DISCOURSE ON GENDER AND SEXUALITY
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Studi ini berkaitan dengan diskors pada gender dan jenis kelamin di Indonesia. Studi ini mencoba menemukan (2) bagaimana makna dari diskors pada pendidikan seks direalisasikan (2) apa akibat dari ideology terhadap pendidikan seks di Indonesia. Metode penelitian adalah discourse analysis dalam perspektif systemic functional linguistic yang menghighlight makna experiential dan tekstual serta mengungkap ideology dari pendidikan seks dan gender di Indonesia. Temuan studi menganjurkan untuk mencapai tujuan yang ditentukan penulis harus merujuk pada pendekatan SFL. Teks#1 menggambarkan “coping” dengan bahaya dari pendidikan seks di sekolah, teks#2 menganggap ideology dari ‘non-coping’ membenarkan intervensi untuk menghindariefek negative siswa. Teks #3 dimana menghormati perbedaan adalah esensi dalam menuju pornografi. Sementara itu, ideology yang digambarkan dengan ‘ostrich’tidak berhubungan dengan seksualitas. Sebagai ganti, pendidikan seks digunakan untuk menyampaikan isu.
This with s study deals with discourse on gender and sexuality in Indonesia. The objectives of the study is figure out (1) how the experiential meanings of the discourse on sex education realized; (2) what is the impact of ideology on the field of discourse on sex education? The method of research is making use of discourse analysis in the perspective of systemic functional linguistics, particularly highlighting the strand of interpersonal, experiential and textual meanings of the text and revealing the ideology of the discourse on gender and sex education in Indonesia. The findings of this study suggest that in achieving the objectives above the writer refers to Systemic Functional Linguistics approach. Text #1 encodes an ideology of “coping” with the danger by teaching sex education at schools. On the contrary, Text #2 sees an ideology of non-coping, justifying professional intervention to avoid negative actions that students may undertake if not controlled. The ideology encoded in Text #3 is that respecting differences is the essence in addressing pornography. Meanwhile, the ideology encoded in Text #4 is that an “ostrich” attitude does not make sense when it comes to sexuality. Instead, sexual education might be a good place to start in addressing the issue.
This with s study deals with discourse on gender and sexuality in Indonesia. The objectives of the study is figure out (1) how the experiential meanings of the discourse on sex education realized; (2) what is the impact of ideology on the field of discourse on sex education? The method of research is making use of discourse analysis in the perspective of systemic functional linguistics, particularly highlighting the strand of interpersonal, experiential and textual meanings of the text and revealing the ideology of the discourse on gender and sex education in Indonesia. The findings of this study suggest that in achieving the objectives above the writer refers to Systemic Functional Linguistics approach. Text #1 encodes an ideology of “coping” with the danger by teaching sex education at schools. On the contrary, Text #2 sees an ideology of non-coping, justifying professional intervention to avoid negative actions that students may undertake if not controlled. The ideology encoded in Text #3 is that respecting differences is the essence in addressing pornography. Meanwhile, the ideology encoded in Text #4 is that an “ostrich” attitude does not make sense when it comes to sexuality. Instead, sexual education might be a good place to start in addressing the issue.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
How to Cite
Englishtina, I. (1). DISCOURSE ON GENDER AND SEXUALITY. English Education Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/672
References
Anderson, M. and K. Anderson, 2003. Text Type in English. South Yarra: Macmillan
Education PT/Ltd, Sydney.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River. New Jersey.
Butt, D., R. Fahey, S. Feez, S. Spinks and C. Yallop, 2000. Using Functional Grammar,
An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching
and Reasearch.
Derewianka, B. 1995. Exploring How Tests Work. Newton: Primary English Teaching
Association.
Eggins, Suzanne, 1994, An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Pinter
Publishers: London.
Feez, S. and H. Jayce, 2002. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: Ames.
Firclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. Longman. London and New York.
Fiske, John, 1990, Introduction to Communication Studies, Routledge, New York.
Freire, P. and D. Macedo. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin &Garvey Publishers.
Fries, P. 1996. On Theme, Rheme, and Discourse Goals. In M. Coulthard (Ed) Advanced
in Written Text Analysis. London:Routledge.
Fries, P. 1997. ‘Theme and New in Written English’. In Tom Miller (Ed) Functional
Approaches to Written Text Classroom Application. Washington: United States
Information Agency.
Fries, P. More on Thematic Structure and Revision. Available at www.More on Thematic
Structure and Revision, Htm.
Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Masschusettes: Blackwel.
Gramsci, Antonio, 1985. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.
New York.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1974, Interview with M.A.K. Halliday , in H. Parret (ed.), Discussing
Language (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 93), The Hague: Mouton, 81-120
(extracts reprinted in Halliday 1978)
Halliday, M.A.K., 1985a, Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold: London.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1985b, Spoken and written language, Geelong, Vic.: Deakin
University Press (republished by OUP 1989).
Education PT/Ltd, Sydney.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River. New Jersey.
Butt, D., R. Fahey, S. Feez, S. Spinks and C. Yallop, 2000. Using Functional Grammar,
An Explorer’s Guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching
and Reasearch.
Derewianka, B. 1995. Exploring How Tests Work. Newton: Primary English Teaching
Association.
Eggins, Suzanne, 1994, An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, Pinter
Publishers: London.
Feez, S. and H. Jayce, 2002. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: Ames.
Firclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. Longman. London and New York.
Fiske, John, 1990, Introduction to Communication Studies, Routledge, New York.
Freire, P. and D. Macedo. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin &Garvey Publishers.
Fries, P. 1996. On Theme, Rheme, and Discourse Goals. In M. Coulthard (Ed) Advanced
in Written Text Analysis. London:Routledge.
Fries, P. 1997. ‘Theme and New in Written English’. In Tom Miller (Ed) Functional
Approaches to Written Text Classroom Application. Washington: United States
Information Agency.
Fries, P. More on Thematic Structure and Revision. Available at www.More on Thematic
Structure and Revision, Htm.
Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Masschusettes: Blackwel.
Gramsci, Antonio, 1985. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.
New York.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1974, Interview with M.A.K. Halliday , in H. Parret (ed.), Discussing
Language (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 93), The Hague: Mouton, 81-120
(extracts reprinted in Halliday 1978)
Halliday, M.A.K., 1985a, Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold: London.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1985b, Spoken and written language, Geelong, Vic.: Deakin
University Press (republished by OUP 1989).