Symbolic Functions of Graffiti in Padang City of Indonesia: Critical Linguistic Landscape Studies
Main Article Content
Keywords
Linguistic Landscape, symbolic functions, Critical discourse Analysis, Graffiti.
Abstract
This study concerned with language in written form that is visible as graffiti in the Padang city, Indonesia landscape. The mushroomed of graffiti in Padang city landscapes increasingly has been a growing problem in society. Even local government as the official authority has created some task to prohibit graffiti, but a new graffiti has always been emerging in public space. Therefore graffiti has been considered a crime. It is interesting to explore graffiti in Padang city landscapes from other perspectives, particularly the symbolic functions of graffiti. The study uses qualitative approaches by applying Critical Discourse Analysis. The result shows that graffiti in Padang city landscapes accomplished two principal symbolic functions; first graffiti as a medium of demonstration in which providing space for marginalized expression with the opportunity to voice controversial ideas publically; second graffiti as social critics in which providing input into the public discourse that is not concerned by other conventional media.
Downloads
References
Blackwood, R. (2015). LL explorations and methodological challenges: Analysing France’s regional languages. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 1(1/2).
Chaffee, L. G. (2014). Political Protest and Street Art: Popular Tools for Democratization in Hispanic Countries. Greenwood Press.
Dabbour, K. (2017). The Linguistic Landscape of Tahrir Square Protest Signs and Egyptian National Identity. Studies in Linguistics and Literature, 1(2), 142–161.
Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C., Lamarre, P., & Aramand, F. (2015). Linguistic Landscape on Campus in Japan — A Case Study of Signs in Kyushu University. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (Issue 1, pp. 123–144). Routledge.
Dixson, A. E. (2015). Analyzing the Multilingual Linguistic Landscape of Buffalo. State University of New York.
Edelman, L. (2014). The Presence of Minority Languages in Linguistic Landscapes in Amsterdam and Friesland (the Netherlands). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2014(228), 7–28.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Introduction to Discourse Analysis (pp. 258–284). Sage.
Gorter, D, & Cenoz, J. (2017). Linguistic landscape and multilingualism. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism (pp. 1–24). Springer International Publishing.
Gorter, Durk. (2018). Methods and techniques for linguistic landscape research : About definitions , core issues and technological innovations. Pre-Final Version in Putz & Mundt, 2018((1)).
Hanauer, D. (2011). The Discursive Construction of the Separation Wall at Abu Dis: Graffiti as Political Discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(3), 301–321.
Hernández, L. C., López-gopar, M. E., & Sughrua, W. M. (2017). From Linguistic Landscape to Semiotic Landscape : Indigenous Language Revitalization and Literacy. Studiez Aplikovane Lingvistiky, 2017(2).
Johnston, H. (2006). Let’s Get Small: The Dynamics of (Small) Contention on Repressive States. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 11(2), 195–212.
Kotze, C. (2010). The Linguistic Landscape of Rural South Africa after 1994: A Case Study of Philippolis. The University of the Free State, South Africa.
Kress, G. (1993). Against Arbitrariness: the Social Production of the Sign. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 169–191.
Lamarre, P. (2014). Bilingual winks and bilingual wordplay in Montreal’s linguistic landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2014(228), 131–151.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethno-linguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1997(16), 23–49.
Moriarty, M. (2014). Languages in motion : Multilingualism and mobility in the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(5), 457–463.
Papen, U. (2012). Commercial Discourses, Gentrification and Citizens’ Protest: The Linguistic Landscape of Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(1), 56–80.
Reeve, D. (2017). Angkot & Bus Minangkabau: Budaya Pop & Nilai-Nilai Budaya Pop. Komunitas Bambu.
Reiss, J. (2008). Bomb It. Distributed in the U.S. New York.
Roig-MarÃn, A. (2016). Examining the linguistic landscape of Alicante (Spain): sociolinguistic and lexical considerations. Proceedings of ConSOLE XXIV, 2016(24), 297–308.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. Routledge.
Thongtong, T. (2016). A Linguistic Landscape Study of Signage on Nimmanhemin Road, a Lanna Chiang Mai Chill-Out Street. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, Special Is(22), 72–84.
Torkington, K. (2009). Exploring the linguistic l andscape : the case of the ‘ Golden Triangle ’ in the Algarve , Portugal. Linguistic Landscape Teaching, 2009(3), 122–144.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, Schiffrin, & H. Hamiltion (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Genre and Field in Critical Discourse Analysis: A Synopsis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 193–225.
Yendra. (2020). Coretan Lingual di Ruang Publik Kota Padang: Kajian Lanskap Linguistik. Universitas Udayana.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.