Amalia Dwi Utami


This study aims to discuss the role of pragmatics, which is one of the focuses of forensic linguistic studies, in cases of hate speech in Indonesia. One of the focuses of this study is to explain why speech is categorized as hate speech. Another focus is to provide an understanding that a speech can contain more than one meaning which may not be intended to spread hatred. This study refers to the concept of illocutionary power and perlocutionary action as well as the concept of face threatening action to analyze the characteristics of speech that has the potential to contain hatred or other meanings. The results of this study show that there are characteristics that can be found in hate speech, such as choice of words with negative meanings, dehumanization, association with institutions that have a bad image, and the use of the noun "us vs them".


linguist; court discourse; hate speech

Full Text:



A-alo. (2018). How many and how much ‘What does rush money mean?’ Retrieved 27 August 2019, from Steemit website:

Anhari, I. (2019, June 26). Sepanjang 2019, Polri telah tangani 675 kasus ujaran kebencian. Kantor Berita Republik Merdeka. Retrieved from

Aprill, E. P. (1998). The law of the word: Dictionary shopping in the supreme court. Arizona State Law Journal, 30(2), 275–336.

Assimakopoulos, S., Baider, F. H., & Millar, S. (2017). Online Hate Speech in the European Union.

Bachari, A. D. (2019). Analysis of form and theme of hate speech against President Joko Widodo on social media: A forensic linguistic study. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language, Literature, Education, and Culture (ICOLLITE 2018), 223–226.

Berckmans, P. (1997). The semantics of Symbolic speech. Law and Philosophy, 16(2), 145–176.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge Dictionary. (2020). Dog. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from

Carney, T. (2014). Being (im)polite: A forensic linguistic approach to interpreting a hate speech case. Language Matters, 45(3), 325–341.

Citron, D. K., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91(4), 1435–1484.

Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence (Second edition). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Cribb, R., & Coppel, C. A. (2009). A genocide that never was: Explaining the myth of anti-Chinese massacres in Indonesia, 1965–66. Journal of Genocide Research, 11(4), 447–465.

Darussalam v. Samaruddin, 230/Pid.B/2017/PN.Bau (Pengadilan Negeri Baubau 1 December 2018).

Dynel, M. (2011). Joker in the pack: Towards determining the status of humorous framing in conversations. In M. Dynel, The Pragmatics of Humour Across Discourse Domains (pp. 217–241). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dynel, M. (2014). Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor, 27(4).

ElSherief, M., Kulkarni, V., Nguyen, D., Wang, W. Y., & Belding, E. (2018). Hate lingo: A target-based linguistic analysis of hate speech in social media. ArXiv:1804.04257 [Cs]. Retrieved from

Fasya, M., & Suhendar, E. N. M. (2013). Variabel Sosial Sebagai Penentu Penggunaan Makian dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Linguistik Indonesia, 31(1), 81–102.

Finegan, E. (2010). Expert linguists and the whole truth. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(2), 267–277.

Gibbs, R. W., Bryant, G. A., & Colston, H. L. (2014). Where is the humor in verbal irony? Humor, 27(4), 575–595.

Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics (2nd edition). London: Hodder Headline Group.

Jeon, L., & Mauney, S. (2014). “As much as I love you, I’ll never get you to understand”: Political discourse and ‘face’ work on Facebook. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin, 67–75.

Kimotho, S. G., & Nyaga, R. N. (2016). Digitized ethnic hate speech: Understanding effects of digital media hate speech on citizen journalism in Kenya. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 189–200.

Lagorgette, D. (2011). Pragmatics in the courtroom: Violent speech acts, law, and the linguist in France. Pragmatics and Society, 2(2), 187–204.

Oktar, L. (2001). The ideological organization of representational processes in the presentation of us and them. Discourse & Society, 12(3), 313–346.

Park, J. (2008). Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer-mediated communication, Part 1: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2051–2059.

Santoso, I. (2014). Mengenal linguistik forensik: Linguis sebagai saksi ahli. In Kumpulan Artikel Ilmiah dalam Rangka Dies Natalis Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (pp. 1–16). Retrieved from

Searle, J. R. (1999). Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Shuy, R. W. (2008). Fighting over Words: Language and Civil Law Cases. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slocum, B. G. (2012). Linguistics and ‘ordinary meaning’ determinations. Statute Law Review, 33(1), 39–83.

Smedt, T. D., Jaki, S., Kotzé, E., Saoud, L., & Gwó, M. (2018). Multilingual cross-domain perspectives on online hate speech. Computational Linguistics & Psycholinguistics, 1–24.

Solan, L. M. (1999). Can the Legal System Use Experts on Meaning? Tennessee Law Review, 66, 1167–1201.

The People v. Wijayani, 70/PID.SUS/2018/PT YYK (Pengadilan Tinggi Yogyakarta 12 April 2018).

Tiersma, P. M., & Solan, L. (2002). The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts. Language, 78(2), 221–239.

Vanderveken, D., & Kubo, S. (2001). Introduction. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo, Essays in Speech Act Theory (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wijaya, C. A. (2017, September 5). Ahok guilty of blasphemy, sentenced to two years. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from

Zifana, M., Lukmana, I., & Sudana, D. (2017a). Bahasa sebagai alat kejahatan pengancaman: Telaah linguistik forensik terhadap putusan pengadilan pada kasus pengancaman. Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya 15, 727–730. Unika Atma Jaya.

Zifana, M., Lukmana, I., & Sudana, D. (2017b). Narrative Texts in Three Copies of Court Decisions of Defamation Cases: The Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and The Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in Collaboration with The First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education, 239–245.

Putusan Pengadilan

Abdul Rozak bin Abu Uwais, Nomor 295/Pid.Sus/2017/PT.DKI, Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta, 18 Januari 2018.

Markus Pole Datu anak dari Yohanis Pole Datu, Nomor 1929K/PID.SUS/2017, Mahkamah Agung, 28 Desember 2017.

Nurul Hakiki bin Asur, 3/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Bnt, Pengadilan Negeri Buntok Kelas II, 02 Agustus 2018.

Samaruddin alias Deni bin La Ode Nuhu, Nomor 230/Pid.B/2017/PN.Bau, Pengadilan Negeri Baubau, 01 Desember 2018.

Sebastian Joe bin Abdul Hadi, Nomor 777 K/Pid.Sus/2013, Mahkamah Agung, 23 April 2013.

Siti Sundari Dara Nila Utama, Nomor 197/PID.SUS/2018/PT.DKI, Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta, 07 Desember 2018.

Tara Arsih Wijayani, S.Pd., M.Hum., binti H. Dian Samudi, Nomor 70/PID.SUS/2018/PT YYK, Pengadilan Tinggi Yogyakarta, 12 April 2018.


  • There are currently no refbacks.