IMPLIKASI DAN PERSEPSI DEIKSIS TEMPORAL DALAM KOMUNIKASI DIGITAL OLEH MAHASISWA INDONESIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22460/semantik.v15i1.p69-80Keywords:
pragmatic ambiguity, temporal deixis, contextual inferenceAbstract
Employing a Systematic Literature Review approach, this research synthesizes data from fifteen selected scientific articles published between 2015 and 2025. The analysis was conducted thematically to identify patterns of linguistic ambiguity interpretation and the pragmatic strategies utilized within asynchronous digital environments. The results reveal that temporal ambiguity, manifest in expressions such as "tomorrow" or "in a moment," lacks absolute temporal reference and relies heavily on shared pragmatic understanding between the speaker and the interlocutor. The findings indicate three primary dimensions: the variability in interpreting relative time expressions, the significant influence of cultural background on the perception of duration, and the utilization of ambiguity as a social politeness strategy to maintain interpersonal harmony. The discussion highlights that in the absence of physical nonverbal cues, students adapt by relying on contextual inference and multimodal elements to negotiate meaning. Failures in this process frequently trigger communication breakdowns, particularly when diverging cultural assumptions regarding time concepts are present. This study concludes that the understanding of time is a dynamic social construction. The implications of these findings underscore the critical importance of cross-cultural pragmatic instruction to enhance linguistic awareness and minimize misunderstandings in academic and professional interactions in the digital era.
References
Aslan, E., & Vásquez, C. (2018). ‘cash me ousside’: A citizen sociolinguistic analysis of online metalinguistic commentary. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 22(4), 406–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12303
Barr, D., Sirniö, H., Kovács, B., O’Shea, K., McNee, S., Beith, A., … & Li, Q. (2025). Perspective conflict disrupts pragmatic inference in real-time language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001455
Bross, F. (2021). On the interpretation of expressive adjectives: Pragmatics or syntax? Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1214
Cuba, S., & Tefera, A. A. (2024). Contextualizing multilingual learner disproportionality in special education: A mixed-methods approach. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241233877
Davies, C., Durrant, S., & Smith, R. (2022). Speaker-specific cues influence semantic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(3), 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09852-0
Edwards, J. R., & Rosin, M. (2016). A prekindergarten curriculum supplement for enhancing mainstream American English knowledge in nonmainstream American English speakers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-15-0011
Evans, A., Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2017). Pragmatic failure and referential ambiguity when attorneys ask child witnesses “do you know/remember” questions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000116
Gabriele, A. (2010). Deriving meaning through context: Interpreting bare nominals in second language Japanese. Second Language Research, 26(2), 229–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310365783
Hernández, N. (2021). Personal pronouns: Variation and ambiguity. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 69(3), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2021-2023
Hwang, J., Brennan, S. E., & Huffman, M. K. (2015). Phonetic adaptation in non-native spoken dialogue: Effects of priming and audience design. Journal of Memory and Language, 81, 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.01.001
Jamil, N., & Yusof, M. (2015). Analisis deiksis dialek Kedah. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(1), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2015-1501-10
Kloetzer, L., Clot, Y., & Quintric, B. (2021). Welcoming mobile children at school: Institutional responses and new questions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00534-4
Lee, K., & Mao, Y. (2024). Rethinking internationalisation at a distance from the perspectives of international students: Critical reflection towards epistemic justice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 815–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13550
Liu, L., & Jaeger, T. F. (2018). Inferring causes during speech perception. Cognition, 178, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.01.003
Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2015). Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation, 30(4), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5
Oliinyk, M., Drach, T., & Drach, Y. (2020). Communication noise as a discourse component. Wisdom, 14(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v14i1.325
Pérez, R., & Arnold-Berkovits, I. (2019). Perez ambiguous loss of homeland scale: Measuring immigrants’ connection to their country of origin. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 41(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318824606
Scontras, G., & Pearl, L. (2021). When pragmatics matters more for truth-value judgments: An investigation of quantifier scope ambiguity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5724
So, C., Wong, M., & Lam, C. (2009). Temporal expressions in online discourse: Interpretation and interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1821–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.01.012
Sterner, B. (2022). Explaining ambiguity in scientific language. Synthese, 200(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x
Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.012
Thumiger, C. (2015). Mental insanity in the Hippocratic texts: A pragmatic perspective. Mnemosyne, 68(6), 875–895. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-12301565
Wagner, E., & Stempfhuber, M. (2013). ‘Disorderly conduct’: On the unruly rules of public communication in social network sites. Global Networks, 13(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12028
Wilde, S., Claeys, G., & Bock, A. (2019). Discovering dimensions of research ethics in doing oral history: Going public in the case of the Ghent orphanages. Qualitative Research, 20(4), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119851330
Wang, Y., & Zhan, H. (2023). Thematic analysis in linguistic research: Methods and applications. Linguistic Studies, 45(2), 233–249.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author is responsible for acquiring the permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require a grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.
Accreditation Decree 








