A SOICOPRAGMATICS STUDY ON SOCIAL CRITICISM IN MEME COMICS

Yuli Widiana

Abstract

The rapid development of information technology makes the publication in internet media more accessible and faster. Meme comics are the example of famous internet publication. Its features and content which are full of social criticism distinguish meme comics from any other comics. The research is aimed to describe the pragmatic features of meme comics. Furthermore, the various topics of social criticism expressed in meme comics are analyzed based on sociopragmatics approach. Pragmatic equivalent method is applied to identify the pragmatic features of meme comics. Moreover, the similar method is also applied in analyzing the various topics of social criticism in meme comics. Based on its form of utterance, meme comics tend to use harsh utterances to deliver social criticism. Consequently, swear words and taboos are often found. Furthermore, the use of specific terms which frequently contain adult content makes this comic only appropriate for adult readers. Then, the context and setting of meme comics describe such a topic with simple pictures and words. The research also discusses various topics of social criticism found in meme comics. The topics include sex, gender, law, technology, and lifestyle. Basically, the topics of social criticism in meme comics reveal things which happen in daily life. Eventually, the social criticism may function as a satire for people to do introspection from the mistakes in life. Consequently, the social criticism could be a trigger for mental revolution among the society to live a better life.

Key words: meme comics, sociopragmatics, internet media, information technology

Full Text:

PDF

References

Bergmann, Anouschka (Ed.), Kathleen Currie Hall, and Sharon Miriam Ross. 2007. Language Files. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. p: 68

Burns, N and Grove. 2003. (ThirdEdition). Understanding Nursing Research. Saunders: Philadelphia. p: 195

Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp: 127-128; p:349

Djajasudarma, Fatimah. 1993. Metode Linguistik: Ancangan dan Aplikasi. Bandung: Eresco. pp: 15-60

Fox, Danny. 2011. What is Pragmatics?Lecture Notes [On Line]. Available:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-954-pragmatics-in-linguistic-theory-spring-2010/lecture-notes/MIT24_954S10_lec01.pdf

, January, 15]

Haugh, Michael. 2002. The Intuitive Basis of Implicature: Relevance Theoretic

Implicitness Versus Gricean Implying. [e-Journal].

Available: http://www.elanguage.net/317-602-1-PBpdf.

, September, 17]

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press. pp: 14-61

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. p: 10

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p: 5

Litosseliti, Lia. 2010. Research Method in Linguistics. New York: Continuum International Publishing. p: 57

Lyons, John. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. Suffolk: Fontana

Paperbacks. p: 201

Marzuki. 1982. Metodologi Riset. Yogyakarta: Badan Penerbitan F. E Universitas Islam Indonesia. p: 8

Moeschler, Jacques. 2011. Conversational and Conventional Implicature.

[OnLine]. Available: http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/moeschler/

publication_pdf/implicature-moeschler-def.pdf. [2012, September, 17]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.76

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.