i2.4160.211--227

Rahardi, R. K., Setyaningsih, Y., Sulistiyono, R., & Febriani, S. T. (2025). Discursive-integrative politeness meanings in digital spaces: A third-wave pragmatic analysis of face-threatening Acts in Online Communication. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(12). https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1512.29

Rasmussen, G. (2003). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)84203-8

Ritchie, Jane., & Lewis, Jane. (2003). Qualitative research practice : a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage Publications.

Sikka, T. (2008). Pragmatics, poststructuralism, and hermeneutics: An examination of discursive-consensus formation and its ethical implications. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.004

Silk, A. (2016). Discourse Contextualism: A Framework for Contextualist Semantics and Pragmatics (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.39.c8283

Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa: Pengantar Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistis (1st ed.). Sanata Dharma University Press.

Sun, Y., Wang, G., & Feng, H. (2021). Linguistic Studies on Social Media: A Bibliometric Analysis. SAGE Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047572

Topić, M. (2020). Fluffy PR and ‘comms girls’: banter, social interactions and the office culture in public relations in England. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2423

Verschueren, J. (1997). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. In Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)84203-8

Yu, K. A. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.018

Downloads

Published

01-08-2026

How to Cite

Rahardi, R. K., & Ariyani, A. U. (2026). Emic-Epistemological Politeness in Digital Public Discourse: An Integrative Discursive Pragmatics Approach. Linguistik Indonesia, 44(2), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v44i2.1106