Vol. 2 No. 5 (2026): Oktober
Articles

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SAGRAN’S “TIMOR-LESTE TIBA-TIBA MERDEKA” STATEMENT AND TIMORESE NETIZENS’ RESPONSES ON YOUTUBE

PDF
  • Manuel Mendonca Araujo,
  • Antonio Constantino Soares
Manuel Mendonca Araujo
Instituto São João de Brito
Antonio Constantino Soares
Instituto São João de Brito

Published 2026-10-19

Keywords

  • Pragmatics,
  • Conversational Implicature,
  • Speech Acts,
  • Youtube Comments,
  • Timor-Leste

Abstract

This study examines the pragmatic meaning of Sagran’s statement, “Timor-Leste tiba-tiba merdeka,” and responses posted by Timorese netizens on YouTube. It explores how the expression tiba-tiba is interpreted in relation to the historical struggle for independence and identifies pragmatic strategies used in the responses. The study employs a qualitative descriptive design and analyzes 20 purposively selected comments from a video identified as “Viral Timor.” Data were documented, coded, classified, and interpreted using conversational implicature, speech act theory, and face-related analysis. The findings suggest that at least one commenter interpreted tiba-tiba as potentially overlooking the historical struggle for independence. Other comments contain expressive and directive acts, derogatory evaluations, identity-related references, and wording that appears to advocate physical harm. These interpretations remain context-dependent, particularly because several comments are written in Tetum and require linguistic verification. The study shows how historical context and audience interpretation may shape online responses to controversial statements, while recognizing that findings from 20 comments cannot represent all Timorese netizens.

PDF

References

  1. Adriaansen, R.-J., & Smit, R. (2025). Collective memory and social media. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102077
  2. Andersson, M. (2021). The climate of climate change: Impoliteness as a hallmark of homophily in YouTube comment threads on Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism. Journal of Pragmatics, 178, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003
  3. Andersson, M. (2024). E-mpoliteness—Creative impoliteness as an expression of digital social capital. Journal of Politeness Research, 20(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2022-0009
  4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press.
  5. Birkner, T., & Donk, A. (2020). Collective memory and social media: Fostering a new historical consciousness in the digital age? Memory Studies, 13(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017750012
  6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  8. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
  9. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
  10. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Dubovi, I., & Tabak, I. (2020). An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in YouTube comments. Computers & Education, 156, 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103939
  12. Dynel, M. (2024). Impoliteness on social media. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1445.pub2
  13. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
  14. Groshek, J., & Cutino, C. (2016). Meaner on mobile: Incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Social Media + Society, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116677137
  15. Hambali, A. J., Risdianto, F., & Rahma, S. S. (2024). Rethinking on expressive speech act realization in the comments section on YouTube channel. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 6(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v6i1.52-73
  16. Hendar, H., Astarina, A. N., Heryono, H., Zuraida, I., & Sujatna, M. L. (2022). Impoliteness strategies on online comments at Kompas TV YouTube channel: A pragmatic analysis. Ethical Lingua: Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 9(2), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.480
  17. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016
  18. Kapoor, S. (2022). “Don’t act like a Sati-Savitri!”: Hinglish and other impoliteness strategies in Indian YouTube comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 189, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.009
  19. Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Edited by). Mouton de Gruyter.
  20. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  21. Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
  22. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
  23. Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  24. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
  25. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
  26. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.