Disagreement Strategies in Online Communication: A Case Study of the Javanese Community in Yogyakarta
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i4.14713Keywords:
Disagreement, Javanese community, Online communication, SociopragmaticAbstract
Each language community has a unique disagreement strategy in online communication that reflects its cultural values and communication norms. Disagreement can be expressed differently depending on the medium used. In face-to-face communication, disagreement tends to be expressed indirectly and with mitigation. In online communication, disagreement tends to be expressed explicitly and without mitigation. This study describes the strategies for expressing disagreement in the Info Cegatan Jogja Group and the factors that cause the emergence of various disagreement strategies in the group. The study used a descriptive qualitative method to analyze sentences expressing disagreement in posts from the ICJ Facebook Group. The data sources were message walls and comment fields. The study identified four types of disagreement strategies: one-speech strategy, two-speech strategies, three-speech strategies, and four-speech strategies. Verbal communication is the primary strategy employed to express disagreement among ICJ members. The study found that most disagreements are classified as strong, based on the level of confrontation. Various disagreement strategies were identified, which can be attributed to factors such as social media dynamics, posting topics, gender dynamics, and cultural influences. Understanding strategies for managing disagreements and cultural norms surrounding it is essential for successful communication.
References
Angouri, J., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics.
Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You Have No Idea What You are Talking About!” From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. degruyter.com. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004
Anonymous. (1998). To reveal or not to reveal: A theoretical model of anonymous communication. Communication Theory. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00226.x
Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & ... (2012). Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & …. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811413191
Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2
Benamara, F., Inkpen, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). Introduction to the special issue on language in social media: exploiting discourse and other contextual information. Computational Linguistics.
Chen, Y., & Rau, P. L. P. (2023). Politeness in Online Communication: The Role of Platform Design in Social Media Interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 140.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design pendekatan kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan mixed. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. books.google.com.
García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education.
Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2006). “I totally agree with you”: gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00184.x
Gumperz, J. J. (2015). Interactional Sociolinguistics A Personal Perspective. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch14
Gunarwan, A. (2004). Pragmatik, kebudayaan, dan pengajaran bahasa. Dalam Seminar Nasional Semantik III. Surakarta ….
Haugh, M., & Chang, W. (2019). Face in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. dl.acm.org. https://doi.org/10.5555/551242
Holmes, J. (2013). Women, men and politeness. books.google.com.
Kadar, D. Z., & House, J. (2020). Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in Modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1537–1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00075-9
Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics (2016). Oxford University Press.
Locher, M. A. (2004a). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication. Mouton De Gruyter.
Locher, M. A. (2004b). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. books.google.com.
Locher, M. A., & Graham, S. L. (2021). Impoliteness and Emotion in Digital Communication. In J. et al. Culpeper (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 429–452). Palgrave Macmillan.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. A Cultural Approach to Interpersonal ….
Moleong, L. J. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, cetakan ke-36, Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya Offset.
Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.201
Ning, H., Dai, X., & Zhang, F. (2010). On gender difference in English language and its causes. Asian Social Science.
Nor, S. M., & Hashim, A. (2011). Disagreement strategies of Malaysian speakers of English in radio discourse. 12th APRU Doctoral Students Conference.
Olojede, A. M., Ebim, M. A., & Abioye, A. T. (2018). Language use on social media: A study of facebook interactions by yaba college of technology undergraduates. International Journal of ….
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social …. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447
Oppermann, K., & Weber, E. (1997). Frauensprache--Männersprache: die verschiedenen Kommunikationsstile von Männern und Frauen. (No Title).
Placencia, M. E., & Lower, A. (2021). Relational Work in Facebook Comment Threads: Managing (Dis)agreement in Public Debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 177, 52–65.
Putra, D. A. K., Suhandano, S., & Sulistyowati, S. (2022). Expressions of disagreement in the info cegatan jogja facebook group. LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra, 17(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.18860/ling.v17i1.13736
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics.
Saville‐Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586690
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society.
Shum, W., & Lee, C. (2013). (Im) politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums. Journal of Pragmatics.
Stromer-Galley, J., Bryant, L., & ... (2015). Context and medium matter: Expressing disagreements online and face-to-face in political deliberations. Journal of Deliberative …. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.218
Sutton, L. A. (1994). Using Usenet: Gender, power, and silence in electronic discourse. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics ….
Suwarno. (2013). Strategi Bertutur dalam Budaya Jawa dan Batak. International Seminar on Linguistics.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men. Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Vasquez, C. (2022). Language Humor and Identity in Social Media Discourse. Routledge.
Wenjing, X. (2012). Study on gender differences in English. Lecture Notes in Information ….
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). Cross-cultural pragmatics and different values. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.13.1.03wie
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. degruyter.com. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964.bm
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dona Aji Karunia Putra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
