Journal of Pragmatics Research

Regulating Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Australia’s Racial Vilification Offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law

2026-03-11T15:44:02+00:00

This article undertakes a comparative critical historiographical analysis of Australia’s proposed 2026 racial vilification offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) to examine how legal regimes regulate speech through differing constructions of harm, threat, and legitimacy. Drawing on Flowerdew’s Critical Discourse Historiography (CDH), the study approaches law as a historically situated discourse that encodes assumptions about state power, social fragility, and political belonging. Through close textual analysis of statutory language and associated discourse, the article examines how the presence or absence of contextual exemptions shapes the legal boundaries of punishable expression, revealing a divergence in the presupposed ontology of power underpinning the two regimes. Although the proposed Australian offence was withdrawn, Australia’s hate speech framework operates within a liberal-democratic tradition that presupposes a strong state governing a pluralistic society, in which exemptions and contextual interpretation function as mechanisms for balancing harm mitigation against expressive freedom. By contrast, Hong Kong’s NSL presupposes a weak and vulnerable state, foregrounding sovereignty and security as overriding values and discursively constructing dissent as an existential threat. The absence of meaningful exemptions within the NSL facilitates a form of performative citizenship, in which loyalty is enforced through the policing of alternative political narratives. By situating both regimes within their historical and ideological trajectories, the article argues that exemptions are not peripheral technicalities but central discursive mechanisms that determine whether speech regulation functions as social governance or regime preservation, offering Hong Kong’s experience as a cautionary lens for debates on speech regulation in liberal democracies.

An Appraisal Analysis of English Comments on YouTube Educational Videos

2026-04-15T04:26:37+00:00

This study examines the evaluative language used in English comments on YouTube educational videos as a reflection of viewers’ attitudes, emotions, and judgments toward online educational content. The phenomenon of increasing public interaction through digital platforms highlights YouTube not only as a medium for learning but also as a space where users express opinions and construct social meaning through language. The scope of this research focuses on analyzing the linguistic features of appraisal resources, particularly Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation, in selected English comments from educational video channels. Using a qualitative descriptive method based on Martin and White’s Appraisal Theory (2005), the study investigates how commenters encode affect, judgment, and appreciation in their responses. The findings reveal that Affect and Appreciation are the most dominant categories, showing that learners frequently employ positive emotional language to express gratitude, motivation, enjoyment, and satisfaction, while also appreciating the quality, clarity, and usefulness of the videos and teachers. Positive expressions such as admiration, thankfulness, and encouragement demonstrate how educational videos foster supportive learner engagement. This study contributes to discourse analysis by highlighting the role of appraisal resources in digital educational communication and offers valuable insights into how emotional and appreciative language strengthens online learning communities and teacher–learner interaction.

Request Strategies in Javanese and Balinese Speakers: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Study

2026-01-10T15:22:57+00:00

This study utilizes qualitative descriptive research designs to analyze and compare the request strategies of Javanese and Balinese speakers based on cross-cultural pragmatic studies. The data were obtained using the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) method which was compiled based on two social variables Brown & Levinson (1987), called power and distance from 24 Javanese speakers and 24 Balinese speakers and analyzed using the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) method from Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), by classifying head acts in three strategies; 1) direct conventional, 2) indirect, and 3) nonconventional indirect. This study's results are generally dominated by direct conventional strategies, in which social variables, specifically power and distance, serve as the primary determinants in speech selection. While common patterns are observed in situations involving intimate relations or high-authority positions, such as interactions between friends, superiors and subordinates, or husbands and wives, significant disparities emerge in low-power contexts. Javanese speakers tend to employ conventional indirect strategies when interacting with lecturers, whereas Balinese speakers more frequently utilize such strategies in the context of children addressing parents. Culturally, the selection of these strategies is a manifestation of deeply rooted politeness values, specifically the concept of andhap ashor through the unggah-ungguh basa system (Krama/Ngoko) in Javanese society, and the principle of anggah-ungguhing basa Bali, which is influenced by social stratification (wangsa) and the Tri Hita Karana philosophy. Both aim to preserve social harmony and mutual respect within interpersonal interactions.

Translanguaging and Code-Switching as Identity Construction for Generation Z on Instagram: A Sociolinguistic Study

2026-05-11T14:44:39+00:00

Instagram has evolved beyond a simple photo-sharing platform. For Generation Z in Indonesia, it functions as a key space where users actively shape their social identity and manage how they are perceived online. This research investigates the phenomenon of Translanguaging and code-switching in Instagram captions, framing it not merely as a bilingual habit but as a strategic communication tool that individuals deliberately use for self-presentation in digital contexts. Employing a qualitative document analysis method, this study examines ten captions taken from verified Indonesian public figures and influencers. The analysis draws on Poplack’s grammatical framework for identifying types of code-switching and Holmes’ sociolinguistic theory to interpret the social motives behind the practice. The findings reveal that intra-sentential switching is the most dominant pattern, accounting for 70% of all occurrences. This involves inserting English words or phrases into Indonesian sentence structures. The study identifies that this linguistic practice helps construct three primary digital personas: a Modern identity at 40%, a Global identity at 30%, and a Personal Branding image at 30%. While much of the existing literature has focused on spoken code-switching in face-to-face interactions, this research narrows the gap by examining code-switching in curated written discourse, specifically on Instagram captions. Although such texts are edited and asynchronous, they reveal deliberate identity positioning that contributes to the construction of the three digital personas identified in this study. This complements studies of spontaneous spoken interaction by showing how users strategically craft their bilingual persona for public audiences. The study concludes that for Generation Z, mixing Indonesian and English serves as a crucial form of social capital to navigate contemporary youth culture, which is heavily influenced by global trends and online status. These insights advance the understanding of bilingual practices and digital identity performance among Indonesian Generation Z.

Conceptual Metaphors in Political Discourse "Mimpi Prabowo Dan Politik Sepiring MBG": A Cognitive Semantic Analysis

2026-05-22T08:15:05+00:00

Makanan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) is an Indonesian government program initiated by Prabowo Subianto and has been implemented since January 6, 2025. The implementation of this government program has garnered many diverse comments, both supportive and critical. This controversy was also addressed by the Kompas news media through the use of conceptual metaphors. These metaphors were used to help readers understand abstract concepts described through concrete human experiences of political reality. This research is a descriptive qualitative analysis, which aims to analyse conceptual metaphors based on Lakoff and Johnson's theory and Cruse and Croft's image schema theory in an article titled “Mimpi Prabowo dan Politik Sepiring MBG” published by Kompas on October 31, 2025. The results of the research on the political article found 15 conceptual metaphors with the following distribution: 6 structural metaphors, 3 orientational metaphors, and 6 ontological metaphors. There were 15 image schemas, divided into: 3 force image schemas, 3 container image schemas, 3 unity/multiplicity image schemas, 3 scale image schemas, 1 space image schema, 1 existence image schema, and 1 identity image schema.

Legitimacy Strategies in Political Statements: A Critical Pragmatic Study of The Discourse of National Grief over The Deaths of Three Indonesian Soldiers in The UN Peacekeeping Mission in Lebanon

2026-05-25T02:20:32+00:00

Based on the theoretical framework of legitimacy strategies, this study uses the Critical Discourse Analysis approach combined with a critical pragmatic perspective to examine how President Prabowo's political statements regarding national mourning over the deaths of three soldiers in the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon are constructed and how these constructions interact with, reproduce, or negotiate broader social, ideological, and cultural structures. There are five key interrelated legitimacy strategies—authorization, rationalization, moral evaluation, mythosis, and unification—that are realized through pragmatic mechanisms such as implication, presupposition, and speech acts. The study found that political statements shape meaning not only through expressions of empathy and respect for fallen soldiers, but also through the control of public interpretation, emphasis on moral values, and the building of national solidarity. By exposing the complex dynamics of legitimacy in political statements, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the understanding of discursive practices in political and methodological contexts by offering an applicable approach to the critical discourse analysis of political discourse and public communication more broadly.

Im/Politeness in Presidential Trials: A Contrastive Study

2026-03-23T00:23:08+00:00

This study examines the politeness and impoliteness strategies used by Donald Trump and Saddam Hussein during their respective trials. The judges' questions accusing the presidents were also taken into consideration. The data is drawn from the transcript of Saddam Hussein’s court proceedings, reported by NBC News and MSNBC. The analysis is based on Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness and Culpeper’s framework of impoliteness. To achieve rigorous qualitative validity, this study utilizes Qualitative Descriptive Analysis to investigate face-work and linguistic aggression within the selected court transcripts. The contrast observed in the study between Trump's and Hussein’s trials can be attributed to several factors, including cultural norms. Trump’s politeness and cooperation reflected the cultural expectations of American society. On the other hand, Hussein’s actions reflected the cultural norms of Iraqi society, where people often prefer a strong, defiant leader. Thus, the two strategies were fundamentally different: both former presidents aimed to project strength, but in opposing ways. The role of the judges also differed. The judge, al-Amiri, managed power dynamics effectively and acknowledged Hussein’s former status, a crucial factor in a political trial. Alternatively, Letitia James primarily conducted an investigative role during Trump’s testimony. Her strategy focused on gathering information rather than asserting authority. In conclusion, the qualitative conclusions are bound by the micro-contextual relationship between speaker intent and participant evaluation within the selected boundaries of the text.

The The Flouting Maxim Analysis of Rudy Ayoub’s Joke About His Arabian Dad

2026-02-19T02:10:40+00:00

Language is not only a tool for communication but also a mirror of cultural values, as seen in forms such as proverbs, poems, short stories, and especially jokes. Humour, in particular, often relies on shared cultural understanding, making cultural context essential for interpretation. In the field of pragmatics, jokes can be analysed through Gricean conversational maxims, where intentionally flouting these maxims creates a comedic effect. This study investigates how Rudy Ayoub uses humour in his sketches depicting father-son relationships within Arabian parenting culture. By transcribing and coding selected video excerpts, this research applies pragmatic analysis to examine the strategies behind Rudy’s jokes and the role of cultural norms in shaping them. The findings reveal that Rudy most frequently flouts the maxim to produce humour by exaggerating the inconsistencies and unpredictability of his father’s expressions of affection—sometimes warm, sometimes distant. These jokes not only entertain but also reflect underlying values in Arabian parenting, highlighting the emotional complexity and social expectations within the family. This study underscores that humour is not merely a linguistic play but a culturally grounded phenomenon, where pragmatic strategies and societal norms intersect to create laughter and insight. By analysing Rudy’s sketches, the research offers a vivid example of how culture and conversational pragmatics work together in modern comedic expression.

A Compendium of Dangerous Speech: A Case of X Discourse of Zimbabwean Political Actors

2026-04-12T18:52:38+00:00

This study investigates dangerous speech on X (formerly Twitter) within Zimbabwe’s polarized and volatile digital political landscape, where recurring electoral tensions, historical grievances, and online political contestation shape discursive practices with potentially harmful societal consequences. Addressing a significant gap in scholarship on Zimbabwe, the study compiles, defines, and critically analyzes forms of dangerous speech produced by eight key political actors together with their followers representing diverse segments of the country’s political ecosystem. Grounded in a descriptive qualitative methodology, the research employs Susan Benesch’s Dangerous Speech Framework (DSF) as its principal analytical lens, while extending its explanatory reach through linguistic structuralism, critical discourse analysis, and the Integrated Model for Monitoring and Prevention (IMMP). Through syntagmatic and associative meaning analysis, the study examines how dangerous meanings emerge not only from explicit lexical choices but also from historical memory, contextual cues, political timing, and digital affordances specific to X. Findings reveal two dominant categories of dangerous speech, namely Moderately Dangerous and Extremely Dangerous expressions, with the latter encompassing historically loaded terms, militant slogans, and mobilizing hashtags that intensify hostility and create conditions conducive to radicalization over time. The study demonstrates that the dangerousness of speech is profoundly context-dependent and cannot be adequately interpreted outside local cultural, historical, and political realities. In refining the DSF’s treatment of political climate, temporality, and platform dynamics, the research advances the framework’s applicability to contemporary online environments and contributes to broader debates on monitoring, interpreting, and preventing dangerous speech in fragile democracies.

Buzzeringuistics: Decoding Digital Propaganda through Cyberpragmatics

2026-01-23T02:38:14+00:00

This study examines how political buzzer discourse on social media constructs persuasion through the interaction of speech acts, cyberpragmatic functions, and digital politeness strategies. Focusing on competing hashtag discourses IndonesiaEmas and IndonesiaCemas on X, the study adopts a descriptive qualitative approach to explore how meaning, intention, and ideological positioning are pragmatically negotiated in online political communication. The data consist of selected user-generated comments representing polarized political engagement and were analyzed using speech act theory and cyberpragmatics. The findings indicate that assertive speech acts dominate buzzer discourse by presenting evaluative judgments and ideological claims as established realities, reinforced by expressive and directive acts that mobilize emotions and encourage audience alignment. The persuasive force of these utterances is strengthened through five cyberpragmatic functions, namely contextual saturation, non-verbal compensation, cyber-aggression, high inferential load, and algorithmic relevance optimization, reflecting how digital affordances shape interpretation and intensify pragmatic effects. The study also identifies three strategic patterns in digital politeness management, namely legitimization, delegitimization, and mitigation, which construct in-group solidarity and regulate face-threatening acts in polarized discourse. The findings show that buzzer communication operates as a systematic form of performative political discourse. The study proposes Buzzeringuistics as an integrative analytical framework that combines cyberpragmatics, speech act analysis, and critical perspectives to explain digitally mediated political persuasion.