Cyberpragmatics, social-societal context, cultural context, situational context


It is always possible to combine the field of language with other fields which may be irrelevant, but there is a possibility to develop the fields synergistically. Cyberpragmatics can be seen as a transdisciplinary field, because it includes complex dimensions, namely language, pragmatics, technology, media, internet, and possibly other dimensions as well. This article aims to describe contexts in cyberpragmatics. The data was collected from utterances in various domains which contained context entities. The substantive data source was taken from authentic texts in various social media which also contained context. As for the locative data source, it was from social media that could be reached within the time of research. The data was collected by applying listening method and interview method. The researcher also used his intuitive judgment given the fact that he is a native speaker of Indonesian language. The data analysis method applied in this research is distributional analysis method in order to reach the linguistic aspects of this research. The dominant analytical method used is the extralingual type of extralinguistic method of analysis. The analysis showed that various pragmatic contexts were found, which include social context, societal context, cultural context, and situational context. The diverse contexts may change and shift over time. The context of the past cannot be the same as the context of the present and future. The elements and functions of the context will definitely shift and change so that the meaning of speech intentions in cyberpragmatics will also change.

Author Biography


Master Program of Indonesian Language and Literature Education, Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta


Alcón-Soler, E., & Yates, L. (2015). Editors’ introduction to pragmatic learning across contexts. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.012

Campisi, E., & özyürek, A. (2013). Iconicity as a communicative strategy: Recipient design in multimodal demonstrations for adults and children. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.007

Chen, J. (2017). Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2016.1204903

Cheung, M. (2010). The globalization and localization of persuasive marketing communication: A cross-linguistic socio-cultural analysis. Journal of Pragmatics.


Dell, H. (1979). Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700013256

Goddard, C. (2004). Speech-acts, values and cultural scripts: A study in Malay ethnopragmatics. In Asia Examined: Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the ASAA, 2004, Canberra, Australia.

Gretsch, C. (2009). Pragmatics and integrational linguistics. Language and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.02.010

House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.005

Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006

Jakobson, R. (1960). “ Linguistics and poetics .†In Style in language. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1158

Jumanto. (2014). Phatic Communication: How English Native Speakers Create Ties of Union. American Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.linguistics.20140301.02

Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.033

Kramsch, C. (2002). Language and Culture: A Social Semiotic Perspective. Adfl. https://doi.org/10.1632/adfl.33.2.8

Kulkarni, D. (2014). Exploring Jakobson’s “phatic function†in instant messaging interactions. Discourse and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313507150

Kunjana Rahardi, R. (2016). Manifestasi wujud dan makna pragmatik kefatisan berbahasa dalam ranah pendidikan. AdabiyyÄt: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra. https://doi.org/10.14421/ADB.V15I2.939

Lee, B. P. H. (2001). Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00128-9

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010367

Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009

Lewis, M., Candlin, C. N., & Mercer, N. (2007). English Language Teaching in Its Social Context. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588440

Locher, M. A. (2013a). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.002

Locher, M. A. (2013b). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.002

Mey, J. L. L., Brown, K., & Mey, J. L. L. (2006). Pragmatics: Overview. In Encyclodpedia of language and linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1338

Meyer, C. F., Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2006). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586740

Mills, S. (2009). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014

Nicolle, S., & Clark, B. (1998). Phatic interpretations: standarisation and conventionalisation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.1998.11.14

Rahardi, R. Kunjana., Setyaningsih, Y. (2019). Contextualizing Local Values of Children’s Games in the Perspective of Ecopragmatics to Enhance Culture-Specific Based Communication. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 9(Issue-1, October 2019), 143–151. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.A1096.109119

Rahardi, K. (2019). Pragmatic perspective on phatic functions and language dignity in a culture-based society. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v4i1.554

Rahardi, R. K. (2016). Personal and Communal Assumptions to Determine Pragmatic Meanings of Phatic Functions. Lingua Cultura, 10(10(2)), 95–98. https://doi.org/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.v29i3.24954

Rahardi, R. K. (2018). Elemen dan Fungsi Konteks Sosial, Sosietal, dan Situasional dalam Menentukan Makna Pragmatik Kefatisan Berbahasa. In Prosiding Seminar Tahunan Linguistik Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (SETALI 2018).

Rahardi, R. K. (2019a). Integrating social , societal , cultural , and situational contexts to develop pragmatics course learning materials : preliminary study integrasi sosial , sosial , budaya , dan konteks situasional untuk mengembangkan materi pembelajaran pragmatik : studi , 5(2), 169–178.

Rahardi, R. K. (2019b). Pragmatic Perspective on Phatic Functions and Language Dignity. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5C, May 2019), 261–268. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.E1039.0585C19

Sudaryanto. (2016). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa (1st ed.). Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press.

Unger, C. (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. The Mental Processes of Communication. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.001

Wildner-Bassett, M. (2004). Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104290040

Wimberley, E. T. (2017). Ecopragmatics. Ecopragmatics. https://doi.org/10.18848/978-1-61229-613-5/cgp

Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

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

Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics, Internet-mediated communication in context. (A. Fetzer, Ed.) (1st ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Retrieved from https://benjamins.com




How to Cite

Rahardi, K. (2020). KONTEKS PRAGMATIK DALAM PERSPEKTIF CYBERPRAGMATICS. Linguistik Indonesia, 38(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v38i2.132