The Representation of Gen Z Slang in Online News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Kompas.Com
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65310/vr4d5756Keywords:
Gen Z Slang, Representation, Online News, Critical Discourse Analysis, Kompas.comAbstract
This study investigates the representation of Generation Z (Gen Z) slang in online news discourse by analyzing a Kompas.com article entitled “Bahasa Gaul Gen Z Kian Marak, Begini Kata Peneliti Bahasa” published on November 8, 2024. The research aims to reveal how Gen Z slang is constructed as a social phenomenon and how ideological meanings are embedded through media language. This study employs a descriptive qualitative method under a critical paradigm, using Norman Fairclough’s three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework: textual analysis (micro level), discursive practice (meso level), and socio-cultural practice (macro level). The findings show that the article frames Gen Z slang as an increasingly widespread trend through evaluative lexical choices such as “kian marak” and the inclusion of popular terms like FOMO, YOLO, JOMO, healing, and ghosting. At the discursive practice level, Kompas.com legitimizes the phenomenon by combining Gen Z voices with expert commentary, creating a hierarchy of authority in which academic interpretation becomes dominant. At the socio-cultural level, the discourse reflects broader contexts of digital culture, globalization, and generational identity, while also revealing an ideological tension between viewing slang as linguistic creativity and treating it as an influence-driven trend that may challenge standard language norms. Overall, the study confirms that online news media plays an active role in shaping public perceptions of youth language, constructing Gen Z slang not only as a linguistic variation but also as a cultural marker tied to identity and power relations in contemporary Indonesian society
Downloads
References
Alim, S., Ghalim, S. A. A., & Saputra, M. I. (2026). Online Media Framing of the East Java MUI Fatwa on ‘Sound Horeg’. Mediakita, 10(1), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.30762/mediakita.v10i1.3289.
Amer, M. (2009). A critical discourse analysis of the representation of Islam and Muslims in the New York Times. Journal of Language and Politics, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.8.1.02ame
Amoussou, F., & Allagbe, A. A. (2018). Principles, theories and approaches to critical discourse analysis. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 6(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0601002.
Budd, J. M., & Raber, D. (1996). Discourse analysis: Method and application in the study of information. Information Processing & Management, 32(2), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(96)85007-2.
Fairclough, N. (2023). Critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 11-22). Routledge.
Fikri, M., Azhar, D. A., & Pradana, Y. (2025). Discourse About the News of Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) Program on Tiktok. Citizen: Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia, 5(5), 1398-1409. https://doi.org/10.53866/jimi.v5i5.940.
Ginting, C. S. (2026). Mapping Political Ideology In Social Media Narratives: A Critical Discourse Analysis Of X (Twitter) Posts On President Prabowo Using Van Dijk’s Model. Inspiration: Instructional Practices in Language Education, 4(2), 147-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.30829/inspiration.v4i2.27850.
Gulbrandsen, I. T., Just, S. N., & Kragh, M. (2019). Media power and the digital public sphere: A critical discourse perspective. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18057.int
Huspek, M. (1991). Norman Fairclough, Language and power. London and New York: Longman, 1989, Pp. xii+ 259. Language in Society, 20(1), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016122.
Kompas.com. (2024). Bahasa gaul Gen Z kian marak, begini kata peneliti bahasa. Kompas.com. https://regional.kompas.com/read/2024/11/08/055000478/bahasa-gaul-gen-z-kian-marak-begini-kata-peneliti-bahasa-
Kusumalestari, R. R., Permatasari, A. N., & Satriani, A. (2025). A Social Network Analysis of Indonesian Online Conversations on the Palestine Conflict:-. Al-i’lam-Journal of Contemporary Islamic Communication and Media, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.33102/jcicom.vol5no2.132.
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2006). Norman Fairclough, Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Language in Society, 35(4), 620-624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506230288.
Rachmawati, S. A., Retnaningdyah, P., & Setiawan, S. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis of Language and Power in EFL Classroom Interaction. Journal of English Teaching, 8(2), 224-232. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i2.3633.
Reza, F., Pafritasary, G., Putri, S. H., & Lathifah, N. (2024). Framing of Online News Media Regarding the Constitutional Court's Decision. Sinergi International Journal of Communication Sciences, 2(3), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.61194/ijcs.v2i3.499.
Romadlan, S., Maududi, M. M., Pranawati, R., Pamungkas, A., Yuliani, M., & Mustiawan. (2024, December). Representation of Muhammadiyah as the Islamic movement progressed in the new public region (Representation of Muhammadiyah as a progressive Islamic movement in the new public sphere). In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3148, No. 1, p. 030036). AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0243361.
Stephani, N. (2025). You still want to have kids, right? Representation of childfree women in Indonesian leading online news outlets. Media Asia, 52(1), 102-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2024.2335013.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). So sick or so cool? The language of youth. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139942768
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460.ch19
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). ‘Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach.’In Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer, 62-86, selected 62-67, 75-80. London: Sage. In The Discourse Studies Reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (pp. 389-399). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.79dij.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gabriella Pardede, Heltri F Samongilailai, Ariel Jonivedi Silalahi, Partohap Saut Raja Sihombing (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
