Textual Subversion in Memes: A Semantic-Pragmatic-Sociopragmatic Triangulation of Digital Discourse
Abstract
This study employs a semantic-pragmatic-sociopragmatic framework to analyze five Indonesian memes, exploring their role as cultural artifacts that navigate modern societal tensions. Through qualitative multimodal discourse analysis, the research examines how memes blend linguistic creativity, humor, and visual symbolism to critique issues such as academic pressure, procrastination, and cultural apathy. Key findings reveal that memes rely on semantic contrasts (e.g., literal vs. figurative meanings) to generate irony, pragmatic strategies like hyperbole and satire to subvert institutional norms, and sociopragmatic resonance to reflect collective experiences. Examples include the juxtaposition of Javanese cultural values with universal symbols ("Raurus") and the use of dark humor to criticize educational systems ("Student in ICU"). The study highlights memes’ dual function as tools for communal solidarity and platforms for subtle social critique, emphasizing their reliance on local dialects (e.g., "gini pak") and digital vernacular. Broader implications underscore memes’ significance in democratizing discourse and shaping digital literacy. Academically, the tripartite framework offers a robust methodology for decoding digital communication, while technological applications call for culturally adaptive AI to address nuances in sarcasm and context. Societally, memes challenge rigid definitions of success and productivity, advocating for empathy in an era of digital fragmentation. This research positions memes as vital, dynamic reflections of contemporary identity and resistance, bridging individual expression with collective cultural narratives.
Downloads
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? FAccT '21, 610–623.
Berinato, S. (2016). Good charts: The HBR guide to making smarter, more persuasive data visualizations. Harvard Business Review Press.
Bouvier, G. (2020). Racist callouts and cancel culture on Twitter: The limitations of the platform’s ability to define issues of social justice. Discourse, Context & Media, 38, 100431.
Brock, A. (2020). Distributed blackness: African American cybercultures. NYU Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the internet. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. Routledge.
Danesi, M. (2016). The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet. Bloomsbury.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. McGraw-Hill.
Diakopoulos, N. (2019). Automating the news: How algorithms are rewritten by the media. Harvard University Press.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.
Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). Participant perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social media + Society, 4(1), 1–14.
Franzke, A. S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., & Ess, C. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. Association of Internet Researchers.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2017). Small stories research: Methods – analysis – outreach. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 1–11.
Graham, S. L. (2020). Relationality, friendship, and identity in digital communication. Pragmatics and Society, 11(2), 214–233.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Herring, S. C. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 1–25). Georgetown University Press.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. AoIR.
Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistics. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Miller, H., Thebault-Spieker, J., Chang, S., Johnson, I., Terveen, L., & Hecht, B. (2016). “Blissfully happy” or “ready to fight”: Varying interpretations of emoji. ICWSM’16, 259–268.
Milner, R. M. (2016). The world made memes: Public conversations and participatory media. MIT Press.
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching language and social media: A student guide. Routledge.
Papacharissi, Z. (2020). After democracy: Imagining our political future. Yale University Press.
Rahardi, R. K. (2020). Sociopragmatic analysis of speech acts in Indonesian digital communication. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 20(4), 1–18.
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2019). Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented approach to Facebook’s filter bubble conundrum. Discourse, Context & Media, 27, 41–48.
Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press.
Steen, G. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Routledge.
Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2016). Facebook and the discursive construction of social networks. In The language of social media (pp. 23–45). Palgrave Macmillan.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2021). Fair use index. U.S. Government.
Varis, P., & Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Multilingual Margins, 2(1), 31–45.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Arnold.
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. John Benjamins.
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media. Bloomsbury.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
