Implicature, Kesantunan, dan Kewajiban Sosial dalam Tuturan Layanan Publik: Studi Pragmatik Berbasis Korporus” (Pragmatics)
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Studi ini menyelidiki bagaimana implikatur, strategi kesantunan, dan kewajiban sosial (deontik) diwujudkan serta saling memengaruhi dalam tuturan layanan publik lintas-kanal. Menggunakan rancangan pragmatik berbasis korpus dengan pendekatan mixed-methods, kami membangun korpus multi-kanal (tatap muka, telepon, chat/aplikasi, email/portal) yang beranotasi pada tiga lapis: tindak tutur, tipe implikatur (percakapan generik/spesifik; konvensional), dan penandaan kesantunan serta enactment kewajiban (rujukan SOP, tenggat, bukti layanan). Reliabilitas anotasi memenuhi ambang κ≥0,70. Analisis mencakup statistik korpus (distribusi, kolokasi, dependency), model regresi untuk peluang pemenuhan kewajiban dan analisis survival untuk waktu respons, dilengkapi pembacaan kualitatif berbutir sekuens (CA). Hasil menunjukkan dominasi implikatur percakapan, dengan varian spesifik lebih tinggi pada kanal sinkron (telepon), sedangkan kanal tertulis menampilkan proporsi lebih besar implikatur konvensional dan catatan deontik yang lebih eksplisit. Negative politeness paling prevalen, sementara positive politeness dan off-record menengahi penolakan/penundaan secara empatik. Indeks kinerja pragmatik yang diusulkan—CPI (clarity-with-politeness) dan CEI (compliance-with-empathy)—berkorelasi positif dengan pemenuhan kewajiban dan percepatan respons. Kebaruan studi terletak pada integrasi simultan implikatur–kesantunan–deontik dalam korpus lintas-kanal, yang memetakan trade-off antara kepatuhan prosedural dan pemeliharaan muka, serta memberikan dasar praktis bagi desain skrip layanan dan pelatihan frontliner.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
[2] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521313551)
[3] Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521294140)
[4] Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (ISBN: 9780195341386)
[5] Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521374897)
[8] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
[9] Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521532792)
[10] Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521318624)
[11] Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.
[12] Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Dialogue & Discourse, 3(1), 1–19.
[13] Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.
[14] Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (ISBN: 9780893914596)
[15] Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521496223)
[16] McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 9780521517201)
[17] Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. (ISBN: 9781405197476)
[18] Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.
[19] Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[20] Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.
[21] Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell. (ISBN: 9780631234303)
[22] Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing accountability in social interaction. Communication Studies, 57(1), 1–25.
[23] Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). ‘Some’ versus ‘any’ medical issues: Incrementality in primary care. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(1), 1–29.