FROM BRAINROT TO DIGITAL DISCOURSE: STUDENT PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION IN MEME CULTURE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31851/ghq09z76Keywords:
Brainrot Culture, Digital Communication, Digital Discourse, Internet Memes, Pragmatics, Speech ActsAbstract
This study investigates university students’ engagement with brain rot and meme culture within digital communication environments, focusing on the pragmatic functions embedded in meme-based interactions and the extent to which meme culture shapes students’ digital discourse and communication practices. Employing a mixed-methods research design, the study involved undergraduate students as participants. Data were gathered through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and pragmatic competence assessments, and subsequently analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The findings reveal that meme culture has become deeply embedded in students’ everyday digital interactions, serving multiple pragmatic purposes in online communication. Memes function not only as tools for entertainment and social bonding but also as mechanisms for expressing attitudes, negotiating meaning, conveying humor, and facilitating contextual understanding in digital discourse. Furthermore, the results indicate that sustained exposure to meme culture significantly influences students’ communicative behavior, shaping their interpretation of messages, language use, and interactional strategies in online environments. The study concludes that memes should be viewed as more than merely recreational digital artifacts; they constitute meaningful communicative resources that support effective digital interaction and contribute to the development of pragmatic competence among university students. These findings underscore the growing significance of meme culture as a linguistic and sociocultural phenomenon in contemporary digital communication.
References
Ali, S. W., & Husain, N. (2024). Humor in digital discourse: A pragmatic analysis of memes on social media. Madani: Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin, 2(3), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10995129
Anderau, G., & Barbarrusa, D. (2024). The function of memes in political discourse. Topoi, 43, 1529–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10112-0
Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Dan’Azumi, A., Aliyu, Y. I., & Abdullahi, K. S. (2025). Speech acts on memes: A pragmatic study of graduation T-shirts of graduands. Asian Journal of Media and Communication, 9(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.20885/asjmc.vol9.iss2.art1
Deniz, U., & Erdener, M. A. (2023). Development and validation of the Trust in Higher Education Scale (THES): A mixed-methods approach. Participatory Educational Research, 10(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.41.10.3
Dynel, M. (2024). The pragmatics of sharing memes on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 220, 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.12.001
Gowda, D., Curran, T., & Balmer, D. F. (2019). Mixed methods program evaluation. In C. M. Klugman & E. G. Lamb (Eds.), Research methods in health humanities (pp. xx–xx). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190918514.003.0019
Grundlingh, L. (2017). Memes as speech acts. Social Semiotics. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020
Hidayati, A., Aflina, A., & Arifuddin, A. (2021). Hate speech on social media: A pragmatic approach. KnE Social Sciences, 308–317. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v5i4.8690
İdikut Özpençe, A. (2024). Brain rot: Overconsumption of online content (An essay on the publicness of social media). İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 48–60.
Jaya, A., Hartono, R., Wahyuni, S., & Yulianto, H. J. (2025). Los efectos de la estrategia de aprendizaje basado en proyectos con actividad física en función del género sobre el rendimiento escolar y la confianza en sí mismos de los estudiantes. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación, 66, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v66.110067
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Jones, R. H. (2015). Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge.
Kesi, A. K. (2025). Pragmatic analysis on social media (YouTube): Perlocutionary speech acts in digital communication in the modern era. Retorika: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 11(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.55637/jr.11.1.11027.39-45
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Morrell, C. C. (2022). TikTok as art: Visual culture art education in an afterschool art program.
Nur Aysi, A. M. T., Firdaus, A. R., Pangestu, S. M., & Utomo, H. B. (2025). Short-form content, brain rot, and bed rot: A literature review of the impact on university students. ICOSSH, 2(3), 767–776. https://doi.org/10.61796/icossh.v2i3.167
Oktaviani, A. D., & Alam, O. S. N. (2022). Illocutionary speech acts and types of hate speech in comments on @Indraakenz's Twitter account. International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 6(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v6i1.69943
Olmsted, C. (2021). How to do things with memes: Creating community through the sociopragmatics of Star Wars prequel memes. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 25, 1–20.
Owens, E. (2025). “It speaks to me in brain rot”: Theorising brain rot as a genre of participation among teenagers. New Media & Society, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251351527
Patty, J., & Noija, L. F. (2023). Social media revolution: TikTok’s impact on English language learning. Jurnal Review Pendidikan dan Pengajaran.
Perkins, K. (2025). Enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative research: Integrating quantitative validation in English language teaching studies. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies.
Putri, A. D., Jaya, A., & Marleni, M. (2023). Exploring students’ speaking ability based on their different personalities. Esteem Journal of English Education Study Programme, 6(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v6i1.10203
Romadhon. (2024). A pragmatics study of implicature in internet memes and jokes. E-Journal of Linguistics, 18(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2024.v18.i02.p05
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Seli, S., Syafitri, D., & Raflesia, C. (2023). A pragmatic competence analysis of English expressive acts by Col language speakers in Lubuklinggau. EDULIA: English Education, Linguistic, and Art Journal, 3(2), 120–132.
Shannon-Baker, P., & Hunt-Anderson, I. E. (2025). A nod for the QUAL! Qualitative priority in mixed methods integration design, visualizations and meta-inferences. Caribbean Journal of Mixed Methods Research. https://doi.org/10.37234/cjmmr.2025.u1000035
Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press.
Yanti, H., Dwi, G. S., Putri, V. M., & Zulfani, Z. (2025). Integration of validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and authenticity concepts in maintaining the quality of scientific research. Jurnal Kajian dan Pengembangan Umat, 8(2), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.31869/jkpu.v8i2.7403
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zulkifli, N. N., Letchumanan, M., Kamarudin, S., Halim, N. D. A., & Hashim, S. (2022). A review: The effectiveness of using TikTok in teaching and learning. In International Conference on Computers in Education.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sastika Seli, Moh. Hafidz Albadiri, M. Thoriqul Khoir, Cindy Liana Puspitasari, Dinda Prameswari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
