PERSPECTIVE OF THE WORD “GOBLOK” UTTERED BY UNSCRUPULOUSPREACHERS IN TERMS OF PRAGMATICS: A FORENSIC LINGUISTIC STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62872/whyj7t48Keywords:
Defamation, Forensic Linguistics, Speech ActsAbstract
This study analyzes the utterance "goblok" (stupid) expressed by a preacher to an iced tea seller in Magelang, using Searle's pragmatic theory (1969) and the forensic linguistics framework by Coulthard & Johnson (2010). Employing a qualitative descriptive method, the study found that the utterance contained expressive elements of "hatred" and declarative elements of "ostracism," potentially leading to social unrest. Grammatically, the phrase "Yok ono didol goblok" (go sell it, stupid) is contradictory, lacking literal meaning and leaning more toward emotional expression or insult. From a legal perspective, the utterance meets the criteria of a criminal act of defamation as stipulated in Article 315 of the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP). The effects of this speech include public condemnation, sympathy for the victim, and social aid provided to the iced tea seller. This research underscores the importance of language control in public discourse to prevent public disorder and negative consequences
Downloads
References
Ana, V. L. (2024). Metode Dakwah Ustadzah Alif Silvia Lutfiyah dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Keimanan Warga Desa BulungCangking. Da'wah Insights: Journal of Islamic Da'wah, 1(2), 87-100.
Anhar Rabi Hamsah Tis'ah, J. 2024. BERITA ACARA PEMERIKSAAN PADA KASUS PEMBUNUHAN DITINJAU DARI PRAGMATIK SEARLE: KAJIAN LINGUISTIK FORENSIK.” UNJ.(9906919016):39.Adolph, R. (2016). 済無No Title No Title No Title, (9906919016), 1–23.
Austin. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bachari & Juansah. (2017). Pragmatik: Alisis Penggunaan Bahasa. Bandung: Jurnal Prodi Linguistik SPS
Correa, M. (2013). “Forensic Linguistics: An Overview of the Intersection and Interaction of Language and Law” makalah dalam Studies about Language Nomor 23 Tahun 2013. Kalbu Studijos. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314426867_Forensic_Linguistic s_An_Overview_of_the_Intersection_and_Interaction_of_Language_and_ Law akses 06 Agustus 2023.
Creswell. (1993). Educational Research, 9New York: John Wiley & Son Inc) h.54
Dewangga. (2016). “Tindak Tutur Bertanya Guru Bahasa Indonesia dalam Proses Pembelajaran di SMA Muhammadiyah Wonosobo”, (Yogyakarta: Tesis Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, hlm 13).
Gibbons, J. (2008). Questioning in common law criminal courts, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.09gib
Johnson, A., & Coulthard, M. (2010). Introduction: Current debates in forensic linguistics. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.
Kridalaksana. (1993). kamus linguistik. Jakarta. Gramedia
Mintowati. (2016). Pencemaran Nama Baik: Kajian Linguistik Forensik. Junal Paramasastra, 3(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.26740/parama.v3i2.1525
Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Sari, N., Sunarsih, E., & Fitri, F. (2023). TINDAK TUTUR ILOKUSI DALAM ACARA PODCAST DEDDY CORBUZIER PADA EPISODE SYEKH ALI JABER, SAYA PASRAH. SATUKATA: Jurnal Sains, Teknik, dan Studi Kemasyarakatan, 1(5), 233-242.
Shuy, R. W. (2008). Forensic Linguistics. The Handbook of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756409.ch30
Saletovic dan Kisicek. (2012). “Contribution to the Analysis of Witness Statements in the Croatian Language”, dalam Suvremena Lingvistika, Vol.38, No.73, Juli 2012.
Searle. (1969). Speech Acts An Essay In The Philosophy Of Language. Cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City
Verhaar. (1996). Asas-Asas Linguistik Umum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Yule. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
