Types of Pragmatic Polysemy in Swear Words in Google Play Reviews: A Digital Corpus-Based Study

Authors

  • Ratna Soraya Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Author
  • Nurlela Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Author
  • Rita Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Author
  • Ridwan Syahputra Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Author

Keywords:

pragmatic polysemy; swearing; digital language; digital corpus; Google Play reviews; pragmatics

Abstract

The rapid development of digital communication has transformed language use, including the use of taboo expressions such as swear words. In digital environments, swearing functions not only as insult or verbal aggression but also serves diverse pragmatic purposes depending on communicative context. This study aims to identify types of pragmatic polysemy of swear words in Google Play user reviews using a digital corpus-based approach. A descriptive qualitative design employing corpus analysis was adopted. The data comprised user reviews posted on the Google Play platform that contained swear words while evaluating applications and reporting experiences with digital services. Data were collected through documentation and analyzed based on forms of swearing, contexts of occurrence, pragmatic functions, and context-dependent interpretations in digital interactions. The analysis drew on Andersson and Trudgill’s theory of swearing functions, Pinker’s classification of swearing, and a pragmatic perspective emphasizing context as the primary determinant of meaning. The findings reveal five types of pragmatic polysemy in digital swearing: (1) emotional catharsis, (2) negative evaluation of digital systems or objects, (3) interpersonal attack, (4) emphatic intensification of meaning, and (5) humor, irony, and digital solidarity. The results further show that a single swear word may produce different pragmatic interpretations depending on communicative context, the target of the utterance, and the speaker’s communicative intention. Therefore, swearing in digital communication should not be viewed solely as offensive language but as a complex linguistic phenomenon reflecting emotional expression, identity negotiation, and communicative strategies within virtual communities in digital environments

5 1

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.

Andersson, L. G., & Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad language. Basil Blackwell.

Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913489198

Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (2011). Linguistic anthropology: The study of language as culture. Cambridge University Press.

Dynel, M. (2012). Swearing methodologically: The (im)politeness of expletives in anonymous commentaries on YouTube. Journal of English Studies, 10, 25–50. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.206

Dynel, M. (2023). Hashtag swearing: Pragmatic polysemy and polyfunctionality of #FuckPutin as solidary flaming. Journal of Pragmatics, 209, 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.009

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016

Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x

Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.013

Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking.

Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Routledge.

Wijana, I. D. P., & Rohmadi, M. (2013). Sosiolinguistik: Kajian teori dan analisis. Pustaka Pelajar.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-26

How to Cite

Soraya, R., Nurlela, Rita, & Syahputra, R. (2026). Types of Pragmatic Polysemy in Swear Words in Google Play Reviews: A Digital Corpus-Based Study. Proceedings of Annual Language, Literature and Culture International Conference, 2026(1). https://conference.sastra.uisu.ac.id/index.php/alicio/article/view/25

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 44

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.