Identity Creation and Retention of UGM as an Iconic Brand

  • Belinda Ekharisti Viklous Master Program of Linguistics, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Cosmas Reynold Radjalewa Master Program of Linguistics, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Sulistyowati Master Program of Linguistics, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Keywords: UGM, icon, branding, peircean semiotic, ikon, merek, semiotika peirce


This article aims to investigate how the iconicity of UGM is constructed, the underlying notion of UGM as an icon, and the reason behind the iconicity of UGM. The multiple interpretations of UGM as an icon are analyzed using Peirce's semiotic framework to show the relationship between the representamen, interpretant, and object. Blumer’s concept of symbolic interaction is also applied to display the interaction mechanism between the representamen and the interpretant on the formation of the iconic sign. And mixed methods are used as an approach to explain the data. As a result, this article has collected 168 tokens of interpretations of UGM with 5 dominant tokens explained, namely Berkualitas (Qualified), Jogja (Yogyakarta), Terbaik (The Best), Pintar (Smart), and Keren (Cool). The representamen and the interpretant are interrelated through bidirectional interpretations. UGM is projected as an iconic brand to serve identity creation and retention. Identity creation and retention might potentially promote social class and disparity as a result of power relations and distribution regarding UGM as an iconic brand. Further study needs to be conducted to address the issues.


Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji bagaimana ikonisitas UGM dikonstruksi, apa yang melatarbelakangi gagasan UGM sebagai ikon, dan alasan dibalik ikonisitas UGM. Multitafsir tentang UGM sebagai ikon dianalisis menggunakan kerangka semiotik Peirce untuk menunjukkan hubungan antara representamen, interpretant, dan objek. Konsep interaksi simbolik Blumer juga diterapkan untuk menampilkan mekanisme interaksi antara representamen dan interpretan pada pembentukan tanda ikonik. Dan metode campuran digunakan sebagai pendekatan untuk menjelaskan data. Hasilnya, artikel ini telah mengumpulkan 168 token interpretasi UGM dengan menjelaskan 5 token dominan, yaitu Berkualitas, Jogja, Terbaik, Pintar, dan Keren. Representamen dan interpretan saling terkait melalui interpretasi dua arah. UGM diproyeksikan sebagai merek ikonik untuk melayani penciptaan dan retensi identitas. Penciptaan dan retensi identitas berpotensi mengangkat kelas sosial dan disparitas akibat relasi kuasa dan distribusi yang menganggap UGM sebagai merek ikonik. Studi lebih lanjut perlu dilakukan untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut.


Agarwala, R., Mishra, P., & Singh, R. (2021). Evaluating the impact of religious icons and symbols on consumer’s brand evaluation: Context of Hindu religion. Journal of Advertising, 50(4), 372-390.
Arcila, F. C., Solano-cohen, V., Rincón, A. C., Junior, L., & Briceño-gonzález, M. (2022). Second language learning and socioeconomic development : interrogating anglonormativity from the perspective of pre-service modern language professionals. Current Issues in Language Planning.
Barakos, E. (2020). Indonesian: Problems of development and use of a national language. John Benjamin Publishing Co.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic Interactionism, perspective and method. University of California Press.
Blumer, H. (2015). George Herbert Mead. In B. Rhea (Ed.), The Future of The Sociological Classics (pp. 160–196). Routledge.
Booth, A. (2021). The implications of economic change in Indonesia for social class formation. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde, 177(4), 461–490.
Campbell, C., Olteanu, A., & Kull, K. (2019). Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign systems studies, 47(3/4), 352-381.
Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics, The Basics (Second Edi). Routledge.
Clarke, S. (2022). Beyond the icon: Core cognition and the bounds of perception. Mind & Language, 37(1), 94-113.
Coleman, J. S., Muttaqien, I., Widowatie, D. S., & Purwandari, S. (2021). Relasi Sosiologi dengan Tindakan Sosial dalam Struktur Sosial yang Baru: Seri Dasar-Dasar Teori Sosial. Nusamedia.
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36.
D’Angelo, P., Lule, J., Neuman, W. R., Rodriguez, L., Dimitrova, D. V., & Carragee, K. M. (2019). Beyond framing: A forum for framing researchers. Journalism & mass communication quarterly, 96(1), 12-30.
Farida, N., & Andalas, E. F. (2019). Representasi kesenjangan sosial-ekonomi masyarakat pesisir dengan perkotaan dalam Novel Gadis Pantai karya Pramodya Ananta Toer. KEMBARA: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 5(1), 74-90.
Golinkoff, R. M., Hoff, E., Rowe, M. L., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Hirsh‐Pasek, K. (2019). Language matters: Denying the existence of the 30‐million‐word gap has serious consequences. Child development, 90(3), 985-992.
Gretzel, U., & Collier de Mendonça, M. (2019). Smart destination brands: semiotic analysis of visual and verbal signs. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(4), 560–580.
Jin, J. (2022). Class Identification, Deferred Elimination, and Social Reproduction in Education:‘Ontological Ambivalences’ Experienced by Working-Class Students at Elite Universities in China. Sociological Research Online, 27(4), 896-913.
Kuhn, J. (2020). Logical meaning in space: Iconic biases on quantification in sign languages. Language, 96(4), e320-e343.
Knox, A. L. (2022). Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI): Interconnecting Dominant and Subdominant Culture to Understand the Language of Marginalized Groups in a Corporate Setting.
Lan, T. J. (2020). Politics of Difference: Ethnicity and Social Class Within The Indonesian Middle Class in Digital Era. Antropologi Indonesia, 41(1), 23–26.
Mackenzie, L. (2022). Linguistic imperialism, English, and development: implications for Colombia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(2), 137-156.
Meltzer, Bernard N., Petras, John W., and Reynolds, Larry T. (2015). Symbolic Interactionism. New York. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1940). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Ponce, N. A., Hays, R. D., & Cunningham, W. E. (2006). Linguistic Disparities in Health Care Access and Health Status Among Older Adults. Current Issues in Language Planning, 786–791.
Rindell, A., & Santos, F. P. (2021). What makes a corporate heritage brand authentic for consumers? A semiotic approach. Journal of Brand Management, 28(5), 545-558.
Scanlon, B., Brough, M., Wyld, D., & Durham, J. (2021). Equity across the cancer care continuum for culturally and linguistically diverse migrants living in Australia: a scoping review. Globalization and health, 17, 1-13.
Shiryaeva, T., Arakelova, A., Golubovskaya, E., & Mekeko, N. (2019). Shaping values with" YouTube freedoms": linguistic representation and axiological charge of the popular science IT-discourse. Heliyon, 5(12).
Spinks, C W. (1991). Peirce and Triadomania: A Walk in The Semiotic Wilderness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Zein, S. (2020). Language Policy in Superdiverse Indonesia. Routledge.
How to Cite
Viklous, B. E., Radjalewa, C. R., & Sulistyowati. (2023). Identity Creation and Retention of UGM as an Iconic Brand. Deskripsi Bahasa, 6(2), 91-104.