The Symbolic Violence in Language

Abstract

Language can cause effects, the effect of which can be known after they are translated in behaviour. This is because when the form of language is spoken and written, the meaning of the language may be expressed ambiguously and falsely. This means that any interlocutor can interpret language content at will. Why does the use of language pose ambiguous and pseudo-intentions when used by many users in communication? What is the value of meaningfulness gained from using this kind of language? The aim of the study is to reduce symbolic violence, which continues into physical violence, preserving the integrity and harmony of nationhood, and maintaining self-respect and moral ethics. Research findings can set the cornerstone to shape and create an honest, praiseworthy, and responsible culture of behaviour and character. Research problems were investigated by using qualitative research design, while the type of research selected was socio cultural pragmatic. The research data was a segment of the language that indicated destructive, insulting, harmful, and tarnished language partners. The data were obtained from the spoken language, writing sources, and gesture segments. Data were collected through observation, question and answer, interviews, and documentation. Analysis of research data used was done through critical discourse. The findings of problematic language usage research were widely used in (i) advertising, (ii) court case trials, (iii) social media, and (iv) communication interactions in the world of commerce. The purpose of using this language was to (i) persuade language partners, (ii) deceive certain misdeeds, (iii) escape, and (iv) hurt language interlocutor directly. Factors causing the use of this language were influenced by (i) personal/group needs, (ii) pressure and coercion of others in power, and (iii) sponsored messages. Discussion of language usage in communication can have negative and positive effect. It will produce a negative effect, if the language user uses it in a way which is mutually harmful to the other language users. It will produce a positive effect, if the language user uses it mutually with the other language users for mutual benefits. Both uses of language have negative or positive effects, implying a meaningful value. In communication, language users like to have ambiguous and false aims, because they are constructed in a unique and persuasive way, so that the language partners are easily triggered and willing to work together. The use of straightforward, clear, and unambiguous language is not desirable for the language user, because it is dry, awkward, and rigid, so the language partners become easily bored and disgusted. In conclusion, the use of ambiguous language is more dominant among language users, because communication for honest communication interaction, straightforward, and assertive needs is not immediately met.