LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS IN @onlyjiungs TWITTER ACCOUNT


Vicha Chairunissa(1*), Chusni Hadiati(2), Tri Wahyu Setiawan Prasetyoningsih(3)

(1) English Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia
(2) English Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia
(3) English Literature, Faculty of Humanities, Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study aimed to identify the language function in tweets from @onlyjiungs. The @onlyjiungs Twitter account's tweets served as the study's source of data. Purposive sampling and the descriptive qualitative approach were utilized in this study to get the answers to its research questions. The findings indicated that among the 31 data, the referential function (14 utterances, or 45,2%) is most frequently used, followed by the expressive function (11 utterances, or 35,5%), the phatic function (2 utterances, or 6,4%), the metalingual function (0%), the conative function (2 utterances, or 6,4%), and the poetic function (2 utterances, or 6,4%). The tweets from @onlyjiungs met every requirement in Hymes' (1974) theory of context SPEAKING, showing that context SPEAKING on a tweet from @onlyjiungs answers every requirement of the theory. The tweets were taken from September 2021 through October 2021. The goals of @onlyjiungs' tweets were intended to be represented and expressed in the final sections of the Twitter post outcomes. The following social act update about Jiung's life was provided by @onlyjiungs. She underlined a particular statement she made in the tweets. Because, they were intended for teens their age, @onlyjiungs's tweets are also frequently written in a casual tone. The typical Twitter tweet mostly focused on describing the purpose of and the message included inside it. The kind of utterances from those tweets generally had a stronger referential function since those Twitter postings' primary purpose was to notify @onlyjiungs' followers who are the readers.

 

Keywords: language functions, context, pragmatics, twitter

Full Text:

PDF (9–14)

References


Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method. United State: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hymes, D. (1972). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.

Jakobson, R. (ED). (1960). Linguistic and poetics, in T. Sebeok (ed), style in language. Cambridge: M.I.T Press.

Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S., P. (2014). What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 275-304.

Rahmayani, FH., & Dwiyuliana, R. (2018). An analysis of speech acts performed in the United States of Barrack Obama’s speech election 2009. Project, 1(3), 275-280.

van Dijck, J. (2011). Tracing twitter: the rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(3), 333-348.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/call.v5i1.20760

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

CALL is indexed by:

Moraref Dimensions Indexing One SearchWorld cat ROADCrossref  

 

 

 

 

Creative Commons License All Articles and Contents in CALL are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Creative Commons License

 

 

 


CALL, ISSN 2723-2417 (online)
English Literature, Faculty of Adab and Humanities, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

 

 

 

View My Stats