Directive and Persuasive Discourse in the Ecosystem Restoration Campaign on X (Twitter): A Sociopragmatic Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55927/ijsmr.v4i7.121Keywords:
directive speech acts, persuasive illocutionary acts, public opinion, social media, sociopragmaticsAbstract
This study analyzes directive illocutionary acts (DIAs) and their perlocutionary effectiveness in environmental campaigns on X/Twitter under the hashtags #SaveTessoNilo and #StopDeforestation. Using a descriptive qualitative approach grounded in sociopragmatics (Searle combined with status, social distance, action load, and ideology), this study found that DUTs are often conveyed indirectly through assertive utterances. The #SaveTessoNilo campaign, which aimed for policy change, tended to use power-oriented directives, while #StopDeforestation, which focused on individual behavior, used solidarity-oriented directives. In terms of perlocutionary effects, both campaigns succeeded in triggering cognitive and affective responses, but the impact on actual action was limited; public support was largely symbolic. This study underscores the importance of directive strategies that take digital social hierarchies into account to bridge the gap between attitudes and actions.
References
Astuti, R. (2023). Direktif dalam wacana lingkungan digital. Jurnal Linguistik Terapan, 12(2), 45–60.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37–70). Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics (pp. 13–28). Peter Lang.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. (2018). Pragmatics in digital campaigns: The force of directives in Twitter activism. Journal of Pragmatics, 135, 15–28.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (2022). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press. (Original work published 1982)
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from “below the line”: Comment fields at the Guardian. International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215581926
Haugh, M. (2019). Im/politeness and mixed messages in digital communication. Cambridge University Press.
Keller, R. (2020). Doing environmental communication: Pragmatics, politics, and the environment. Routledge.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Kurniawan, R., & Sunarti, T. (2023). Pragmatic strategies of digital activism: Directive speech acts and persuasion on Indonesian environmental campaigns. Journal of Digital Discourse Studies, 5(2), 115–132.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Nisbet, M. C. (2018). Strategic communication for environmental engagement. In M. C. Nisbet (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. Oxford University Press
Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1810–1823.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Rahayu, M. S. (2022). Tindak tutur direktif dalam aktivisme media sosial: Kajian pragmatik pada kampanye lingkungan. Jurnal Pragmatik dan Wacana, 14(1), 45–60.
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Public Relations Review, 40(3), 412–414.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 59–82). Academic Press.
Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action. Information, Communication & Society, 14(3), 336–365.
Siregar, L., & Sihombing, M. (2023). Tindak tutur dalam promosi digital Instagram. Jurnal Bahasa dan Informatika Pendidikan, 9(2), 102–119.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Walhi. (2023). Laporan tahunan WALHI: Krisis ekologis dan perlawanan warga. WALHI Indonesia. https://www.walhi.or.id
Wijayanti, N., & Gunawan, A. (2023). Linguistic framing in green digital campaigns. Discourse Studies, 25(4), 487–507.
WWF Indonesia. (2021). Laporan konservasi Taman Nasional Tesso Nilo. WWF Indonesia.
