single-dr.php

JDR Vol.16 No.5 pp. 817-826
(2021)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2021.p0817

Paper:

Language as a Tool for Disaster Mitigation Management: Analysis of Warning System Text in Language and Institutional Framework

Muhammad Zaim*, Rusnardi Rahmat Putra**,†, and Nur Rosita***

*Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang
Jalan Dr. Hamka Airtawar, Padang 25171, Indonesia

**Research Center for Disaster, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia

Corresponding author

***Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia

Received:
May 8, 2020
Accepted:
June 9, 2021
Published:
August 1, 2021
Keywords:
critical discourse, disaster risk, earthquake mitigation, earthquake-prone, risk reduction
Abstract

This paper analyzes the pattern of earthquake mitigation messages using critical discourse analysis (CDA). It does so to seek the language patterns to understand how the texts represent earthquake mitigation procedures to target audiences. Materials and Method: Earthquake mitigation warning messages and infographics in offline and online public spaces were collected as data and analyzed using Fairclough’s framework. The texts that appeared in spaces like universities were too comprehensive, as emergency signs should be direct and straightforward. Other venues tended to focus on providing a persuasive and instructive message. Evaluation of the message should ensure that such messages are transparent and readable. Results: This paper’s findings can prevent unnecessary loss of life and property based on continuous disaster risk management through appropriate language usage in the mitigation warning system. Conclusion: It is hoped that society realizes the importance of warning messages. This is not only a sign for earthquake mitigation, but also a tool for communicating information regarding earthquakes and appropriate disaster emergency risk response.

Cite this article as:
Muhammad Zaim, Rusnardi Rahmat Putra, and Nur Rosita, “Language as a Tool for Disaster Mitigation Management: Analysis of Warning System Text in Language and Institutional Framework,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.5, pp. 817-826, 2021.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] R. R. Putra et al., “Seismic hazard analysis for Indonesia,” J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.33, No.2, pp. 59-70, 2012.
  2. [2] R. R. Putra, J. Kiyono, and A. Furukawa, “Vulnerability assessment of non-engineered houses based on damage data of the 2009 Padang earthquake in Padang City, Indonesia,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.7, pp. 1076-1083, 2014.
  3. [3] R. R. Putra, J. Kiyono, and Y. Ono, “Shaking characteristics of Padang City, Indonesia,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.1, pp. 71-77, 2011.
  4. [4] D. H. Natawidjaja and W. Triyoso, “The Sumatran fault zone from source to hazard,” J. of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 21-47, 2007.
  5. [5] R. R. Putra, “Estimation of Vs30 based on soil investigation by using microtremor observation in Padang, Indonesia,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.13, pp. 135-140, 2017.
  6. [6] T. Noguchi et al., “Determination of the Subsurface Structure of Padang City, Indonesia Using Microtremor Exploration,” J. of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. A1 (Structural Engineering & Earthquake Engineering (SE/EE)), Vol.66, Issue 1, pp. 30-39, 2010.
  7. [7] Y. Ono et al., “Estimating Subsurface Shear Wave Velocity Structure and Site Amplificatin Characteristics of Padang, Indonesia,” J. of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. A1 (Structural Engineering & Earthquake Engineering (SE/EE)), Vol.68, Issue 4, pp. I_227-I_235, 2012.
  8. [8] P. S. Thein et al., “Designed microtremor array based actual measurement and analysis of strong ground motion at Palu City, Indonesia,” AIP Conf. Proc., Vol.1658, 040007, doi: 10.1063/1.4915040, 2015.
  9. [9] R. R. Putra et al., “Determined soil characteristic of Palu in Indonesia by using microtremor observation,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.10, pp. 1737-1742, 2016.
  10. [10] J. Selamet, “Identifying Criteria for Designing Risk Communication System in Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14, No.9, pp. 1346-1352, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1346, 2019.
  11. [11] F. Lestariet al., “Analysis of Complexities in Natech Disaster Risk Reduction and Management: A Case Study of Cilegon, Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.7, pp. 1298-1308, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2018.p1298, 2018.
  12. [12] Sutrisno, R. R. Putra, and Ganefri, “A Comparative Study on Structure in Building Using Different Partition Receiving Expense Earthquake,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.13, pp. 34-39, 2017.
  13. [13] R. R. Putra, “Damage investigation and re-analysis of damaged building affected by the ground motion of the 2009 Padang earthquake,” Int. J. of GEOMATE, Vol.18, pp. 163-170, doi: 10.21660/2020.65.Icee2nd, 2020.
  14. [14] R. R. Putra et al., “Relationship between Shear Velocities Recorded by Microtremor Observations and Seismic Cone Penetration Test Results,” Indonesian J. of Science & Technology, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 315-336, 2021.
  15. [15] R. R. Putra et al., “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing Building in Earthquake Prone Area Based on Seismic Index and Seismic Demand Method,” Civil Engineering and Architecture J., Vol.9, No.4, 2021.
  16. [16] F. Imamura et al., “Tsunami Disaster Mitigation by integrating Comprehensive Countermeasures in Padang City, Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.7, No.1, pp. 48-64, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2012.p0048, 2012.
  17. [17] B. Dion and A. Qureshi, “Guideline on inclusive disaster risk reduction: Early warnings and accessible broadcasting, the Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environment (GAATES),” Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and Environments), http://old.gaates.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/pdf/DiDRR%20Guideline%20Document%20FINAL%202014%2005%2022.pdf [accessed July 7, 2021]
  18. [18] K. Seneviratne, D. Baldry, and C. Pathirage, “Disaster knowledge factors in managing disasters successfully,” Int. J. of Strategic Property Management, Vol.14, pp. 376-390, 2010.
  19. [19] K. Seneviratne et al., “Knowledge management for disaster resilience: Identification of key success factors,” CIB World Building Congress 2010, 2010.
  20. [20] W. Adiyoso and H. Kanegae, “The effect of different disaster education program on tsunami preparedness among schoolchildren in Aceh, Indonesia,” Disaster Mitigation of Cultural Heritage and Historic Cities, Vol.6, pp. 165-172, 2012.
  21. [21] V. Clerveaux, T. Katada, and K. Hosoi, “Information Simulation Model: Effective Risk Communication and Disaster Management in a Mixed Cultural Society,” J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.30, No.1, pp. 1-11, 2008.
  22. [22] N. Fairclough, “Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research,” Routledge, 2003.
  23. [23] A. Mayr, “Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse,” Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008.
  24. [24] D. Hymes, “Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward An Understanding of Voice, Speech and Language,” Taylor & Francis, 1996.
  25. [25] H. Hayashi, R. Shaw, and B. Doherty, “Exploring the Possibility of an Online Synthesis System for Disaster Risk Reduction as a Tool to Promote ‘Consilience’ of Knowledge and Practice,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.7, pp. 1213-1221, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2018.p1213, 2018.
  26. [26] E. Maidl and M. Buchecker, “Raising risk preparedness through flood risk communication,” Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, Vol.15 No.7, pp. 1577-1595, doi: 10.5194/nhess-15-1577-2015, 2015.
  27. [27] N. Kapucu and S. Khosa, “Disaster resiliency and culture of preparedness for university and college campuses,” Administration & Society, Vol.45, pp. 3-37, doi: 10.1177/0095399712471626, 2013.
  28. [28] M. Moriyanti et al., “Tsunami and earthquake symbols and signs on the children’s semiotic understanding,” IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol.273, Article No.012034, 2019.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 21, 2021