Hari Sabtu Tanggal 2 Juli 2011 FBS UNIPDU mengadakan acara diskusi tentang CCU dengan native speaker. Bertempat di gedung multimedia. Bagi teman-teman dari kursusan atau sma yang berminat segera mendaftar, karena tempat terbatas. Hub Mbak irta : 085645199831.thanks

Posted in | 0 komentar

semantics

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.
Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used by humans to express themselves through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics.
The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have semantic content; in other forms of language, there is other semantic content.
The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are related fields. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.
Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.
In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology.

n linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.
n the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a system for defining semantic entries in the lexicon in terms of the lambda calculus. In these terms, the syntactic parse of the sentence John ate every bagel would consist of a subject (John) and a predicate (ate every bagel); Montague showed that the meaning of the sentence as a whole could be decomposed into the meanings of its parts and relatively few rules of combination. The logical predicate thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. using truth theory models, which ultimately relate meanings to a set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside the logic. The notion of such meaning atoms or primitives is basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the 1970s.
Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited by the context-dependent variability in word sense, and led to several attempts at incorporating context, such as:
situation semantics (1980s): truth-values are incomplete, they get assigned based on context
generative lexicon (1990s): categories (types) are incomplete, and get assigned based on context
In Chomskian linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[6]
This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics[7] and also in the non-Fodorian camp in Philosophy of Language.[8] The challenge is motivated by:
factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations "context" serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context change potentials instead of propositions.
factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things."[8] This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.
A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of a single word, "red", its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional.[9] However, the colours implied in phrases such as "red wine" (very dark), and "red hair" (coppery), or "red soil", or "red skin" are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called "red" by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so "red wine" is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not "white" for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:
Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.[10]
and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.[11]
An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the Generative Lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated on the fly based on finite context.
[edit]Prototype theory
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members.
Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world – meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience".[12] A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate (see the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow).
[edit]Theories in semantics
[edit]Model theoretic semantics
Main article: formal semantics (linguistics)
Originates from Montague's work (see above). A highly formalized theory of natural language semantics in which expressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such as individuals, truth values, or functions from one of these to another. The truth of a sentence, and more interestingly, its logical relation to other sentences, is then evaluated relative to a model.
[edit]Formal (of truth-conditional) semantics
Main article: truth-conditional semantics
Pioneered by the philosopher Donald Davidson, another formalized theory, which aims to associate each natural language sentence with a meta-language description of the conditions under which it is true, for example: `Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. The challenge is to arrive at the truth conditions for any sentences from fixed meanings assigned to the individual words and fixed rules for how to combine them. In practice, truth-conditional semantics is similar to model-theoretic semantics; conceptually, however, they differ in that truth-conditional semantics seeks to connect language with statements about the real world (in the form of meta-language statements), rather than with abstract models.
[edit]Lexical & conceptual semantics
Main article: conceptual semantics
This theory is an effort to explain properties of argument structure. The assumption behind this theory is that syntactic properties of phrases reflect the meanings of the words that head them. With this theory, linguists can better deal with the fact that subtle differences in word meaning correlate with other differences in the syntactic structure that the word appears in. The way this is gone about is by looking at the internal structure of words. These small parts that make up the internal structure of words are referred to as semantic primitives.
[edit]Lexical semantics
Main article: lexical semantics
A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. This theory understands that the meaning of a word is fully reflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations.Therefore, a distinction between degrees of participation as well as modes of participation are made. In order to accomplish this distinction any part of a sentence that bears a meaning and combines with the meanings of other constituents is labeled as a semantic constituent. Semantic constituents that can not be broken down into more elementary constituents is labeled a minimal semantic constituent.
[edit]Computational semantics
Main article: computational semantics
Computational semantics is focused on the processing of linguistic meaning. In order to do this concrete algorithms and architectures are described. Within this framework the algorithms and architectures are also analyzed in terms of decidability, time/space complexity, data structures which they require and communication protocols.[16]
[edit]Computer science

In computer science, the term semantics refers to the meaning of languages, as opposed to their form (syntax). Additionally, the term semantic is applied to certain types of data structures specifically designed and used for representing information content.
Programming languages
Main article: semantics of programming languages
The semantics of programming languages and other languages is an important issue and area of study in computer science. Like the syntax of a language, its semantics can be defined exactly.
For instance, the following statements use different syntaxes, but cause the same instructions to be executed:
x += y (C, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc.)
x := x + y (Pascal)
ADD x, y (Intel 8086 Assembly Language)
LET X = X + Y (early BASIC)
x = x + y (most BASIC dialects, Fortran)
ADD Y TO X GIVING X (COBOL)
(incf x y) (Common Lisp)
Generally these operations would all perform an arithmetical addition of 'y' to 'x' and store the result in a variable called 'x'.
Various ways have been developed to describe the semantics of programming languages formally, building on mathematical logic:[17]
Operational semantics: The meaning of a construct is specified by the computation it induces when it is executed on a machine. In particular, it is of interest how the effect of a computation is produced.
Denotational semantics: Meanings are modelled by mathematical objects that represent the effect of executing the constructs. Thus only the effect is of interest, not how it is obtained.
Axiomatic semantics: Specific properties of the effect of executing the constructs are expressed as assertions. Thus there may be aspects of the executions that are ignored.
Semantic models
Terms such as "semantic network" and "semantic data model" are used to describe particular types of data models characterized by the use of directed graphs in which the vertices denote concepts or entities in the world, and the arcs denote relationships between them.
The Semantic Web refers to the extension of the World Wide Web through the embedding of additional semantic metadata, using semantic data modelling techniques such as RDF and OWL.
Psychology

In psychology, semantic memory is memory for meaning – in other words, the aspect of memory that preserves only the gist, the general significance, of remembered experience – while episodic memory is memory for the ephemeral details – the individual features, or the unique particulars of experience. Word meaning is measured by the company they keep, i.e. the relationships among words themselves in a semantic network. The memories may be transferred intergenerationally or isolated in a single generation due to a cultural disruption. Different generations may have different experiences at similar points in their own time-lines. This may then create a vertically heterogeneous semantic net for certain words in an otherwise homogeneous culture.[18] In a network created by people analyzing their understanding of the word (such as Wordnet) the links and decomposition structures of the network are few in number and kind, and include "part of", "kind of", and similar links. In automated ontologies the links are computed vectors without explicit meaning. Various automated technologies are being developed to compute the meaning of words: latent semantic indexing and support vector machines as well as natural language processing, neural networks and predicate calculus techniques.

Posted in | 0 komentar

Literary theory

Literary theory in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of literature and of the methods for analyzing literature. However, literary scholarship since the 19th century often includes—in addition to, or even instead of literary theory in the strict sense—considerations of intellectual history, moral philosophy, social prophecy, and other interdisciplinary themes which are of relevance to the way humans interpret meaning.[1] In humanities in modern academia, the latter style of scholarship is an outgrowth of critical theory and is often called simply "theory." As a consequence, the word "theory" has become an umbrella term for a variety of scholarly approaches to reading texts. Many of these approaches are informed by various strands of Continental philosophy and sociology.
One of the fundamental questions of literary theory is "what is literature?" – although many contemporary theorists and literary scholars believe either that "literature" cannot be defined or that it can refer to any use of language. Specific theories are distinguished not only by their methods and conclusions, but even by how they define a "text". For some scholars of literature, "texts" comprises little more than "books belonging to the Western literary canon." But the principles and methods of literary theory have been applied to non-fiction, popular fiction, film, historical documents, law, advertising, etc., in the related field of cultural studies. In fact, some scholars within cultural studies treat cultural events, like fashion or football riots, as "texts" to be interpreted. By this measure, literary theory can be thought of as the general theory of interpretation.
Since theorists of literature often draw on a very heterogeneous tradition of Continental philosophy and the philosophy of language, any classification of their approaches is only an approximation. There are many "schools" or types of literary theory, which take different approaches to understanding texts. Most theorists, even among those listed below, combine methods from more than one of these approaches (for instance, the deconstructive approach of Paul de Man drew on a long tradition of close reading pioneered by the New Critics, and de Man was trained in the European hermeneutic tradition).
Broad schools of theory that have historically been important include historical and biographical criticism, New Criticism, formalism, Russian formalism, and structuralism, post-structuralism, Marxism, feminism and French feminism, post-colonialism, new historicism, deconstruction, reader-response criticism, and psychoanalytic criticism.
The intellectual traditions and priorities of the various kinds of literary theory are often radically different. Even finding a set of common terms to compare them by can be difficult.
For instance, the work of the New Critics often contained an implicit moral dimension, and sometimes even a religious one: a New Critic might read a poem by T. S. Eliot or Gerard Manley Hopkins for its degree of honesty in expressing the torment and contradiction of a serious search for belief in the modern world. Meanwhile a Marxist critic might find such judgments merely ideological rather than critical; the Marxist would say that the New Critical reading did not keep enough critical distance from the poem's religious stance to be able to understand it. Or a post-structuralist critic might simply avoid the issue by understanding the religious meaning of a poem as an allegory of meaning, treating the poem's references to "God" by discussing their referential nature rather than what they refer to.
Such a disagreement cannot be easily resolved, because it is inherent in the radically different terms and goals (that is, the theories) of the critics. Their theories of reading derive from vastly different intellectual traditions: the New Critic bases his work on an East-Coast American scholarly and religious tradition, while the Marxist derives his thought from a body of critical social and economic thought, and the post-structuralist's work emerges from twentieth-century Continental philosophy of language. To expect such different approaches to have much in common would be naïve; so calling them all "theories of literature" without acknowledging their heterogeneity is itself a reduction of their differences.
In the late 1950s, Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye attempted to establish an approach for reconciling historical criticism and New Criticism while addressing concerns of early reader-response and numerous psychological and social approaches. His approach, laid out in his Anatomy of Criticism, was explicitly structuralist, relying on the assumption of an intertextual "order of words" and universality of certain structural types. His approach held sway in English literature programs for several decades but lost favor during the ascendance of post-structuralism.
For some theories of literature (especially certain kinds of formalism), the distinction between "literary" and other sorts of texts is of paramount importance. Other schools (particularly post-structuralism in its various forms: new historicism, deconstruction, some strains of Marxism and feminism) have sought to break down distinctions between the two and have applied the tools of textual interpretation to a wide range of "texts", including film, non-fiction, historical writing, and even cultural events.
Bakhtin argued that the "utter inadequacy" of literary theory is evident when it is forced to deal with the novel; while other genres are fairly stabilized, the novel is still developing.[4]
Another crucial distinction among the various theories of literary interpretation is intentionality, the amount of weight given to the author's own opinions about and intentions for a work. For most pre-20th century approaches, the author's intentions are a guiding factor and an important determiner of the "correct" interpretation of texts. The New Criticism was the first school to disavow the role of the author in interpreting texts, preferring to focus on "the text itself" in a close reading. In fact, as much contention as there is between formalism and later schools, they share the tenet that the author's interpretation of a work is no more inherently meaningful than any other.

Posted in | 0 komentar

Ethnic studies

“Ethnic Studies,” sometimes referred to as “Minority Studies,” has an obvious historical relationship with “Postcolonial Criticism” in that Euro-American imperialism and colonization in the last four centuries, whether external (empire) or internal (slavery) has been directed at recognizable ethnic groups: African and African-American, Chinese, the subaltern peoples of India, Irish, Latino, Native American, and Philipino, among others. “Ethnic Studies” concerns itself generally with art and literature produced by identifiable ethnic groups either marginalized or in a subordinate position to a dominant culture. “Postcolonial Criticism” investigates the relationships between colonizers and colonized in the period post-colonization. Though the two fields are increasingly finding points of intersection—the work of bell hooks, for example—and are both activist intellectual enterprises, “Ethnic Studies and “Postcolonial Criticism” have significant differences in their history and ideas.

“Ethnic Studies” has had a considerable impact on literary studies in the United States and Britain. In WEB Dubois, we find an early attempt to theorize the position of African-Americans within dominant white culture through his concept of “double consciousness,” a dual identity including both “American” and “Negro.” Dubois and theorists after him seek an understanding of how that double experience both creates identity and reveals itself in culture. Afro-Caribbean and African writers—Aime Cesaire, Frantz Fanon, Chinua Achebe—have made significant early contributions to the theory and practice of ethnic criticism that explores the traditions, sometimes suppressed or underground, of ethnic literary activity while providing a critique of representations of ethnic identity as found within the majority culture. Ethnic and minority literary theory emphasizes the relationship of cultural identity to individual identity in historical circumstances of overt racial oppression. More recently, scholars and writers such as Henry Louis Gates, Toni Morrison, and Kwame Anthony Appiah have brought attention to the problems inherent in applying theoretical models derived from Euro-centric paradigms (that is, structures of thought) to minority works of literature while at the same time exploring new interpretive strategies for understanding the vernacular (common speech) traditions of racial groups that have been historically marginalized by dominant cultures.

Though not the first writer to explore the historical condition of postcolonialism, the Palestinian literary theorist Edward Said's book Orientalism is generally regarded as having inaugurated the field of explicitly “Postcolonial Criticism” in the West. Said argues that the concept of “the Orient” was produced by the “imaginative geography” of Western scholarship and has been instrumental in the colonization and domination of non-Western societies. “Postcolonial” theory reverses the historical center/margin direction of cultural inquiry: critiques of the metropolis and capital now emanate from the former colonies. Moreover, theorists like Homi K. Bhabha have questioned the binary thought that produces the dichotomies—center/margin, white/black, and colonizer/colonized—by which colonial practices are justified. The work of Gayatri C. Spivak has focused attention on the question of who speaks for the colonial “Other” and the relation of the ownership of discourse and representation to the development of the postcolonial subjectivity. Like feminist and ethnic theory, “Postcolonial Criticism” pursues not merely the inclusion of the marginalized literature of colonial peoples into the dominant canon and discourse. “Postcolonial Criticism” offers a fundamental critique of the ideology of colonial domination and at the same time seeks to undo the “imaginative geography” of Orientalist thought that produced conceptual as well as economic divides between West and East, civilized and uncivilized, First and Third Worlds. In this respect, “Postcolonial Criticism” is activist and adversarial in its basic aims. Postcolonial theory has brought fresh perspectives to the role of colonial peoples—their wealth, labor, and culture—in the development of modern European nation states. While “Postcolonial Criticism” emerged in the historical moment following the collapse of the modern colonial empires, the increasing globalization of culture, including the neo-colonialism of multinational capitalism, suggests a continued relevance for this field of inquiry.

Posted in | 0 komentar

studi budaya/cultural study

Berbicara tentang cultural studies atau yang kita kenal sebagai studi kajian budaya, perhatian kita tidak dapat dilepaskan dari The Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies yang dipelapori Richard Hoggart dan Raymond Williams. Intitusi yang didirikan pada 1963 ini memang tidak dapat dipisahkan dari kedua nama pendirinya tersebut. Hoggart dan Williams adalah pengajar sastra pada program-program ekstramural, yang membuat kajian tentang bentuk-bentuk dan ekspresi budaya yang mencakup budaya tinggi maupun rendah, dan mengemukakan sejumlah teori tentang kaitan antara keduanya sebagai formasi sosial historis (Budianta, 2002).

Cultural studies itu sendiri mempunyai beberapa definisi sebagaimana dinyatakan oleh Barker (via Storey, 2003), antara lain yaitu sebagai kajian yang memiliki perhatian pada: 1) hubungan atau relasi antara kebudayaan dan kekuasaan; 2) seluruh praktik, institusi dan sistem klasifikasi yang tertanam dalam nilai-nilai partikular, kepercayaan, kompetensi, kebiasaan hidup, dan bentuk-bentuk perilaku yang biasa dari sebuah populasi; 3) berbagai kaitan antara bentuk-bentuk kekuasaan gender, ras, kelas, kolonialisme dan sebagainya dengan pengembangan cara-cara berpikir tentang kebudayaan dan kekuasaan yang bisa digunakan oleh agen-agen dalam mengejar perubahan; dan 4) berbagai kaitan wacana di luar dunia akademis dengan gerakan-gerakan sosial dan politik, para pekerja di lembagalembaga kebudayaan, dan manajemen kebudayaan.

1. Rumusan masalah
2. Bagaimana sejarah cultural studies?
3. Apakah yang dimaksud dengan cultur studies?
4. Bagaimana konsep budaya dalam culturl stud
Sejarah Studies Cultural

Kajian budaya sebagai suatu disiplin ilmu (akademik) yang mulai berkembang di wilayah Barat (1960-an), seperti Inggris, Amerika, Eropa (kontinental), dan Australia mendasarkan suatu pengetahuan yang disesuaikan dengan konteks keadaan dan kondisi etnografi serta kebudayaan mereka. Pada tahap kelanjutannya di era awal abad 21 kajian budaya dipakai di wilayah Timur untuk meneliti dan menelaah konteks sosial di tempat-tempat yang jarang disentuh para praktisi kajian budaya Barat, antara lain Afrika, Asia, atau Amerika Latin. Secara institusional, kajian budaya menelurkan berbagai karya berupa buku-buku, jurnal, diktat, matakuliah bahkan jurusan di universitas-universitas.

Menurut Barker, inti kajian budaya bisa dipahami sebagai kajian tentang budaya sebagai praktik-praktik pemaknaan dari representasi (Barker, 2000: 10). Teori budaya marxis yang menggali kebudayaan sebagai wilayah ideologi yang lebih banyak dijelaskan pada aliran wacana (discourse) dan praktik budaya seperti layaknya media berupa teks-teks (sosial, ekonomi, politik). Chris Barker (2000) mengakui bahwa kajian budaya tidak memiliki titik acuan yang tunggal. Artinya kajian budaya mengkomposisikan berbagai kajian teoritis disiplin ilmu lain yang dikembangkan secara lebih longgar sehingga mencakup potongan-potongan model dari teori yang sudah ada dari para pemikir strukturalis atau pascastrukturalis. Sedangkan teori sosial kritis sebenarnya sudah mendahului tradisi disiplin “kajian budaya” melalui kritik ideologinya yang dikembangkan Madzhab Frankfurt. Sebuah kritik yang dimaknai dari pandangan Kantian, Hegelian, Marxian, dan Freudian. Sehubungan dengan karakter akademis, pandangan lain dari Ben Agger (2003) membedakan kajian budaya sebagai gerakan teoritis, dan kajian budaya sebagai mode analisis dan kritik budaya ateoritis yang tidak berasal dari poyek teori sosial kritis, yaitu kritik ideologi (Agger, 2003).

Komposisi teoritis yang diajukan sebagai karakter akademis dalam kajian budaya mengekspresikan temuan-temuan baru dalam hal metodologi terhadap cara pemaknaan sebuah praktik-praktik kebudayaan yang lebih koheren, komprehensif, polivocality (banyak suara) dan menegasikan keobjektifan suatu klaim pengetahuan maupun bahasa.

Karakter akademis kajian budaya memang sangat terkait dengan persoalan metodologi. Penteorisasian tidak hanya merujuk pada satu wacana disiplin tunggal namun banyak disiplin, maka ini pun yang disebut sebagai ciri khas kajian budaya dengan istilah polivocali. Kajian budaya mengambil bentuk kajian yang dicirikan dengan topik lived experience (pengalaman yang hidup), discourse (wacana), text (teks) dan social context (konteks sosial). Jadi, metodologi dalam kajian budaya ini tersusun atas wacana, pengalaman hidup, teks, dan konteks sosial dengan menggunakan analisis yang luas mengenai interaksi antara ‘yang hidup’, yang dimediasi, keberyakinan (agama), etnik, tergenderkan, serta adanya dimensi ekonomi dan politik dalam dunia jaman sekarang (modern/kapitalis).

Bagi Saukko, hal yang paling fundamental dalam “kajian budaya”, pertama, ketertarikan dalam budaya yang secara radikal berbeda dari budaya yang ada (high culture to low culture/popular), kedua, analisis dengan kritis budaya yang menjadi bagian integral dari pertarungan dan budaya (teks dan konteks sosial). Hal yang harus dipenuhi dalam memandang konteks sosial adalah sensitifitas pada konteks sosial dan kepedulian pada kesejarahan. Sedangkan yang menjadi bagian terpenting dari metodologi kajian budaya dan dianggap good/valid research adalah truthfulness, self-reflexivity, polivocality. Dan, menerapkan sebuah validitas dekonstruktif yang biasa digunakan oleh peneliti pascastrukturalis, yaitu postmodern excess (Baudrillard), genealogical historicity (Foucalt), dan deconstructive critique (Derrida). Pada kerangka bagan yang dibuat Saukko dalam bukunya itu, Truthfullness digambarkan dengan paradigma; ontologi, epistemologi, metapora, tujuan penelitian dan politik yang disandingkan dengan model triangulasi, prism, material semiotic dan dialogue. Self-reflexivity ditempatkan pada jalur seperti yang digunakan teori sosial kritis yang dilandaskan pada kritik ideologi dan peran atas basis kesadaran yang merepresentasikan ruang dialog dan wacana saling bertemu, mempengaruhi, mengaitkan berbagai kepentingan, pola kekuasaan serta konteks sosial dan sejarahnya.

Polivocality menyematkan berbagai pandangan yang berbeda (atau suara) dengan cakupan teori-teori yang saling mengisi dan dengan mudah dapat didukung satu sama lain, meski ini membutuhkan ketelitian dalam mengkombinasikan pandangan-pandangan lain agar memberikan kesesuaian bagi karekater akademis Kajian budaya. Paradigma yang digunakan mengambil model triangulasi yang berupaya mengkombinasikan berbagai macam bahan atau metode-metode untuk melihat apakah saling menguatkan satu sama lain. Maka, kajian budaya sangat berpotensi memberikan peluang bagi suatu kajian yang baru dan menarik minat mahasiswa. Validitas (keabsahan) penelitian dalam Cultural Studies yang menuju ‘kebenaran’ (truth) maka yang dipakai adalah triangulation.

Selain itu, dalam makalah Melani Budianta, metode kajian budaya seringkali disebut metode multidisipliner, lintas-, trans-, atau anti-disiplin (Grossberg:2). Jannet Wolff mengemukakan sejumlah masalah metode interdisipliner kajian budaya yang mengkritik kebiasaan memakai karya seni dalam studi-studi non-seni (sosiologi, sejarah, politik dasn seterusnya) yang memperlakukan karya tersebut sebagai fakta (mengutip bagian-bagian dari isi) tanpa “menghargai” fungsi karya seni tersebut sebagai karya seni . Karena pemakaian teori yang eklektik dan pendekatan yang berbeda-beda setiap kajian budaya membuat model dan perangkat analisisnya masing-masing tergantung topik permasalahan yang digarapnya (Wolff, 1992; 706-717).
Pengertian Cultural Studies

Cultural studies itu sendiri mempunyai beberapa definisi sebagaimana dinyatakan oleh Barker antara lain yaitu sebagai kajian yang memiliki perhatian pada:

hubungan atau relasiantara kebudayaan dan kekuasaan

* seluruh praktik, institusi dan sistem klasifikasi yang tertanam dalam nilai-nilai partikular, kepercayaan, kompetensi, kebiasaan hidup, dan bentuk-bentuk perilaku yang biasa dari sebuah populasi berbagai kaitan antara bentuk-bentuk kekuasaan gender, ras, kelas, kolonialisme dan sebagainya dengan pengembangan cara-cara berpikir tentang kebudayaan dan kekuasaan yang bisa digunakan oleh agen-agen dalam mengejar perubahan berbagai kaitan wacana di luar dunia akademis dengan gerakan-gerakan sosial dan politik, para pekerja di lembagalembaga kebudayaan, dan manajemen kebudayaan.
* Cultural studies adalah suatu arena interdisipliner dimana perspektif dari disiplin yang berlainan secara selektif dapat digunakan untuk menguji hubungan kebudayaan dengan kekuasaan.
* Cultural studies terkai dengan semua pihak, institusi dan system klasifikasi tempat tertanamnya nilai-nilai, kepercayaan-kepercayaan, kompetensi-kompetensi, rutinitas kehidupan dan bentuk-bentuk kebiasaan perilaku masyarakat

C. Konsep Budaya dalam Kajian Budaya (Cultural Studies) menurut para ahli

Koentjaraningrat memberikan definisi budaya sebagai sistem gagasan, tindakan dan hasil karya manusia dalam rangka kehidupan masyarakat yang dijadikan milik diri manusia dengan belajar (Koentjaraningrat, 1990: 180). Sedangkan James Spradley berpendapat bahwa budaya merupakan sistem pengetahuan yang diperoleh manusia melalui proses belajar, yang kemudian mereka gunakan untuk menginterpretasikan dunia sekelilingnya, sekaligus untuk menyusun strategi perilaku dalam menghadapi dunia sekitar.

Lebih khusus, dalam terminologi disiplin Kajian Budaya (Cultural Studies) menyajikan bentuk kritis atas definisi budaya yang mengarah pada “the complex everyday world we all encounter and through which all move” (Edgar, 1999: 102). Budaya secara luas adalah proses kehidupan sehari-hari manusia dalam skala umum, mulai dari tindakan hingga cara berpikir, sebagaimana konsep budaya yang dijabarkan oleh Kluckhohn. Pengertian ini didukung juga oleh Clifford Geertz, kebudayaan didefinisikan serangkaian aturan-aturan, resep-resep, rencana-rencana dan petunjuk-petunjuk yang digunakan manusia untuk mengatur tingkah lakunya.

Dalam kajian budaya atau Cultural Studies (CS), konsep budaya dapat dipahami seiring dengan perubahan perilaku dan struktur masyarakat di Eropa pada abad ke-19. Perubahan ini atas dampak dari pengaruh teknologi yang berkembang pesat. Istilah budaya sendiri merupakan kajian komprehensif dalam pengertiannya menganalisa suatu obyek kajian. Contohnya, selain ada antropologi budaya juga dikaji dalam studi Sosiologi, Sejarah, Etnografi dan Kritik Sastra. Fokus studi kajian budaya (CS) ini adalah pada aspek relasi budaya dan kekuasaan yang dapat dilihat dalam budaya pop. Misalnya Di dalam tradisi Kajian Budaya di Inggris yang diwarisi oleh Raymonds Williams, Hoggarts, dan Stuart Hall, menilai konsep budaya atau “culture” (dalam bahasa Inggris) merpakan hal yang paling rumit diartikan sehingga bagi mereka konsep tersebut disebut sebuah alat bantu yang kurang lebih memiliki nilai guna. Williams mendefinisikan konsep budaya menggunakan pendekatan universal, yaitu konsep budaya mengacu pada makna-makna bersama. Makna ini terpusat pada makna sehari-hari: nilai, benda-benda material/simbolis, norma. Kebudayaan adalah pengalaman dalam hidup sehari-hari: berbagai teks, praktik, dan makna semua orang dalam menjalani hidup mereka (Barker, 2005: 50-55). Kebudayaan yang didefinisikan oleh Williams lebih dekat ‘budaya’ sebagai keseluruhan cara hidup. Sebab ia menganjurkan agar kebudayaan diselidiki dalam beberapa term. Pertama, institusi-institusi yang memproduksi kesenian dan kebudayaan. Kedua, formasi-formasi pendidikan, gerakan, dan faksi-faksi dalam produksi kebudayaan. Ketiga, bentuk-bentuk produksi, termasuk segala manifestasinya. Keempat, identifikasi dan bentuk-bentuk kebudayaan, termasuk kekhususan produk-produk kebudayaan, tujuan-tujuan estetisnya. Kelima, reproduksinya dalam perjalanan ruang dan waktu. Dan keenam, cara pengorganisasiannya.

Jika dibandingkan dengan pendapat John Storey, konsep budaya lebih diartikan sebagai secara politis ketimbang estetis. Dan Storey beranggapan ‘budaya’ yang dipakai dalam CS ini bukanlah konsep budaya seperti yang didefinisikan dalam kajian lain sebagai objek keadiluhungan estetis (‘seni tinggi’) atau sebuah proses perkembangan estetik, intelektual, dan spritual, melainkan budaya sebagai teks dan praktik hidup sehari-hari (Storey, ­­2007: 2). Dalam hal ini nampaknya Storey setuju dengan definisi ‘budaya’ menurut Raymonds Williams, lain halnya dengan Stuart Hall yang lebih menekankan ‘budaya’ pada ranah politik.

To say that two people belong to the same culture is to say that they interpret the world in roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts and feelings about the world, in ways which will be understood by each other. Thus culture depends on its participants interpreting meaningfully what is happening around them, and `making sense’ of the world, in broadly similar ways. (Hall, 1997: 2)

Dan, menurut Bennet istilah culture digunakan sebagai payung istilah (umbrella term) yang merujuk pada semua aktivitas dan praktek-praktek yang menghasilkan pemahaman (sense) atau makna (meaning). Baginya budaya berarti : “Kebiasaan dan ritual yang mengatur dan menetukan hubungan sosial kita berdasarkan kehidupan sehari-hari sebagaimana halnya dengan teks-teks tersebut-sastra, musik, televisi, dan film-dan melalui kebiasaan serta ritual tersebut dunia sosial dan natural ditampilkan kembali atau ditandai-dimaknai-dengan cara tertentu yang sesuai dengan konvensi tertentu.”(Bennet 1980: 82-30)

Kesimpulan

Kajian budaya sebagai suatu disiplin ilmu (akademik) yang mulai berkembang di wilayah Barat (1960-an), seperti Inggris, Amerika, Eropa (kontinental), dan Australia mendasarkan suatu pengetahuan yang disesuaikan dengan konteks keadaan dan kondisi etnografi serta kebudayaan mereka. Pada tahap kelanjutannya di era awal abad 21 kajian budaya dipakai di wilayah Timur untuk meneliti dan menelaah konteks sosial di tempat-tempat yang jarang disentuh para praktisi kajian budaya Barat, antara lain Afrika, Asia, atau Amerika Latin. Secara institusional, kajian budaya menelurkan berbagai karya berupa buku-buku, jurnal, diktat, matakuliah bahkan jurusan di universitas-universitas.

Cultural studies adalah suatu arena interdisipliner dimana perspektif dari disiplin yang berlainan secara selektif dapat digunakan untuk menguji hubungan kebudayaan dengan kekuasaan. Dalam kajian budaya atau Cultural Studies (CS), konsep budaya dapat dipahami seiring dengan perubahan perilaku dan struktur masyarakat di Eropa pada abad ke-19.

Lebih khusus, dalam terminologi disiplin Kajian Budaya (Cultural Studies) menyajikan bentuk kritis atas definisi budaya yang mengarah pada “the complex everyday world we all encounter and through which all move” (Edgar, 1999: 102). Budaya secara luas adalah proses kehidupan sehari-hari manusia dalam skala umum, mulai dari tindakan hingga cara berpikir, sebagaimana konsep budaya yang dijabarkan oleh Kluckhohn. Pengertian ini didukung juga oleh Clifford Geertz, kebudayaan didefinisikan serangkaian aturan-aturan, resep-resep, rencana-rencana dan petunjuk-petunjuk yang digunakan manusia untuk mengatur tingkah lakunya

Posted in | 0 komentar

PSIKOANALISIS

PENGERTIAN TEORI PSIKOANALISIS
Psikoanalisis dalam sastra memiliki empat kemungkinan pengertian. Yang pertama adalah studi psikologi pengarang sebagai tipe atau sebagai pribadi. Yang kedua adalah studi proses kreatif. Yang ketiga adalah studi tipe dan hukum-hukum psikologi yang diterapkan pada karya sastra.Yang keempat adalah mempelajari dampak sastra pada pembaca. Namun, yang digunakan dalam psikoanalisis adalah yang ketiga karena sangat berkaitan dalam bidang sastra.
Asal usul dan penciptaan karya sastra dijadikan pegangan dalam penilaian karya sastra itu sendiri. Jadi psikoanalisis adalah studi tipe dan hukum-hukum psikologi yang diterapkan pada karya sastra.

SEJARAH TEORI PSIKOANALISIS SASTRA
Munculnya pendekatan psikologi dalam sastra disebabkan oleh meluasnya perkenalan sarjana-sarjana sastra dengan ajaran-ajaran Freud yang mulai diterbitkan dalam bahasa Inggris. Yaitu Tafsiran Mimpi ( The Interpretation of Dreams ) danThree Contributions to A Theory of Sex atau Tiga Sumbangan Pikiran ke Arah Teori Seks dalam dekade menjelang perang dunia. Pembahasan sastra dilakukan sebagai eksperimen tekhnik simbolisme mimpi, pengungkapan aliran kesadaran jiwa, dan pengertian libido ala Freud menjadi semacam sumber dukungan terhadap pemberontakan sosial melawan Puritanisme(kerohanian ketat) dan tata cara Viktorianoisme(pergaulan kaku).Dahulu kejeniusan sastrawan selalu menjadi bahan pergunjingan. Sejak zaman Yunani, kejeniusan dianggap kegilaan(madness) dari tingkat neurotik sampai psikosis. Penyair dianggap orang yang kesurupan (possessed). Ia berbeda dengan yang lainnya, dan dunia bawah sadarnya yang disampaikan melalui karyanya dianggap berada di bawah tingkat rasional. Namun, pengarang tidak sekedar mencatat gangguan emosinya ia juga mengolah suatu pola arketipnya, seperti Dostoyevsky dalam karyanya The Brother Kamarazov atau suatu pola kepribadian neurotik yang sudah menyebar pada zaman itu. Kemudian, ilmu tentang emosi dan jiwa itu berkembang dalam penilaian karya sastra.(Psikoanalisis Sastra)


KEGUNAAN PSIKOANALISIS SASTRA
Psikologi atau psikoanalisis dapat mengklasifikasikan pengarang berdasar tipe psikologi dan tipe fisiologisnya. Psikoanalasisis dapat pula menguraikan kelainan jiwa bahkan alam bawah sadarnya. Bukti-bukti itu diambil dari dokumen di luar karya sastra atau dari karya sastra itu sendiri. Untuk menginteprestasikan karya sastra sebagai bukti psikologis, psikolog perlu mencocokannya dengan dokumen-dokumen di luar karya sastra.
Psikoanalisis dapat digunakan untuk menilai karya sastra karena psikologi dapat menjelaskan proses kreatif. Misalnya, kebiasaan pengarang merevisi dan menulis kembali karyanya. Yang lebih bermanfaat dalam psikoanalisis adalah studi mengenai perbaikan naskah, koreksi, dan seterusnya. Hal itu, berguna karena jika dipakai dengan tepat dapat membantu kita melihat keretakan ( fissure ), ketidakteraturan, perubahan, dan distorsi yang sangat penting dalam suatu karya sastra.Psikoanalisis dalam karya sastra berguna untuk menganalisis secara psikologis tokoh-tokoh dalam drama dan novel. Terkadang pengarang secara tidak sadar maupun secara sadar dapat memasukan teori psikologi yang dianutnya. Psikoanalisis juga dapat menganalisis jiwa pengarang lewat karya sastranya.

TOKOH-TOKOH PSIKOANALISIS SASTRA
1. Sigmund Freud, seorang yang sangat berbudaya dan beliau mendapatkan dasar pendidikan Austria yang menghargai karya Yunani dan Jerman Klasik.
2. T.S Elliot
3. Carl.G.Jung.
4. Ribot, psikolog Perancis
5. L.Russu
6. Wordsworth yang menggunakan psikologi sebagai uraian genetik tentang puisi.
7. Tatengkeng, Pujangga Baru. Menyatakan bahwa untuk menulis puisi yang baik penyair harus dalam keadaan jiwa tertentu pula.


PERKEMBANGAN PSIKOANALISIS DI INDONESIA
Dalam sastra Indonesia pendekatan psikologi berkembang sejak tahun enam puluhan, antara lain oleh Hutagalung dan Oemarjati dalam buku pembahasan masing-masing atas Jalan Tak Ada Ujung dan Atheis. Pendekatan ini bertujuan untuk memberikan pertolongan agar dapat membaca drama atau novel secara benar.

Posted in | 0 komentar

cultural study

In his book Introducing Cultural Studies, Ziauddin Sardar lists the following five main characteristics of cultural studies:

* Cultural studies aims to examine its subject matter in terms of cultural practices and their relation to power. For example, a study of a subculture (such as white working class youth in London) would consider the social practices of the youth as they relate to the dominant classes.
* It has the objective of understanding culture in all its complex forms and of analyzing the social and political context in which culture manifests itself.
* It is both the object of study and the location of political criticism and action. For example, not only would a cultural studies scholar study an object, but she/he would connect this study to a larger, progressive political project.
* It attempts to expose and reconcile the division of knowledge, to overcome the split between tacit cultural knowledge and objective (universal) forms of knowledge.
* It has a commitment to an ethical evaluation of modern society and to a radical line of political action.

Posted in | 0 komentar

Semiotic literary criticism

Semiotic literary criticism, also called literary semiotics, is the approach to literary criticism informed by the theory of signs or semiotics. Semiotics, tied closely to the structuralism pioneered by Ferdinand de Saussure, was extremely influential in the development of literary theory out of the formalist approaches of the early twentieth century.

The early forms of literary semiotics grew out of formalist approaches to literature, especially Russian formalism, and structuralist linguistics, especially the Prague school. Notable early semiotic authors included Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Julius Greimas, and Viktor Shklovsky. These critics were concerned with a formal analysis of narrative forms which would resemble a literary mathematics, or at least a literary syntax, as far as possible. They proposed various formal notations for narrative components and transformations and attempted a descriptive taxonomy of existing stories along these lines.

Propp's Morphology of the Folktale (orig. Russian pub. 1928; English trans. 1958) provides an example of the formal and systematic approach. In successive chapters, Propp analyzes the characters, plot events, and other elements of traditional folktales (primarily from Russia and Eastern Europe). For each of these key components he provides a letter designation (with superscripts to designate specific subtypes). He proceeds to analyze individual tales by transposing them into this notation and then to generalize about their structure. For example:

Analysis of a simple, single-move tale of class H-I, of the type: kidnapping of a person.

131. A tsar, three daughters (α). The daughters go walking (β³), overstay in the garden (δ¹). A dragon kidnaps them (A¹). A call for aid (B¹). Quest of three heroes (C↑). Three battles with the dragon (H¹–I¹), rescue of the maidens (K4). Return (↓), reward (w°). (Propp 128)

He then gives the complete structure of this story in one line of notation, the analysis complete and ready to be compared systematically with other tales:

αβ³δ¹A¹B¹C↑H¹–I¹K4↓w°

Later semiotic approaches to literature have often been less systematic (or, in some special cases such as Roland Barthes's S/Z, they have been so specifically and exhaustively systematic as to render the possibility of a complete literary semiotics doubtful). As structuralist linguistics gave way to a post-structuralist philosophy of language which denied the scientific ambitions of the general theory of signs, semiotic literary criticism became more playful and less systematic in its ambitions. Still, some authors harbor more scientific ambition for their literary schemata than others. Later authors in the semiotic tradition of literary criticism include Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin, Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Michael Riffaterre, and Umberto Eco.

Posted in | 0 komentar

Info.

Tanggal 7 Juni 2011 Prodi D-III Bahasa Jepang akan mendapat kunjungan istimewa dari BAN-PT Dikti. Tujuan kunjungan tersebut adalah untuk mengakreditasi Prodi tersebut untuk menjadi program studi yang berkualitas dan di butuhkan masyarakat. Bravo UNIPDU

Posted in | 0 komentar