Language and Social Hierarchy in Crash Landing on You: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Sabrina Putri Octaviani

Authors

Sabrina Putri Octaviani Institut Prima Bangsa Cirebon, Indonesia

Keywords:

Critical Discourse Analysis, Language, Politeness Strategy, Power Relations, Social Hierarchy, Speech Act Theory

Abstract

Language functions not only for communication but also as a representation of social hierarchy and power relations in society. This study aims to identify linguistic forms representing social hierarchy, analyse power relations between characters, and explain discourse strategies used to maintain or challenge social hierarchy in the drama Crash Landing on You. The study employs a qualitative descriptive method, using dialogue selected through observation, documentation, and purposive sampling. Analysis used Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, John Searle’s Speech Act Theory, and Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory. The findings show that directive, polite, and expressive language predominates in representing hierarchical relationships. Power relations are reflected through commands, formal expressions, conversational control, and politeness strategies. In addition, honorifics, indirect politeness, questions, and forms of resistance function to maintain or challenge social hierarchy. The study concludes that language is a non-neutral social practice that actively reflects and shapes ideology, authority, and existing power structures in society.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahmadi, Y., Syaifullah, A. R., & Hermawan, B. (2024). Speech Acts on Instagram comments about G20 Indonesia. Diksi, 32(1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.21831/diksi.v32i1.71227

Avdagić, K., & Džanić, M. (2023). Power relations through the prism of critical discourse analysis and systemic functional grammar. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 63-98. https://doi.org/10.2478/exell-2023-0007

Brown, L. (2022). Politeness as normative, evaluative and discriminatory: The case of verbal hygiene discourses on correct honorifics use in South Korea. Journal of Politeness Research, 18(1), 63-91. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0008

Caballero, A. (2025). Critical discourse analysis in the study of representation , identity politics and power relations : a multi-method approach. Communication & Society, 28(2), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.28.2.39-54

Cropley, A. (2022). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A practice-oriented introduction. Editura Intaglio Publishing House.

Danescu-niculescu-mizil, C. (2022). Echoes of Power : Language Effects and Power Differences in Social Interaction. Cornell University.

Deocampo, M. F. (2025). TRIANGULATING CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ( CDA ). Assumption Jurnal, 38–62.

Dutt, R., Joshi, R., & Ros, C. P. (2020). Keeping Up Appearances: Computational Modeling of Face Acts in Persuasion Oriented Discussions. Cornell University. Fairclough, N. (2023). Critical discourse analysis. ResearchGate, 1–27.

Farhansyah, M. R., Darmawan, I., Kusumawardhana, A., Winata, G. I., Aji, A. F., & Wijaya, D. T. (2025, July). Do Language Models Understand Honorific Systems in Javanese?. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 26732-26754).

Fauzan, U. (2013). Analisis Wacana Kritis Model Fairclough. ResearchGate, 5, 209–217.

Guan, Y., Ahn, Y., & Yang, M. (2023). A study on the intentional use types of Korean honorifics and the perception of language users. Korean Semantics, 81, 35–70.

Guan, Y., & Ko, H. (2023). A study on Korean indirect speech acts instruction method using video media. Eomunronjip, 95, 567–598.

Jurafsky, D., & Smith, N. A. (2020). SOCIAL BIAS FRAMES: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. Cornell University.

Kim, H., Winter, B., & Brown, L. (2021). Beyond politeness markers: Multiple morphological and lexical differences index deferential meanings in Korean. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 203-220.

Kim, M. (2023). Between honorifics and non-honorifics: A study of the Korean semi-honorific style and a comparison with Japanese. Discourse Studies, 25(5), 664-691.

Kirasur, N., & Jhaver, S. (2024). Understanding the resilience of caste: A critical discourse analysis of community profiles on x. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02810.

Leotti, S. M., Sugrue, E. P., & Winges-Yanez, N. (2022). Unpacking the worlds in our words: Critical discourse analysis and social work inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 260-276.

Mabaquiao, N. M., & De La Salle University, M. (2018). Speech Act Theory : From Austin to Searle. A Journal for Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, and Education, 19(1), 35–45.

Mehta, H., Saxena, A., Chhikara, G., & Kumar, R. (2026). No Universal Courtesy: A Cross-Linguistic, Multi-Model Study of Politeness Effects on LLMs Using the PLUM Corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16275.

Puspitasari, A., & Utami, B. R. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis of Social Class in Society and Language. Komunikata, 2(7), 1–12.

Qianbo, L. (2016). Theoretical Framework of Critical Discourse Analysis. Studies in Literature and Language, 13(5), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.3968/9066

Rachmawati, S. A., Retnaningdyah, P., & Setiawan, S. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis of Language and Power in EFL Classroom Interaction. Journal of English Teaching, 8(2), 224–232.

Ridealgh, K., & Gómez, L. U. (2020). Potestas and the language of power: Conceptualising an approach to Power and Discernment politeness in ancient languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 231-244.

Sap, M., Gabriel, S., Qin, L., Jurafsky, D., Smith, N. A., & Choi, Y. (2020, July). Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 5477-5490).

Saragi, V., Nuratika, S., Yolanda, M., & Ardiyanti, N. (2019). A Review of Some Speech Act Theories Focusing on Speech Acts by Searle ( 1969 ). Journal of English Language Studies, 1(2), 61–68.

Shin G-H, Jung BK, Yang M. Learning Environment and Learning Outcome: Evidence from Korean Subject–Predicate Honorific Agreement. Languages. 2025; 10(8):180.

Soubki, A., & Rambow, O. (2024). Intention and Face in Dialog. Cornell University.

Tareq, R., & Al-zubaidi, A. (2022). Critical discourse analysis : Power exercise and resistance in selected texts. JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES, 18(2), 1023–1033.

Yuan, W., & Lyu, S. (2022). Speech act matters: Commitment to what's said or what's implicated differs in the case of assertion and promise. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 128-142.