Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2020, Page: 40-46
A Corpus-based Study of the Stereotypical Construction of Sundanese People
Susi Yuliawati, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia
Received: Jul. 7, 2020;       Accepted: Jul. 27, 2020;       Published: Aug. 13, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.cls.20200603.11      View  324      Downloads  102
This article uses corpus linguistics methods and theories to study how the Sundanese depicted as people with courteous characters in a 2.9 million-word corpus of Manglé, a Sundanese magazine, published between 1958 and 2013. The study examines the usage patterns of Sundanese words denoting ‘courtesy’ and ‘discourtesy’ in the corpus by employing a mixed-method research design. Using the corpus software WordSmith Tools, the analysis of word frequency found that the courtesy category is lexically more diverse, i.e., containing more lexical units, than the discourtesy category. Besides, the courtesy lexemes are more frequently used than the discourtesy lexemes. Based on collocation analysis, the top three most frequent words signifying courtesy, i.e., SOMÉAH ‘nice and welcome’, MARAHMAY ‘cheerful’, and DARÉHDÉH ‘pleasant and friendly’, have the semantic preference of friendliness; social actions, states, and processes; and people. On the other hand, the semantic preference of the top three most frequent words signifying discourtesy, i.e., BAEUD ‘sullen’, JAMEDUD ‘surly’, and KURAWEUD ‘surly’, is predominantly unfriendly traits. The analyses demonstrate that Sundanese people in the corpus of Manglé are constructed as a friendly community portrayed to have some personality traits such as favorable, friendly, and welcoming, particularly to visitors and strangers. The result seemingly constructs the stereotype of the Sundanese ethnic group that is commonly known among the other ethnic groups in Indonesia as respectful and friendly people.
Collocation, Corpus Linguistics, Lexemes, Stereotype, Sundanese
To cite this article
Susi Yuliawati, A Corpus-based Study of the Stereotypical Construction of Sundanese People, Communication and Linguistics Studies. Vol. 6, No. 3, 2020, pp. 40-46. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200603.11
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Rosidi, A. (2009). Manusia Sunda. Indonesia, Bandung: Kiblat.
Sampeliling, A. R. (2017, November 13). Berbagi stereotip kelompok etnis di Indonesia: Membangun atau merugikan. Retrieved from http://connect.upnyk.ac.id.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Culture through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bednarek, M. & Bublitz, W. (2007). Enjoy! The (phraseological) culture of having fun. In P. Skandera (Eds.), Phraseology and culture in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schönefeld, D. (2007). Hot, heiß, and gorjachij: A case study of collocations in English, German, and Russian. In P. Skandera (Eds.), Phraseology and Culture in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Millezia, D. (2006). Classifying Phraseology in a spoken corpus of political discourse. ESP Across Culture, 3, 41-65.
Yuliawati, S. & Hidayat, R. S. (2018). Construction of woman in the Sundanese magazine Manglé (1958-2013): A corpus-based study of metalinguistic signs. In M Budianta, M. Budiman, A. Kusno, & M. Moriyama (Eds.), Cultural Dynamics in a Globalized World. London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1992) Feminism and linguistic theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Crystal, D. (1997). Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gu, J. (2009). Theorizing about intercultural communication: Dynamic semiotic and memetic approach to intercultural communication (a commentary). In eds G. M. Chen, R. Heisey. Intercultural Communication Research (pp. 109-115). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Communicating with Strangers: An approach to intercultural Communication. In ed. Stewart J. New York, McGraw Hill.
Kohls, L. R. (1984). Survival kit for overseas living. Yarmouth, M. E. Intercultural press.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In ads E. Rosch, Lloyd, B. Hillsdale. Cognition and categorization (pp. 27– 48). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Valdes, J. M. (1993) Culture bound. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Litosseliti, L. (2010). Research method in linguistics. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Yuliawati, S. (2018). Kajian Linguistik dan Semiotik: Perempuan Sunda dalam Kata. Bandung, West Java, Indonesia: Refika Aditama.
Biber, D. & Reppen, R. (2015). The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, New York, & Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (2002). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell Publishing.
Cheng, W. (2012). Exploring corpus linguistics. language in action. London & New York: Routledge.
Baker, P., Hardie, A. & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
Saeed, John. L. (2016). Semantics. USA & UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
Clair, R. N. (1986). Language and the social construction of reality. Language Sciences, 2 (2).
Bo, C. (2015). Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15 (43), 87–113.
Webb, S. & Kagimoto, E. (2010). Learning collocations: Do the number of collocates, position of the node word, and synonymy effect learning?. Applied Linguistics, 32 (3), 259-276.
Browse journals by subject