Representation of Dewi Sri in Balinese farming ceremonies: A multimodal study

I Nyoman Suparwa; Ni Luh Komang Candrawati; Ni Made Dian Paramitha Sari; Anak Agung Putu Putra

doi:10.21744/ijllc.v9n4.2315

Authors

I Nyoman Suparwa Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia
Ni Luh Komang Candrawati National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia
Ni Made Dian Paramitha Sari
dianparasari@gmail.com
Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia
Anak Agung Putu Putra Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia

Keywords:

Balinese farming ceremony, Dewi Sri, multimodal, representation, systemic functional linguistics, visual grammar

Abstract

This research applies a multimodal study to discover how Balinese people represent Dewi Sri as the goddess of rice and fertility through language and visuals in Balinese farming ceremonies. Therefore, this research analyzed the ideational function of the language and the representational meaning of visuals. This research is a qualitative study. The results show that language and visual elements work together to reveal and explain the representation of Dewi Sri in the ceremonies. The language elements show material processes as the dominant process and further, explain the form of Dewi Sri in ceremonial activities. The visual elements show symbolic suggestive representation processes as the dominant processes and identify the representative value of Dewi Sri. Furthermore, this research also discusses why the Balinese people honor Dewi Sri.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arini, I. A. D. (2022). Kontemplasi: Tata Susila Pembuatan Sarana Upacara (Banten) Pada Kehidupan Masyarakat Bali. Jnanasiddhanta: Jurnal Teologi Hindu, 3(2), 124-132.

Asmiwyati, I. G. A. A. R., Mahendra, M. S., Arifin, N. H. S., & Ichinose, T. (2015). Recognizing indigenous knowledge on agricultural landscape in Bali for micro climate and environment control. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 28, 623-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.073

Bache, C. (2010). Hjelmslev's Glossematics: A source of inspiration to Systemic Functional Linguistics?. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2562-2578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.005

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook (p. 4). London: Equinox.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. Translated by A. Lavers. London: J. Cape.

Chawdhri, L. R. (2003). Rahasia Yantra, Mantra & Tantra. Surabaya: Paramita.

Gao, H. (2017). Dragon and Bear”: A SF-MDA Approach to Intersemiotic Relations. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 74-83.

Guijarro, J. M., & Sanz, M. J. P. (2008). Compositional, interpersonal and representational meanings in a children's narrrative: A multimodal discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(9), 1601-1619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.019

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning (Vol. 42). London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London, New York, Sydney, Auckland: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., Cermáková, A., Teubert, W., & Yallop, C. (2004). Lexicology and corpus linguistics. A&C Black.

Halliday, T. C. (1985). Knowledge mandates: collective influence by scientific, normative and syncretic professions. British Journal of Sociology, 421-447.

Hinton, G. E. (2007). Learning multiple layers of representation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(10), 428-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.004

Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual communication, 2(1), 29-57.

Ivanov, E., & Karsakov, A. (2021). Visual programming language for data visualization based on visual grammar. Procedia Computer Science, 193, 402-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.10.041

Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.

Jewitt, C., Henriksen, B., Klug, N. M., & Stöckl, H. (2016). Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. Social Semiotic Multimodality” in Klug.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: the grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The internet and higher education, 15(4), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003

Liebert, G. (1976). Iconographic Dictionary of the Indian Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism.

Liu, Y., & O'Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social semiotics, 19(4), 367-388.

Nastiti, T. S. (2020). Dewi Sri dalam Kepercayaan Masyarakat Indonesia. Tumotowa, 3(1), 1-12.

O’Hallaron, C. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Reading science: Using systemic functional linguistics to support critical language awareness. Linguistics and Education, 32, 55-67.

O’Halloran, K., & Smith, B. A. (2013). Multimodal Text Analysis. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.

O’Halloran, K., Tan, S. & Wignell, P. (2019). Sfl and multimodal discourse analysis, In Thompson, G, Bowcher, W, Fontaine, L and Schönthal, D (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., pp. 433-461.

O'Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual communication, 7(4), 443-475.

Royce, T. D. (2013). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse.

Sarniwati, N., Hanafi, N., & Nuriadi, N. (2022). The pattern and representation of linguistic landscape in multilingual context in Selong. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(4), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n4.2111

Sartini, N. W. (2017). Makna simbolik bahasa ritual pertanian masyarakat Bali. Jurnal Kajian Bali, 7(2), 99-120.

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and instruction, 13(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8

Siefkes, M. (2015). How semiotic modes work together in multimodal texts: Defining and representing intermodal relations. 10plus1: Living Linguistics, 1(1), 113-131.

Sriartha, I. P., & Windia, W. (2015). Efektivitas Implementasi Kebijakan Pemerintah Daerah dalam Mengendalikan Alih Fungsi Lahan Sawah Subak: Studi Kasus di Kabupaten Badung, Bali. Jurnal Kajian Bali, 5(2), 327-346.

Suartika, G. A. M. (2015). Sand, sea and ceremony: conflict over the littoral public realm in Sanur, Bali. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 179, 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.416

Suhardana, K. M. (2008). Tri Murti: Tiga Perwujudan Utama Tuhan.

Turk, M. (2014). Multimodal interaction: A review. Pattern recognition letters, 36, 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2013.07.003

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London/New York, Routlcdgc. Sthísissef-Kúttsepíe ais Zugang zum kollektiven Gedächtntx.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford university press.