The Concept of “Love” of Bandung Mayor-Ridwan Kamil Observed from Articles Published in Newspapers and Social Media in Indonesia: Semantic Cognitive Approach

Elvi Citraresmana, Erlina ., Rosaria Mita Amalia


This article, using the semantic cognitive approach, is to analyze the phenomena of language used by Indonesian people observed through articles published in Newspapers and Social Media. The object of this research is Bandung Mayor. He frequently reveals his ideas in an informal way but still acceptable and his ideas more often are quite interesting. One of the interesting ideas is the usage of “love”. His idea of “love” is published in the articles, one is in Indonesian Newspapers and the other one is on his instagram account, entitled “Ridwan Kamil’s Love Car”. The revelation concept of “love” proposed by Ridwan Kamil is considered as the representative of Sundanesse people cognition. His language concepts are very interesting to be analyzed and discussed in a research. In analyzing the data, we refer to Conceptual Metaphor as proposed by Lakoff (1983), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), the mapping theory refers to Blending Theory as proposed by Langacker (1987), and Johnson’s (1987) is referred for the image scheme. The research results show that there are two types of metaphor, i.e. conceptual metaphor and ontological metaphor. In conceptual metaphor, the concept of “love” appears as the containment that needs the container; love is the destination in which it needs a car in order to reach the place; love is mental disease; and love is a fragile sewing thread. In ontological metaphor, it shows that love is a movement to go forward.


Keywords: Cognition, representation, conceptual metaphor, ontological metaphor,  phenomena.

Full Text:



Azarudin Awang, & Khadijah Mohd. Kambali. (2015). Pengaruh media dalam dialog kehidupan: Perspektif pengalaman saudara baru. Jurnal Komunikasi, Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 47-60.

Badudu, & Zain. (2001). Kamus Umum Bahasa Indonesia. Indonesia.

Cruse, A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University.

Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In René D. & Ralf P. (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, L., & Graham, L. (1999). Researching and applying metaphor ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Citraresmana, E. (2011). Kajian metaforis konstruksi middle passive pada Bahasa Inggris: Satu pendekatan semantik kognitif (Disertasi, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia).

Djajasudarma, T. F. (1997). Analisis bahasa sintaksis dan semantik. Bandung: Uvula Press.

Djajasudarma, T. F. (2008). Semantik I: Semantik leksikal dan gramatikal (3rd ed.). Bandung: Refika.

Denzin, N. K., & Yvonna, S. L. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Evans, V., & Melanie, G. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Fauconnier, G. 2005. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329-57.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kartini Abd. Wahab, & Zulkifley Hamid. (2015). Hambatan memahami bahasa: Satu penelitian ke atas teks berita dalam talian berbahasa Indonesia, Jurnal Komunikasi, Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 493-514.

Lakoff, G., & Mark, J. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II). Stanford CA: Stanford University.

Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.) Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1-64.

Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier.

Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2005). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Radden, G. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors? In Antonio B. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sa’adiah Ma’alip. (2015). Pemilihan bahasa dalam komunikasi di laman sosial. Jurnal Komunikasi, Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 231-246.

Turner, M., & Gilles, F. (2000). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Antonio B. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive prespective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

e-ISSN: 2289-1528