IMPOLITENESS STRATEGY BY HATERS AND SUPPORTERS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THE INSTAGRAM: A CYBER PRAGMATICS APPROACH

This research examined impoliteness strategies employed by both haters and
supporters of presidential candidates on Instagram during Indonesia's Third
Presidential Debate. Drawing on Culpeper's (2010, 1996, 2011) and Beebe's
(1995) theories, the study analyzed impoliteness strategies, their manifestations,
and underlying motivations. Used a descriptive-qualitative approach, data source
were taken from comments on the @suaraanies Instagram account. Employing a
documentary technique, the findings indicated that among supporters, Negative
Impoliteness was the most prevalent strategy (43 instances), whereas Bald on
Record Impoliteness was the least frequent (3 instances). Conversely, haters
predominantly employed Positive Impoliteness (35 instances), with Bald on
Record Impoliteness and Sarcasm or Mock Impoliteness occurring least
frequently (8 instances each). The analysis further identified 12 forms of impolite
utterances among haters, most commonly Condescend, Scorn, or Ridicule (17
occurrences), and 11 forms among supporters, primarily Insult (20 occurrences).
In terms of reasons for impolite utterances, haters most frequently cited “To Vent
Negative Feelings” (29 instances), while “To Mock Someone” was less common
(7 instances). Supporters commonly used impolite language “To Clarify
Something” (17 instances), with “To Show Disagreement” being the least cited
reason (2 instances). The absence of 'withhold impoliteness' strategies may be
attributed to the anonymity of online interactions, potentially reducing users' sense
of accountability for their comments. Notably, taboo words were not employed as
a manifestation of impoliteness by supporters, likely reflecting an effort to
maintain respectability while defending their chosen candidate and engaging in
reasoned debate.