Dr. Nagamurali Eragamreddy

General Requirements Unit, Preparatory Studies Center, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Salalah, Sultanate of Oman.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2025.v4i6n08

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study is concerned with implicature terms-of-text internet conversation on Reddit, and it engages with the shortcomings of what is already understood about the operation of pragmatic processes in this online environment where conciseness and contextual knowledge are obligatory. This study engages with the kinds of implicatures prevalent, the linguistic cues that trigger implicatures and how implicatures differ by platform and by user objectives. Qualitative content analysis was used to purposively sample 10 Reddit with 119 comments and discussion threads for complexity. Data were manually coded according to a hybrid scheme on five dimensions. Frequency and thematic cluster analyses triangulated findings. The overall results were conversational implicatures were most common (60.66%), with "malicious compliance" or resistance to authority being predominated. Sarcasm (24.59%), ellipsis ambiguity (9.84%), and emojis (4.92%) were significant cues. User intentions motivated implicature use, although platform comparisons were restricted due to Reddit-centric data. These findings speak directly to the RQs, demonstrating that online implicature is supported by multimodal cues and inference-rich context, widening Gricean pragmatics. The conclusion contends that online environments reshape implicature as a means of negotiating ambiguity, social relationships, and power factors, calling for platform-sensitive pragmatic models.

KEYWORDS:

Implicature, digital communication, Reddit, linguistic cues, pragmatic markers.

REFERENCES

1) Ananda, T. W., & Wibowo, A. A. (2025). Social critique in hybrid comedy-horror: A discourse analysis of Agak Laen film. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Research, 5(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.51817/jpdr.v5i1.1137

2) Anyanwu, E. C. (2025). Pragmatic markers and conversational implicature in Facebook group chats among Nnamdi Azikiwe university undergraduates. ESTAGA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2(2), 17-30.

3) Biri, Y. (2023). Affective stance as positioning in an English-speaking online fan community. Journal of Pragmatics, 215, 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.07.004

4) Dakulagi, V., Yeap, K. H., Nisar, H., Dakulagi, R., Basavaraj, G. N., & Galindo, M. V. (2025). An overview of techniques and best practices to create intuitive and user-friendly human-machine interfaces. In A. Subasi, S. M. Qaisar, & H. Nisar (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Multimodal Signal Processing in Human-Machine Interaction, (pp. 63-77). Cambridge: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-29150-0.00002-0

5) Dynel, M. (2016). “I has seen image macros!” Advice animals memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication, 10, 660-688

6) Eragamreddy, N. (2022). A semantic study of implicatures. ELC Research Gate, 3, 41-51.

7) Eragamreddy, N. (2024a). Pragmatic and semantic factors in the interpretation of Scalar implicatures. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 11(1), 54- 80.

8) Eragamreddy, N. (2024b). The impact of implicatures on the interpretation of indirect speech acts in William Saroyan's the summer of the beautiful white horse. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 07(11), 8523-8538. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V7-i11-39

9) Eragamreddy, N. (2025). The impact of AI on pragmatic competence. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 13(1), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP250122015E

10) Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11) Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

12) Herring, S. C., & Dainas, A. R. (2017). Nice picture comment! Graphicons in Facebook comment threads. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2185–2194. http://dx.doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.264

13) Horn, L. R., & Ward, G. (2006) The handbook of pragmatics (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

14) Hossain, M. M. (2021). The application of Grice maxims in conversation: A pragmatic study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(10), 32-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2021.3.10.4

15) Kelland, J., Radcliffe, L., Williams, G., & Gregory‐Chialton, J. (2025). Synergistic or siloed? Communicative practices in dual‐earner parents' boundary navigation and implications for gendered work‐family experiences. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12586

16) Li, L., & Yang, Y. (2018). Pragmatic functions of emoji in internet-based communication---a corpus-based study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3, 16. https://sfleducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40862-018-0057-z

17) Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., & Khoramshekouh, A. (2016). L2 Learners' enhanced pragmatic comprehension of implicatures via computer-mediated communication and social media networks. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 141-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijal.19.1.141

18) Rina, N., Yanti, Y., & Idham, H. (2020). Implicature in the internet memes: semio-pragmatics analysis. Journal of Cultura and Lingua, 1(1), 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.37301/culingua.v1i1.7

19) Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. California: SAGE Publications.

20) Sigalingging, A., Girsang, M., & Silalahi, C. D. M. (2025). Types of implicatures hate speech TikTok social media. Journal of Society Innovation and Development (JSID), 7(1), 170-178. https://journal.institutre.org/index.php/jsid/article/view/176/265

21) Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22) Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2025). Rethinking ostensive communication in an evolutionary, comparative, and developmental perspective.Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000565

23) Terkourafi, M. (2021). Inference and implicature. In M. Haugh & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics (pp. 30-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.004

24) Togans, L. J., Holtgraves, T., Kwon, G., & Zelaya, T. E. M. (2021). Digitally saving face: An experimental investigation of cross-cultural differences in the use of emoticons and emoji. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.016

25) Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2017). The ethics of using social media data in research: A new framework. In K. Woodfield (Ed.), The ethics of online research (pp. 189-207). England: Emerald Publishing Limited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820180000002008

26) Yus, F. (2017). Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 66-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003

27) Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. M. Wildemuth(Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 308–319). California: Libraries Unlimited.

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2025