Doing Discourse Analysis

D o in g D i s c o u r s e A n a ly sis:
A N IN T R O D U C T IO N

First Published, 2017

14x21 cm ; xvi + 120 pages

ISBN 978-602-61718-9-4

WRITER:
Murni Mahmud

PROOFREADER:
Murni Mahmud
DESIGN COVER & LAYOUT
Wirasatriaji

P H O E N IX
P U B LIS H E R
Jl. Wonosari km. 7 Kalangan RT 7
No. 197 Yogyakarta 55197
Telp. 0851-0561-0052

Copyright is protected by law

It is not allowed to copy or reproduce part or all the contents o f
the book without permission
DOING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION

By

MURNI MAHMUD

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

i
 This book is dedicated to:

Adhwa Dhaifullah Anwar

My cute son born in Canberra, Australia by the end of

my thesis submission. He is now 8 e
y ars old

You are the light of my lights

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

First of all, I would like to extend my high gratitude to Almighty God

who has given me His endless blessing, without which I would not have been able
to complete this most remarkable work in my life, my most precious contribution
to knowledge.
It is my privilege to announce that this book is a compilation of my
teaching materials during the time I teach the subject. The need to provide
valuable resources for teaching Discourse Analysis encourages me to compile this
book.
Thanks to my university, State University of Makassar. I am glad to say
that this book is my prominent contribution to my academic life. I am also
thankful to the Graduate Program of the State University of Makassar. The
Director, Prof. Dr. Jasruddin, M.Si. and Head of English Study Program, Prof. Dr.
H. Haryanto, M.Pd., who had supported me in the writing of this book and had
given a chance to use the book as reading material in one of the subjects in
English Study Program.
I would like to express my appreciation to my students who had taken
Discourse Analysis as their focus of their research: Andi Patmasari, Reski
Uspayanti, Yusnaeni, Agussatriana, Muthmainnah Mursidin, Nurul Hasanah, Eka
Fatmawati, Adi Chandra, Sujariati, Markus Deli Girik, Nilma Tau’labi, Ramli,
Sulfiah Ulfa, Suryani Jihad, Ramlan Purnawan, Nunung Anugrawati, and many
others, whom I cannot mention one by one. Hopefully, doing Discourse Analysis
in your research gives you all new inspiration in developing your ideas about
research. I am sure that although doing Discourse Analysis is a rather conflicting
work, it will soon become a fantastic job when you are accustomed to it. You will
enjoy it.
Thanks also to all of the students of Graduate Program whom I teach
Discourse Analysis. I will say that you are all my inspirations to always conduct a
research. Working with you all always encourages me to do research more and
more. In my inauguration speech for my Professorship, 18 March 2015, I stated:

Semoga gelar yang saya terima ini bukan hanya menjadikan nama saya
lebih panjang, tetapi lebih sebagai motivasi untuk terus berkarya

“Hopefully the title of professor awarded for me is not merely to make my

name longer, but more as a motivation to continue working”

This book is intended to accommodate my idea to be inspiring Professor

with beneficial work. Hopefully this book invites more ideas for me to write in the
future.

iii
 I ask for forgiveness for not mentioning all the names in this book. I do
hope this book will become good resource for readings in Discourse Analysis and
in linguistic study as a whole.

Makassar, 26 November 2016

Murni Mahmud

iv
 CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
CONTENTS

v
 4.1 Areas of Discourse Analysis 39
4.1.1 Classroom Interaction 39
4.1.2 Courtroom Interaction 40
4.1.3 Children Conversation 40
4.1.4 Mass Media and Social Media 41
4.1.5 Other Formal and Informal Settings 41
4.2 Issues in Discourse Analysis 42
4.2.1 Politeness 42
4.2.2 Speech Acts 43
4.2.3 Power Conflict 44
4.2.4 Gender-Related Issues 45
4.2.5 Non-Verbal Communication 46
4.2.6 Code-Switching 47
4.2.7 Discourse Markers 48
4.2.8 Teacher Talk 49
4.2.9 Summary 49
4.2.10 Questions for Discussion 50
Chapter 5 Methods of Discourse Analysis 51
5.1 The Ground 51
5.2 Data Collection 54
5.2.1 Types of Discourse Data 54
5.2.2 Methods of Producing Data 56
5.3 Data Analysis 60
5.3.1 Selecting Data 60
5.3.2 Transcription 61
5.3.3 Interpreting 62
5.3.4 Reporting 65
5.4 Summary 65
5.5 Questions for Discussion 66
Chapter 6 Samples of Discourse Analysis 68
6.1 Politeness 68
6.2 Conversational Implicature 78
6.3 Code-Switching 81
6.4 Speech Acts 84
6.5 Summary 86
6.7 Questions for Discussion 86
References 87
Curriculum Vitae 95

vi
 AUTHOR’S PREFACE
The writing of this book is inspired by the need to provide appropriate
books in the course of Discourse Analysis. This course is an important part of
linguistic study. This course becomes the main subject studied by university
students in all levels, in undergraduate degree, in master degree, and in the
doctorate degree. In addition, Discourse Analysis, which I then wrote as DA in
this book is now a trending method in doing research, especially in qualitative
research. Researchers have been using this method in data analysis, besides the
use of quasi-experimental design.
My main intention in writing this book is to explore the theoretical
background of DA as a branch of study in linguistics. I attempt as well to examine
the methods used in doing DA and later to give exercises for students in doing DA.
This book can become a good reference for students in doing DA, as additional
sources for doing DA.
During the time I teach this course, I find some interesting cases. Students
find many copied books. They have plenty of books on DA copied from original
books. They can also read many resources about DA from the internet through
free search engines such as Google or Wikipedia. Indeed, they can download a
free e-book from the internet about DA. The problem that I think it is urgent is
that those students find difficulties to understand the theories of DA. Not only that,
several students told me that they had learned DA in their level before such as in
undergraduate program; however, they still do not understand what DA is exactly.
More problems exist when they were asked about what to do in DA. Often when
they had read so many books in DA, problems occurred when the questions came
to “how to do DA?”. What they need besides learning theories is actually
practicing to apply DA in their work, their paper, and also in their research later.
In undergraduate degree, for example, when I explained a little bit about
DA in the class of Introduction to Linguistics as a part of linguistic study, I got the
impression that the students had not got ideas about it. Especially when I
explained that DA requires higher level of thinking as it is about analysis not only
on the sentences, clauses, or phrases, but within the sentences, clauses, or phrases,
students said that the study must be very difficult.
In master degree program when I am usually given the responsibility to
teach the course, students gave a lot comments. One of them is about the
difficulties they encountered when doing DA, especially when they were given
the tasks to analyze spoken discourses. Problems cover when they had to produce
data by recording, transcribing the collected data, and later interpreting the data.
One of the students said, “let’s pray so we can pass this subject”. Another
comment, “I always got dizzy after joining the class DA”. Some students said that
they did not actually know or understand about DA. I asked them again, “what did
you do during the course?”. They said “it was just discussion about theories”. My
impression is that what they want actually is not only theories and concepts on
DA, but also on practices of doing DA.
Surprisingly, students in the post-graduate program (S3) admitted that DA
is a new thing for them. They said, “It is new for me”. When I asked whether they

vii
had learned it before, they said, “We never studied it before”. Another comment
was “I have studied it but I did not know what DA was”. When I asked their
reasons, they said that they only learned about theories, no methods or practices.
One of them stated that the lecture of DA in only by dictating the theories, and no
or less practices at all.
Because of these facts, they needed extra work to do it. One of the students
told me that in their undergraduate program and master degree, they did not obtain
enough information and skills in doing DA. When I assigned them to do tasks in
DA, they said that it would be new experiences for them. However, it was also a
challenging job.
Therefore, I got impressions that students thought that DA was a rather
difficult subject. I guess that is because it is a new thing to study or because it
requires a high level of analysis.
When I did my Ph.D at Anthropology Department at the Australian
National University, I never realized that what I did was something relating to DA.
My interest was in gender studies in relation to language use. Because I was in
anthropological department, I needed to relate it to the anthropological cases. My
background as a Bugis encouraged me to do more research on Bugis society
although many people might think studies on it were not new anymore. However,
I kept asking myself if I really knew everything about my Bugis life. In fact, at the
end of my study, I just realized that there were still many things I did not know
about my culture as Bugis.
All my supervisors were also interested in the study of Bugis. Due to my
linguistic background, I needed to study something relating to linguistic aspects of
Bugis people. I decided then to choose politeness. Although various studies had
been conducted in this area, I was certain that I would do a lot of contributions to
linguistic study as well as in historical and anthropological study through the
study of politeness.
One year of my fieldwork made me busy with recording data. I had to go
back to the university with plenty of data, spoken and written, on how Bugis
people practice their politeness. I was busy in transcribing the data, especially the
spoken data. Then when the panel supervisors asked for further activities, there
were still many things to do regarding the data. However, I was happy when I
finalized my work about linguistic politeness of Bugis people. Not only that, I
acquired the knowledge and the skills of doing DA in linguistic politeness of
Bugis people.
My impression is that DA is not actually difficult. It just needs hard
working, not because it is difficult but because it has many details to be given a
great attention. However, when ones start to do it, it will be a fantastic job. Now
most of my research is done under the scope of DA.
I hope that this book will be beneficial for students programming the
course of DA, either to master degree or doctorate degree. In writing this book, I
accumulated some theories from available books, copied and read from the
internet. I also provided examples of doing DA, either spoken or written. Some of
them were taken from the students’ thesis that had been written based on DA and
from journal articles that had been published. Some examples were also taken

viii
from my study on Politeness in Bugis, a part of my Ph.D thesis. Because my
intention is not only for doing DA in English language only, I also provide some
examples from other languages, such as Bugis language and Indonesian language.
The book was written in six chapters. In the first chapter, I provide
theories and concepts that readers need to have as a starting point in
understanding DA. The second chapter is about some important concepts and
approaches for DA. The third chapter is about the disciplines which become the
scope of study in DA. Reading this chapter will give underlying ideas about what
fields to be discussed in order to use and do DA. The fourth part is about the areas
and issues in doing DA containing the setting or areas and the issues that may be
taken as a focus in doing DA. The fifth part of the book is about the methods of
doing DA, providing the steps in doing DA and aspects related to the process of
collecting and analyzing the discourse data. The sixth chapter is examples of work
in doing DA, which are very important as a model in doing DA. Exercises and
examples of articles written in DA are also provided.
Since this is the first edition, I guess that the book is still far from being
perfect. I still do the editing process and wish to provide better product in the next
edition.
The Author,
Murni Mahmud, 26 November 2016

ix
 FOREWORD
Head fo English Study Program, Graduate Program, State University fo
Makasas r
It is my privilege to introduce this book entitled “Doing Discourse
Analysis: An Introduction”, written by Murni Mahmud, Professor in English
Education Department, Faculty of Languages and Literature, State University of
Makassar. Murni Mahmud is majoring in Anthropology Linguistics. She teaches
some subjects in the area of Linguistics such as Sociolinguistics, Anthropology
Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax, and Discourse Analysis (DA).
This book is expected to provide resources in the study of DA. This
subject has become an important subject and has been chosen as a compulsory
subject in the English Study Program, the Graduate Program, State University of
Makassar. Plenty of books on DA are available, copied and obtained from e-books.
This book at least provides good examples and good procedures in doing DA.
What students need is also practices or strategies of applying DA.
Hopefully this book gives benefit in the study of DA. I expect that students
in the Graduate Program, especially in English Study Program, can choose DA as
one method in doing their research. With the increasing interest of qualitative
research, hopefully this book may give introductory steps in doing DA.

Prof. Dr. H. Haryanto, M.Pd.

x
 Chapter 1
Introducing Discourse Analysis

This chapter provides a detail description about the study of Discourse

Analysis (DA) as one important branch in the study of linguistics. I should explain
firstly the definition of a discourse itself as the basic idea in this chapter. Then, I go
on explaining the term Discourse Analysis (DA), which I then compare to other
related terms such as content analysis, Conversation Analysis (CA), and Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA). I consider these terms to be explained in this first part as
the underlying concepts of doing DA. A brief historical overview is also provided in
this chapter. The last is about the position of DA in the study of linguistics, which is
important to know for readers, especially for students in order to know the theoretical
framework underlying the study of DA in terms of linguistic study.

1.1 What is Discourse?

What is actually meant by the term discourse? To some scholars, the term
discourse and Discourse Analysis (DA) are two different terms but related to each
other. Wisniewski (2006) states that the original term of discourse comes from a Latin
word discursus which means “conversation” or “speech” (p. 3).
Dijk (1997, p. 2) refers a discourse as (1) “language use”, (2) “communication
of beliefs (cognition)”, and (3) “interaction in social situation”. Kramsch (1998) also
defines a discourse as “a socially accepted association”, which are used as strategies
to think, feel, believe, value, and act (p. 106). Additionally, Gee defines a discourse as
“coordinations or a dance of many different aspects” such as people, places, times,
actions, interactions, verbal and non-verbal expression, symbols, things, tools, and
technologies (2005, p. 23). This implies that the areas for discourse study will be on
the use of conversations and speech in communication and interaction.
There are several schemes of defining a discourse. Jawoski and Coupland
(1991) categorize a
discourse is “language in use” and an “utterance”. From these definitions, it can be
found that discussing a talk will cover about the sentence as well as how to utilize it in
a language. This also means that context of the language use is primarily important.
The above definitions of discourse come from the underlying assumptions.
One of the important ideas is that discourse is an action, which can be in the form of
talk and text (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Therefore, discourse may take two forms of
communication, both in spoken and in written.
It can be inferred that the concept of talk is important in studying a discourse.
But what is talk indeed? This should be based on the relationship between language
and actions. Austin (1962) formulates the meanings of talk as an action in his theory
of speech acts. Austin refers talk and language use more generally as an “action”
(cited in Wood and Kroger, 2000, pp. 4-5). Austin (1962, p. 109) categorizes this
function of language as an action in the forms of “speech acts”, which implies that
when someone is saying something, he or she is also doing something. In relation to
this idea, Stubbs (1983, p. 5) mentions some functions of language as actions such as
giving promise, assertion, description, impression, intimidation, persuasion, comforts,
gossips, arguments, recital, complaints, swears, protests, bets, and the so forth.
Wood and Kroger (2000) state that the term discourse is sometimes used
interchangeably with text. The term discourse covers all spoken and written forms of
communication as a kind of social practice. For example, discourse is used for spoken
forms whereas text is used for written forms (p. 1, 19).
Questions may come into existence in relation to non-verbal communication
such as body languages, gestures, smiles, eye contacts, and other facial expressions.
Are they also used in terms of discourse? Perhaps, we need to examine the functions
of these non-verbal ways of communication. I will argue that these are a kind of
behaviour, in which through it, people can communicate. Therefore, these non-verbal
communications is also an action, which is of course, a part of language as a means of
communications. Since categorized as action, the field of non-verbal communication
can also become the area of analysis in a discourse.
In conclusion, when discussing about discourse, studies will be directed not
only toward the forms of language but also to the use of language as actions, which
can be manifested through talk and text, spoken and written.
1.2 Discourse Analysis (DA)
In the field of linguistics, we commonly recognized that the levels of analysis
may vary from the less to the most complex one such as phonetics, phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and discourse respectively. It shows that
studying DA needs highest level of thinking. This is because DA not only studies
sentences but also within the sentences. In other word, it studies wider range of
linguistic aspects and therefore, it requires higher level of thinking and analysis.
Many scholars have formulated the meaning of DA as a kind of discipline in
linguistic study. McCarthy (1991) emphasizes that DA is an integrated study of
language and context (p. 6). Gee (2011) also defines discourse analysis as “the study
of language-in-use; the study of language at use in the world, not just to say things,
but to do things” (p. 9). In addition, Jones (2011) refers discourse analysis as a
process of “entextualization, in which activities include transforming actions into
texts and texts into action” (p. 10). Hence, based on these definitions, language in
context is the main focus of DA.
The main focus of DA is not only on the form or the structure of a language.
Rather, it aims at studying more than just a form, that is language in use or language
in action in the form of text and talk. When the main focus of study is on the structure
of a language, that is mainly known as text analysis whereas the latter is known as DA.
Crystal (2003) differentiates DA and text analysis. The focus of DA is on “the
structure of naturally occurring spoken language”. This can be found in conversations,
interviews, commentaries, and speeches. Text analysis focuses on the structure of
written language, which can be found in essays, notices, road signs, and chapters (p.
116).
Cook (1990) confirms that DA examines the stretches of language in many
contexts such as textual, social, and psychological context. Cook further notes that a
study in DA is “a rapidly expanding field” which integrate any problems and process
in using and learning a language (1990, pp. ix-xi). This indicates that language
teaching has concentrated on pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. These skills
are important as the basis of foreign language knowledge. However, DA moves
forward to draw attention to those skills by putting these skills into action and
therefore can achieve successful communication.
Stubbs states that DA is used to refer mainly to the linguistic analysis of
“naturally occurring connected speech or written discourse”. Roughly speaking, it
aims at studying about the ways language is organized above the sentence and clause
and therefore aims at studying larger units of language use such as conversational
exchanges or written texts. In addition, DA is concerned with the way of using a
language in social contexts as well as in interactions of speakers (1983, p. 1).
Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 3) comments that DA is “a perspective on social
life that contains both methodological and conceptual elements”. Furthermore, Wood
and Kroger emphasize as follows:
DA is thus not simply an alternative to conventional methodologies; it is an
alternative to the perspectives in which those methodologies are embedded. DA
entails more than a shift in methodology from a general, abstracted, quantitative to a
particularized, detailed, qualitative approach. It involves a number of assumptions
that are important in their own right and also a foundation for doing discourse
analytic research (2000, p. 3).

In addition, McCarthy states that DA is

a wide-ranging and heterogeneous discipline which finds its unity in the description
of language above the sentence and an interest in the contexts and cultural influences
which affect language in use (1991, p. 7).

DA is concerned with “the broad speech units comprising multiple sentences”

(Fromkin, Rodman, & Hymes, 2007, pp. 199-200). In line with that, Brown and Yule
(1983, p. viii) state that DA is used with
a wide range of meanings which cover a wide range of activities at the intersection of
disciplines as diverse as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics,
and computational linguistics. All of them have different and specific aspects of
discourse.

Therefore, it can be stated that when doing DA, higher level of thinking and
analysis are needed in order to cover many aspects. Discourse analysts need
comparisons between theories, methods, and conceptual elements in one unit of
analysis. It is not only studying one linguistic unit but broader linguistic units. DA is
multidisciplinary approach which covers various areas in linguistic study such as
sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, etc. Its main concern is to analyze the use of
language in a broader context in society. It is not only studying sentences but in and
out of the sentences.
DA will accumulate the time, the world, language, and thought into pragmatic
analysis, which will be then processed in the account of discourse. Cook (1990, p. 44)
states that, “pragmatics provides a means of relating stretches of language to be
physical, social, and psychological world” whereas discourse functions to “cover the
interactiu i i i i
 Discourse tries to respect the ways social members interpret, orient to, and
categorize the social work.
6. Sequentiality
Discourse is linear. This indicates that description and interpretation should be
regarded as one unit of analysis.
7. Constructivity
Discourses will be constructive if each unit is used and analyzed as a part of
broader unit. In addition, discourses also need to create structure in hierarchical
form.
8. Levels and Dimensions
There are various levels or layers and various dimensions in the work of
discourse which need to be observed and interpreted at the same time as one
single unit of analysis. One level should be related to other levels.
9. Meaning and function
In analyzing discourse, meaning and function are two important elements that
should be closely connected.
10. Rules
There are also some rules to be observed as a unit of analysis. It is indeed “rule
governed”.
11. Strategies
Language users also know and apply mental and interactional strategies in the
effective understanding and accomplishment of discourse and the realization of
communicative goals
12. Social cognition
In analyzing discourse, mental process and representations in the production and
understanding text and talk are also brought together as parts of analysis.
Dijk (1997, pp. 28-30)

In sum, the emphasis in doing DA is related to the depth of analysis in

discourse study. It sometimes appears that analysis in the text does not really cover
whole ideas of discourse. Possibly the analysis only looks into the contents itself. I
argue that we need, of course, content analysis in DA. However, content analysis is
only a small part. We need broader analysis more than content itself.
1.3 Content Analysis
We also need to differentiate between DA and content analysis. The difference,
of course, will lie on the depth of analysis. I will say again that DA requires broader
analysis whereas content analysis is a part of the activities in DA. DA will need
content analysis as a part of DA.
One of the differences between DA and content analysis is the different
method to apply. Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 32) mention that the content analysis
usually applies quantitative research whereas in DA, qualitative method is used. The
fact that although both DA and content analysis study qualitative data, the emphasis
on doing content analysis is on quantitative ways. Conversely, for DA, qualitative
data will be analyzed using qualitative way as well. Wood and Kroger furthermore
explain that content analysis usually applies coding strategies whereas for DA,
activities will cover more than coding activities and the assessment between coding
strategies (2000, p. 32).

1.4 Conversation Analysis (CA)

Besides DA, there is also a term Conversation Analysis (CA). To some extent,
DA and CA are treated in the same ways, in which both of them study about language
and action. The only differences lie only in the focus of analysis (e.g. CA is only
studying talk whereas DA is studying more than talks). In other words, these two
terms can be used interchangeably with different emphasis.
In addition, these two disciplines have integrated relationship, although
different in some aspects. CA is a smaller part of DA. DA entails a broader aspect of
analysis in language use whereas CA is a part of DA, in which the main focus is on
the analysis of conversation (talk in interaction). This analysis may also be a concern
on DA. This is supported by Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 21), who state that CA is
“the most microanalytic variety of DA”.
CA emerged for the first time in California in 1960s in the work of Harvey
Sacks and Emanuel Schegfold, to cover a study of “talk-in-interaction” in the field of
sociology (Have, 2000, pp. 1-10). Have states that CA is a study on “people talking
together, oral communication, or language use” (2000, p. 5). Hutchby and Wooffitt
refer CA as “the study of talk” (1998, p. 13) whereas Liddicoat (2007, p. 6) confirms
that CA studies “the organization and orderliness of social interaction”.
 Overall, CA and DA have similarities. CA and DA study about language use,
but have different points of views. Wooffitt (2005, pp. 5-24) furthermore differentiate
as follows:
Table 1: Differences of CA and DA

Conversation analysis Discourse Analysis

Developed from the work of Harvey Sacks Emerged in the sociology of scientific
knowledge
Examines language as social action Established a departure from realist
accounts of scientist’ actions to a study of
scientists’ accounting practices
Talk-in interaction is taken to be Proposes that language is used variably.
systematically organized and ordered Accounts are constructed from a range of
discipline possibilities, and are intimately
tied to the context in which they are
produced and the functions they perform
The primary data for research are audio
and if necessary, video recordings of
naturally occurring interaction.
Transcripts assists the analysis of
audio/video materials
The transcription system provides a

everyday interaction, focusing on speech

production and turn-taking organization
Wooffitt (2005, pp. 5-24)

Those differences had been caught by some scholars in the field of linguistics.
In facts these two kinds on analysis are different not only in its main area of analysis
but also in the way the analysts in the two disciplines approach the problems in
language use.
Levinson (1987) differentiate the different approach applied by the two
disciplines, in which DA applies deductive approach whereas CA applies inductive
approach. For CA, search is based on records of “naturally occurring conversations”,
whereas for DA, search is based on “immediate categorization of usually restricted
data” (Levinson, 1987, pp. 286-287).
It should be noted that CA lies much on the use of “naturally occurring data”.
To analyze the data, CA proceeds by (1) examination of collections of cases such as
examining a sequence of turns which seems to display some interesting properties, (2)
developing a more formal and detailed account of the organization of the target
exchange, examining the sequential context of the phenomenon and (3) returning to
data to determine if other instances of the phenomenon can be described in terms of
this account (Wooffitt, 2005, pp. 40-41).

1.5 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Another term corresponding to DA is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).
Dijk (2001, p. 352) formulates a definition of CDA as follows:
“a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power
abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and
talk in the social and political context”.

Dijk (2001) mentions some requirements for CDA. One of them is the focus
more on social and political issues. To provide critical analysis, CDA not merely
describes “discourse structures”, but also explains them in terms of “properties of
social interaction and especially social structure”. More specifically, CDA focuses on
1.6 Historical Overview
It is important to see how the emergence of DA as a discipline in linguistics.
DA grew from different disciplines in the 1969s and early 1970s, including linguistics,
semiotics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology (McCarthy, 1991, p. 5).
Dijk (1985, p. 1) indeed states that DA is both an old and new discipline. Its
origin can be traced back to the study of language, public speech, and literature more
than 2000 years ago. It was started when Sellig Harris published a paper with the title
DA, in which he was interested in the distribution of linguistic elements in extended
texts. In that article, Harris initiated a search for language rules to explain the
connection between sentences within a text by using an extended grammar (Harris,
1952, 1964, cited in Cook, 1990, p. 13).
Dell Hymes is also important in this historical background when he provided
sociological perspectives with the study of speech in social settings. Austin (1962),
Searle (1969), and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study of language as
social action. These are reflected in the theories of speech acts and conversational
maxim (McCarthy, 1991, p. 5).
In British, the work of DA is mainly influenced by Halliday which
emphasizes the “social functions of language and the thematic and informational
structure of speech and writing”. In America, DA has been dominated by work within
ethno-methodological tradition. This categorizes on the examination of the types of
speech acts such as storytelling, greeting rituals, and verbal duels in different cultural
and social settings. This can be seen by the work of Hymes and Gumperz (1972)
(McCarthy, 1991, p. 6).

1.7 Why Discourse Analysis

The important question in this beginning is to ask the reasons in studying DA.
Where is the position of DA in the study of linguistics? For that purpose, it should be
first underlined about the definition of linguistics itself and find the position of DA in
that framework.
Linguistics is a scientific study of language in communication. Based on
Chambers Concise Dictionary (2004, p. 666), a language is defined as as follows:
(1) any formalized system of communication, especially one that uses sounds or
written symbols which the majority of a particular community will readily understand,
 (2) the speech and writing of a particular nation or social group,
(3) the faculty of speech, and
(4) a specified style of speech or verbal expression. Therefore, in studying linguistics,
the main focus is to study the language in communication.

In studying the language, there are some parts of linguistics that need certain
understanding. Starting from the study of sound system, language learners are
directed to learn Phonetics and Phonology. Later, learners need to go one level up to
the word level, that is studying the word formations, known as Morphology. After
word formation, sentence construction is learned in the subject of Syntax. Later,
language learners will study about Semantics or Pragmatics with their own concerns.
When learners study on the text, they then come to the high level of analysis of the
language, called DA.
Therefore, in doing DA, level of understanding and analysis is not only on
sound, or word, or sentences only, but also what is beyond the sound, word, or
sentences. High level of interpretation, elaboration, analysis is needed in doing DA,
which can be obtained from the previous level of understanding in linguistics.
For students to learn DA, it is highly recommended that they had been through
the previous studies of linguistic aspects. The important reason is that understanding
on lower linguistic levels is needed to acquire deeper understanding of discourse and
also to be able to analyze the discourse.

1.8 Summary
This chapter has explained the important ideas of discourse as the basic
concept in understanding DA. The main point is that a study on discourse is not only
looking at the sentence but also beneath the sentence, even above the sentence. Some
terms are explained to acquire comparison of the depth in analysis of the DA.
Conversation Analysis (CA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are other terms
that are usually used in approaching the discourse which of course requires specific
attention or point of view in the discourse.

1.9 Questions for Discussion

1. What is the difference between discourse and text?
2. What is DA? How is it different from content analysis?
3. What is CA? And how is it different from DA?
4. Describe the historical background for the emergence of DA!
5. What is the emphasis of CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis)?
6. Why is DA regarded as multidisciplinary discipline?
 Chapter 2
Discourse: Concepts and Approaches

My main focus in this chapter is to describe some important concepts, principles,

and approaches to a discourse. Explanations on those aspects are required to
understand clearly about the process in doing DA. As seen in chapter 1 previously, a
study of a discourse requires specific approach in order to gain deep and better
interpretation of the discourse itself.
In the first part, I explain some important concepts such as the comparative
perspectives of formal and functional as well contextual and formal paradigm. This
section enables us to gain different perspectives on the ways of looking at a discourse.
The formal or structural is compared to contextual or functional as the different ways
of looking at a discourse. In addition to this section is an exploration of some
important terms such as context, cohesion, and coherence which need to be examined
when doing DA.
The second section of the chapter deals with some important approaches to
DA, which I adapted from Deborah Schriffin (1994), one important scholar in DA,
through her book entitled Approaches to Discourse. The approaches are speech act
theories, interactional sociolinguistics, the ethnography of communication, pragmatics,
conversation analysis, and variation analysis. These approaches can be applied to do
DA.

2.1 Some Important Concepts

2.1.1 Formal and Functionalist Paradigms
There are two categories in understanding a discourse which was proposed
by Schriffin (1994, p. 20). They are “formal paradigm” in which a discourse is “a
particular unit of language (above the sentence)” and “functionalist paradigm” in
which a discourse is “a particular focus (on language use)”. The first paradigm looks
at a discourse as seen on the sentence or in the form itself whereas the latter sees a
discourse in terms of function.
The first definition by Schriffin (1994) is mostly related to the formalism or
structuralism paradigm. In this paradigm, a discourse is analyzed based on the
“structures”. Dijk (1985) refers this way of analysis as ways to observe several levels
and dimensions of analysis in various unit, categories, schematic patterns, or relations.
The second definition of discourse by Schriffin (1994) views a discourse as “a
particular focus on language use”. This is related to the second paradigm,
functionalism. This is also suited with Brown and Yule’s definition of a discourse
(1983, p. 1) that “the analysis of discourse is necessarily, the analysis of language in
use”. Therefore, a discourse needs to be analyzed by integrating the forms and
functions in order to acquire proper usage of language for communication.
Hymes contrasted the two paradigms above: structural (formal) and functional
approach as follows:
Table 2: Structural and functional paradigm

Structurational paradigm
 Table 3: Leech
Formalism Functionalism
Language is a mental phenomenon Language is a social phenomenon
Linguistic universals are derived from a
Linguistic universals are derived from the
common genetic linguistics inheritance of
universality of the uses to which language
the human species is put in human society
Children acquisition is explained in terms
Children acquisition is explained in terms
of a built-in human capacity to learnof the development of the child’s
language communicative needs and abilities in
society
Language is studied as an autonomous Language is studied in relation to its social
system function
(Cited in Schriffin, 1994, pp. 21-22)

The different emphases of the above two paradigms is that functionalism is

consistent with the ways of analyzing a discourse as language use and as “social
phenomena” whereas for formalism, language is seen as “mental phenomenom”.
Schriffin (1994, p. 32) notes that approaches based on functionalism will draw
variety of methods in analyzing a discourse, not only “quantitative methods” but also
“humanistically interpretive efforts to replicate actors’ own purposes and goals”.
Therefore, it is important to understand that formalist paradigm in analyzing a
discourse will rely less on “grammatical characteristics of utterances”. Indeed, they
rely much on “the way utterances are situated in contexts”. Tannen’s definition (1989)
also meets the requirement of analyzing a discourse from this point of view. Tannen
states as follows:
Discourse—language beyond the sentence—is simply language—as it occurs, in any
context (including the context of linguistic analysis), in any form (including
two-made-up sentences in sequence; a tape recorded conversation, meeting, or
interview; a novel or play (cited in Schriffin, 1994, p. 38).

It can be concluded that analyzing a discourse is not only by paying attention

to what is in a sentence but also to what is out of a sentence. It is not only looking at
the forms but also at the functions.

2.1.2 Contextual and Formal

Discussion in the previous part implies that analyzing a discourse is not
merely analyzing on language form but also analyzing on language use. To
understand and be able to analyze a discourse, analyzing contextual facts rather than
formal facts are needed to be taken into account. In this way, context will play
important roles as the path to go through in analyzing language in use.
Cook (1990) introduced two ways of looking at a discourse namely by a
means of contextual facts and of formal facts. Contextual facts refer to “facts outside
language”. This means “somewhere outside the physical realization of the language”.
Formal facts may be understood as “features of the language as seen on the paper or
as heard in the ear” (p. 14). Widdowson (2007, p. 43) also comments that “as
communication takes place, in speech or writing, what is said at a particular point
naturally makes reference to what has been said before”. From this explanation, what
is actually needed in a discourse is not merely about what is seen in a language itself
but also what are the meanings implied in the language.
For that purpose, looking at a discourse needs both formal link and contextual
links. Cook (1990, pp. 15-22) mentions some types of formal links that can be used to
link the text such as verb form, parallelism, referring expressions, repletion and
lexical chains, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. These links function to create a
proper text linkage.
Nevertheless, the use of formal links is not enough to analyze discourse data.
Cook (1990, p. 23) states that “formal links reinforce the unity of discourse”, but
“they cannot, on their own, create it”. To create the unity of a discourse, he suggests
to discuss it in context. One of the ways suggested by Cook is by looking behind the
literal and the formal meaning of what is said or written. In addition, there is a need to
consider what the sender of a message intends to achieve with it in order to
understand its function.
The question is how to infer the function of what is said from its literal or
formal meaning? One way is suggested by Cook (1990), that is by “firstly examine
the range of possible functions of language, and then try to understand how people
correctly interpret them”. Hence, formal links need to be used together with the
contextual links. For this purpose, as suggested by Cook (1990, pp. 23-24), it is
important to understand a relation between form and function which is helpful to
explain the language because formal links between sentences are not enough to decide
whether a stretch of a language is a discourse or not.
Contextual links can be achieved by observing the functions of a language
over its form. Cook (1990, p. 26) suggests some functions of language to
communicate, such as (1) the emotive function, to communicate the inner states and
emotions of the addressee, (2) the directive function, which is to affect the behaviour
of the addressee, (3) the phatic function, to open the channel or check that is working,
(4) the poetic function, to emphasize the essence of message, (5) the referential
function, which is to carry information, (6) the metalinguistic function, by focusing
the code either to clarify or to renegotiate, and (7) the contextual function, that is by
creating a particular kind of communication.

2.1.3 Context
It is important for the discourse analysts to look at relating factors not only on
the language itself but also outside the language. What is seen in the text is as
important as what is not seen in the text. This acquires the explanation about context,
cohesion, and coherence as important aspects of looking at a discourse.
Widdowson defines context as “situation in which we find ourselves, the
actual circumstances of time and place, the here and now of the home, school, the
work place, and so on”. Context is further described as “an abstract representation of a
state of affairs”. Therefore, it is not “what is perceived in a particular situation, but
what is conceived as relevant” (2007, pp. 19-21) . In line with this, Cook (1990, p. 14)
comments that examining a context in a language require a look at several features
outside of a language such as the situation, the people involved, what they know and
what they doing”.
A quotation from Dijk (2008) may also give brief definition about context.
Dijk states that the notion of context is used whenever we want to indicate that some
phenomenon, event, action or discourse needs to be seen or studied in relationship to
its environment, that is, its “surrounding” conditions and consequences (p. 4). This is
supported by Martin (2001, p. 35) who states that “the goal of DA is to build a model
that places texts in their social contexts and looks comprehensively at the resources
which both integrate and situate them”
Kramsch (1998) defines context in two ways, namely “context of situation”
and “context of culture”. Context of situation relates to “understanding on why, what
how something is said” whereas context of culture relates to “the linkage of the words,
beliefs, and mindsets to other aspects”. Some aspects may contribute to this context of
culture such as tribal economics, social organization, kinship patterns, fertility rites,
seasonal rhythms, concepts of time, and spaces (p. 26).
One important t
 Halliday and Hasan (1976) describe that the categories of sentences to be
constituted as a text will be depending on the cohesion of the text. In order to create a
good cohesion in the text, cohesive relaters or connectors are needed. One type is
known as explicit markers such as (1) additive—and, or, furthermore, similarly, in
addition, (2) adversative—but, however, on the other hand, nevertheless, (3)
causal—so, consequently, for this reason, it follows from this, (4) temporal—then,
after that, an hour later, finally, at last. In addition, interpret the text, certain
relationship in the text need to be observed. When interpretation lies outside the text,
in the context of situation, exophoric relations are the focus whereas when the
interpretation lies within the text, there is endophoric relations, which form cohesive
ties within the text. Endophoric relations are two kinds, called anaphoric relations,
which look back in the text for interpretation and cataphoric relations which look
forward in the text for interpretation (Hasan and Halliday, 1976, cited in Brown and
Yule, 1983, pp. 190-191).
Cohesion can also be achieved by the use of co-reference such (1) repeated
form, in which one of the phrase or word is repeated twice or more in a sentence, (2)
partially repeated form—repeating a part of the phrase or sentence, (3) lexical
replacement, using another word to replace the preceding one such as by synonym, (4)
pronominal form, (5) substituted form, and elided form. In addition, cohesion can be
derived from lexical relationships such as hypogymy (daffodil is a hyponym for a
flower), partwhole (arm is a part of a man), collocability (Monday relates to Tuesday),
comparison, syntactic repetition, consistency of tense, stylistic choice, and so on
(Hasan and Halliday, cited in Brown and Yule, 1983, pp. 193-194).
Those cohesive ties or devices have important roles to supply cohesive
relations in the text. Therefore, in analyzing a form of a discourse, texture of the text
or the linkage of the text can be examined to understand the text and infer what is
happening in the text.
Besides being cohesive, a text has to be coherent as well. Cohesion may be
achieved by the use of cohesive devices within the text. However, a text may be
cohesive seen from the use of cohesive devices but it is not coherent. In relation to
this, Kramsch (1998, p. 49) states as follows:
cohesive devices are only aids to understanding and can only be effective to the
extent that they enable readers (or listeners) to construct meaning that makes
contextual sense to them, in other words to the extent that the cohesion in the text
enables them to derive a coherent discourse from it.
 Kramsch (1998, p. 28) comments that coherence cannot be seen in the
utterance of the speakers. It should be created in the minds of speakers and hearers by
making inferences on what they hear. Kramsch comments as follows:
The extent to which a text is interpreted as coherent discourse will always depend on
how far it can be related externally to contextual realities, to the ideational and
interpersonal schemata that readers are familiar with in the particular socio-cultural
world they live in (1998, p. 28)

Coherence implies that the concepts and relationships should be relevant to

each other in order to make inferences about the underlying meaning (Crystal, 2003, p.
119). Crystal further defines coherence as “the underlying logical connectedness of a
use of language” (2003, p. 423).
It can be concluded that coherence in the text is acquired by the use of logical
ideas or ideas interconnection of meaning within the text, which enable readers to
interpret what is going on in the text.

2.2 Some Important Approaches to Discourse

2.2.1 Speech Act Theories
Theories of speech acts that had been pioneered by two important
philosophers, John Austin and John Searle can become an important approach to
study and analyze a discourse. The basic belief from these theories is that “language is
used to perform actions” (Schriffin, 1994, p. 49). Therefore, what is explored through
the use of speech acts will be focused on the relationship between actions and
meanings.
Although speech act theory was developed firstly not as an approach to a
discourse, many researchers had applied these potential speech theories in analyzing
discourse data. Through speech act theory, researchers who apply DA allowed to
examine the performance of language used in communicative acts. Searle (1969, p.
21), another follower of speech act theory, comments as follows:
The hypothesis that the speech act is the basic unit of communication, taken together
with the principle of expressibility, suggests that there are a series of analytic
connection between the notion of speech acts, what the speaker means, what the
sentence (or other linguistic element) uttered means, what the speaker intends, what
the hearer understands, and what the rules governing the linguistic elements are (cited
in Schriffin, 1994, p. 90).

Schriffin (1994) notes that through speech act analysis of a language,

researchers may obtain “a picture and a description on what communicators perform
through their speech act utterances”. The analysis of speech act creates possibilities to
explore speakers’ language use. In addition, “speech act knowledge allows us to infer
not only that an interlocutor is doing something with words, but also that an
interlocutor is doing more than one thing at once with words” (pp. 90-91).

2.2.2 Interactional Sociolinguistics

The field of sociolinguistics provides the greatest number of issues in doing
DA. The issues in sociolinguistics are potential data for discourse. Issues such as
code-switching or other bilingual issues, issues about politeness in society in relation
to culture, and so on are mainly studied in sociolinguistics and become potential
issues for DA. Schriffin (1994) has noted that interactional sociolinguistics as one
approach to discourse is based on anthropology, sociology, and linguistics and shares
the concerns of three fields with culture, society, and language (p. 97, 134).
The work of DA using this interactional sociolinguistics can be seen in the
work of John Gumperz in the field of anthropology. Gumperz (1982) notes that
discourse strategies seek to develop “interpretive sociolinguistic approaches to the
analysis of real time processes in face to face encounters”. Cognition and language are
important aspect in this sense. These are affected by social and cultural forces such as
the way we behave and express ourselves in relation to a linguistic code and the
underlying categories of the code itself are open to external influence (cited in
Schriffin, 1994, p. 134).
Besides the work of Gumperz, the work of Ervin Goffman in the field of
sociology also contributes to interactional sociolinguistics. Goffman provides a
sociological framework to describe and understand “the form and meaning of the
social and interpersonal contexts that provide presuppositions for the interpretation of
meaning”. Goffman “forces structural attention to the contexts in which language is
used”, for examples situations, occasions, encounters, participation frameworks, and
so on. Language is also patterned in ways that reflect these contexts of use. Goffman
states that “language and context co-constitute one another”. In addition, “language
contextualises and is contextualised”. For that purpose, one interaction will be
grounded in terms of language, culture, and society (cited in Schriffin, 1994, p. 134).
2.2.3 Ethnography of Communication
Ethnographic method is used as an approach in doing DA. As one method in
qualitative research, ethnography becomes appropriate method in doing research,
especially in social sciences. Atkinson and Hammersley (1994) put some
characteristics of ethnography such as (1) a strong emphasis on the nature of
particular
Ethnographic Approach. The main point from the book is that the ethnography of
communication creates a framework of both anthropological and linguistic studies
In doing the ethnography of communication, researchers will be directed to find new
data, ask new questions, and propose new theories (Schriffin, 1994, p. 138).
Dijk (1997) states that with the concern of communicative events and ways of
speaking, ethnography of communication provides a new and more systematic and
explicit cross discipline for discourse. In this field, speakers of a language are not only
expected to know the grammars of a language but also to have a broader
communicative competence as cultural members, for example how to talk, to warn, or
to request should also be seen from the cultural aspects of a language.
This implies that practices of communication of people in one community,
under the concept of anthropology and linguistics, are to be governed by cultural
norms of a language. In using a language, people need to pay attention to the culture
surrounding the participants, either the speaker or the listener. All of these aspects can
become discourse data and therefore, can become one way of approaching the
discourse. A lot of studies in relation to discourse are carried out, under the discipline
of anthropology and linguistics or anthropolinguistics, using ethnography of
communication as the main approach.

2.2.4 Pragmatics
Crystal (2003) notes that a pragmatics is “a study about factors governing our
choice of language in social interaction and the effects of the choice on others” (p.
120). Some of those factors will influence the speakers’ selection of sounds,
grammatical constructions, and vocabulary from the resources of language. Like the
previous parts, pragmatics is also another broad approach to discourse. Pragmatics,
with its concerns on three main points namely meaning, context, and communication,
provides a broader area to explore people’s communication.
The best example of using pragmatics as an approach to discourse is the
work of Grice which is in the form of four specific maxims under the “cooperative
principle”. The four maxims are maxim of quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
Through the four maxims, implicatures can be treated; a maxim can be followed, a
maxim can be violated or flouted. The application of these “cooperative principle” to
discourse leads to a particular view of discourse and its analysis. Discourse as text
whose contexts (including cognitive, social, and linguistic contexts) allow the
interpretation of speaker meaning in utterances (Schriffin, 1994, p. 195, 227).
Levinson (1987, p. 54) mentions some examples of topics to be analyzed by
using pragmatics. One of them is the use of deixis such as the use of demonstratives,
first and second pronouns, tense, specific time and place adverbs like now and here,
and a variety of other grammatical features tied directly to the circumstances of
utterance. Other possible topics are conversational implicatures, and conversational
structures such as turn-taking, adjacency pairs, etc.

2.2.5 Conversation Analysis

Conversation Analysis (CA) is “a method of studying the structure of
conversations using the technique of ethnomethodeology, the detailed study of the
techniques used during linguistic interaction” (Crystal, 2003, p. 116). CA is also an
approach to a discourse, started by the use of ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel
and applied in conversations by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson.
The main concern is also on the problems of social order and how language both
creates and is created by social context (Schriffin, 1994, p. 232).
Some potential topics to be observed by using an approach of CA is a study of
talk-in interaction, which is according to Have (2000, p. 4), is a “study of the orders of
talk-in interaction, whatever its character and setting”. Indeed CA is a potential
approach of studying the discourse, although there are differences between CA and
DA as discussed in chapter 1 (1. 4).

2.2.6 Variation Analysis

Variation analysis is another approach to discourse which is based solely
within linguistics. The main focus is studies of variation and change in language.
Schriffin (1994) notes that the fundamental assumptions of such studies depend on the
pattern of linguistic variation both socially and linguistically, which can be discovered
by systematic investigation of a speech community (p. 282).
One of the focuses of the variation analyses to discourse is studies on
variation across text types. The comparison of text types is a key part of a variationist
approach to discourse. This greatly contributes not only to the knowledge of text level
variation but also to the understanding of how functional identities (and labels)
attributes to strings of utterances. Another focus is studies on variation within a
single-text type, such as analyzing coordinate and subordinate markers either in
general, or in specific text-types, .e.g. arguments, stories. One of the examples is the
analysis on the use of referring terms as linguistic variants within texts (Schriffin,
1994, p. 314, 331).

2.3 Summary
The important ideas dealt in this chapter are about the important concepts and
approaches in discourse study. One of the important points is that DA is a study not
only in the forms but also in the functions. The paradigms of structural or formal vs.
contextual or functional best described the focus of doing DA. In addition, the
approaches offered by Schriffin (1994) give choices of ways of looking and analyzing
discourses, all of them lead discourse analysts to see language use in their
interpretation. One type of language use in discourse can be analyzed by one or more
approaches proposed above.

2.4. Questions for Discussion

1. How formalism and functionalism differ in their approach to the discourse?
2. Find one topic to be analyzed based on the approaches that had been discussed in
this chapter.
 Chapter 3
Disciplines in Discourse Analysis

My intention in this chapter is to give overviews about the disciplines in doing

DA. This chapter is important to give descriptions about the scope of studies in DA,
which lead researchers to decide the disciplines of study as their focus in doing DA.
DA is a multidisciplinary approach and covers a wide range of disciplines
such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, etc. Brown and Yule (1983, p. viii) defines
DA based on its functions and areas, in which DA is
a wide range of meanings and a wide range of activities, to describe activities in the
intersection of disciplines: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, physical linguistics,
computational linguistics

Therefore, some disciplines can become the areas of DA such as

sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics, and computational
linguistics. Those disciplines can be used together in analyzing one issue in DA.
Dijk (1985) in his book entitled Handbook of Discourse Analysis collects
various works in relation to DA such as social psychology, sociology, socio-cultural
study, philosophy, history, and legal discourse. The same way was shown by Schriffin
et al., (2001) who identify some disciplines and areas of DA such as politics, media,
medicine, language teaching, legal; context, history, educational settings, etc. In
addition, McCarthy (1991) identifies some specific areas in DA, especially for
language teachers such as grammar, vocabulary, phonology, spoken language, and
written language.
Therefore, DA offers a wide ranging perspective of studies. As Shuy (2001, p.
437) confirms that one of the characteristics of DA is that “it is capable of application
in a wide variety of settings and context. Wherever there is continuous text, written or
spoken, there is a potential analysis of such text”.
Let us have a look into some of these different disciplines of DA study to see
how discourse analysts work within these different disciplines. Some of them are
linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguistic anthropology, philosophy,
history, literature, education, and law.
3.1 Linguistics
Since DA, as explained previously, is a part of linguistic study, the field of
language form will automatically become the main concern of doing DA.
 6. The ability of establish exophoric relations such as deixis (the relation between
linguistic choices and systematic aspects of the communicative act, such as the
identity of the participants, the time of the communicative act, the location of the
participants at the time of the communicative act, the social relations between the
participants, etc, register (the fit between linguistic choices and the acts, discourse
topics, and personnel in the associated activities, pragmatics (the relation between
the formation of an utterance and the acts that a performer of the utterance is
capable of accomplishing within a given context)
7. The ability to construe a text by constructing the characteristics of the world or
situation.
(pp. 13-14)

Therefore, one text, either spoken or written, can be analyzed by looking at the
use of grammatical patterns, vocabulary choices, and phonological cases. In her study
of politeness in Bugis, Mahmud (2008) found some grammatical expressions of Bugis
politeness such as the use of pronouns, participant avoiders, and some phonological
alternations, which are regarded as linguistic aspects of Bugis politeness.

3.2 Sociolinguistics
Levi-Strauss says “to say language is to say society” (cited in Duranti, 1997, p.
337). This means that one concept of society can be interpreted from the way
language is used by the particular groups within the society. The pattern of social life
in one community can be seen from the language they use in communicating and
interacting. This can be studied in the area of sociolinguistics.
Sociolinguistics is a branch of linguistic study whose main concern is on the
relationship between language and society. Crystal (2003) puts definition about
sociolinguistics which is “the study of the interaction between language and the
structure and functioning of society” (p. 418). In Chambers Concise Dictionary (2004,
p. 1146), sociolinguistics is defined as “the study of the relationships between
language and the society which uses it”. Romaine (1994, p. 222) also comments that
sociolinguistics aims to explain variations of language by looking at “social forces or
agents”.
Therefore, sociolinguistics is the study about how language is used in a
particular society. This means that in studying a particular language in a particular
society, one will also study the whole society. It is because the study of a particular
language in one society has a purpose of knowing that society. In fact, sociolinguistic
study can extend its analysis in other areas, and of course, needs different perspectives
in its analysis. One of them is the integration of cultural aspects of using language.
Stubbs (1983) states that sociolinguistics requires a correlative study on many
linguistic features (p. 8). Since the main focus of sociolinguistics is on how people
interact using a language in one particular society, analysis in terms of discourse in
this discipline need to investigate how those people use the language, especially in the
forms of spoken language. As stated by Stubbs (1983, p. 7) as follows:
Sociolinguistics will ultimately have to be based on analysis of how people actually
talk to each other in everyday settings, such as streets, pubs, shops, restaurants, buses,
trains, schools, doctor’s surgeries, factories, and homes. Therefore, sociolinguistics
will have to incorporate analyzes of how conversation works: that is how talk between
people is organized; what makes it coherent and understandable; how people
introduce and change topics; how they interrupt, ask questions, give or evade answers;
and in general, how the conversational flow is maintained or disrupted

Therefore, DA will be directed toward the use of a particular language in a

particular society. This can be in the form of conversations as influenced by
sociolinguistic patterns, such as differences in age, social status, gender, familiarity,
or situations. Other aspects of sociolinguistics such as the use of dialects, diglossia,
speech levels, registers, or any variations of language use may become the focus of
attentions of sociolinguistic study in DA.
An example of DA study in this field is a study on speech levels such as in
Javanese conducted by Errington (1985, 1986, 1988, 1998), Berman (1998), Wajdi
(2009), in Sundanese by Wessing (1974), in Sasak in West Timor by Mahyuni (2003),
and in Bugis by Mahmud (2008). By analyzing the data obtained by recording the
conversations, those studies found several speech levels used in the community. The
speech levels found in this study were affected by many aspects in society such as
power and gender.

3.3 Psycholinguistics
We define psycholinguistics as the study about the integrated study between
language and thought. Crystal (2003, p. 418) defines psycholinguistics as “the study
of the relationship between linguistic behaviour and the psychological processes (e.g.
memory, attention)”. In Chambers Concise Dictionary, psycholinguistics is defined as
“the psychological study of language development and the relationship between
language and mental processes, e.g. memory, mental disorders, etc” (2004, p. 963).
 Psycholinguistics also becomes the field of study for DA. In the field of
psycholinguistics, discourse analysts will pay attention to the issues related to
language comprehension. In line with this, Dardjowidjojo (2008) states that there are
four important matters to be studied in psycholinguistics: (1) comprehension, mental
processes experienced by humans to understand about particular things, (2)
production, mental processes of humans to be able to utter particular language, (3)
biological and neurological concerns which make humans can speak a language, and
(4) language acquisition, how children can acquire their languages throughout their
development (p. 7). These four aspects may be reflected in the way people use a
language which can also be analyzed under the discipline of DA .
One example of study in this discipline is the study on how children aged
below 6 years old acquire their first and second language. Analysis can be in the
forms of talk they produced and strategies to communicate with the other children or
to the older people such as their parents.

3.4 Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropology is an interdisciplinary field which is formed of
linguistics and anthropology. As we know that linguistics is the study of language
whereas anthropology is the study of human kind. Therefore, we may say linguistic
anthropology is the study human kind in relation to language. Linguistic anthropology
or anthropology linguistics (the two terms are used in the same meaning) will mainly
concern on the language use in relation to human culture.
Crystal (2003, p. 418) defines linguistic anthropology as the study of “language
variation and use in relation to cultural patterns and beliefs of the human race”.
Duranti (1997, p 2) also defines linguistic anthropology as “the study of language as a
cultural resource and speaking as a cultural practice”. Duranti (1997, p. 3) further
states that linguistic anthropology is
an inherently interdisciplinary field which relies upon and expands existing method in
other discipline, linguistics and another in particular with the general goal of
providing an understanding of the multifarious aspects of language as a set of cultural
practices, that is a system of communication that allows for interpsychological
between individual and intrapsychological representatives of the social order and
helps people use such representatives for constituting social acts

Linguistic anthropology is also a discipline of linguistics which becomes the

area of study of DA. The main focus can be in the forms of speech in a particular
culture, such as ritual languages, religious languages, and so on. One of the examples
is the study of politeness practices in Bugis society or in Javanese society. In this case,
studies will be directed to find out how Bugis or Javanese people express their
politeness influenced by the cultural aspects of Bugis or Javanese people (Berman,
1998; Mahmud, 2008).

3.5 Philosophy
Philosophy is another field which becomes the areas of studies in DA. This
may be related to philosophical linguistics. In this field, the main concern is the
relationship between language and its meanings, or which is commonly known as the
disciplines of semantics.
Brown and Yule (1983) emphasize that philosophical linguistics are
particularly concerned with “semantic relationships between constructed pairs of
sentences and with their syntactic realizations”. It also concerns with “relationships
between sentences” (p. viii). An example of study in this aspect is about the use of
metaphors or any kinds of figures of speech in a particular text.

3.6 History
History also becomes a major in DA. It can have several functions for
historians. Struever (1985) mentions the functions of DA for historians as both for
critique and self-critique. It functions as (1) a tool of inquiry in the traditional task of
interpretation of source, the exploitation of the archive of pertinent discourses that the
historians use to reconstruct the past (2) a tool to reveal the discursive strategies of
presentation. Struever furthermore mentions that there are three main types of
historical discourse, namely history as narrative, rhetorical style, and argument (1985,
p. 250).
There are some approaches to apply T/F3 12 Tf0.000008872 0 595.4 841.ETQ9s 4(ruc)i4o d 6tics
involving a synthesis of discourse and diachrony by looking at changes in discourse
marking, functions, and structures over time (pp. 13-140).
Brinton (2001) mentions some aspects to be concerned in historical DA. The
first one is philologist on “mystery words”, inflectional forms, collocations, and
textual structures. Examples as topic marking, participant tracking, given/new
information, narrative segmentation, expressions of subjectivity, and internal or
external evaluation. The second one is examination of usual activities of diachronic
linguistics combined with a consideration of discourse factors such as sources, causes,
or motivation of changes. The third is the study of origin, diachronic development,
loss of discourse markers, changes in discourse structures, or alterations in text types
over time (p. 152).
Historical account of one particular society can become a good area of doing
DA. For example, historical record of Bugis history (e.g. attoriolong, Lontara Latoa,
etc), can be analyzed to see the linguistic styles or Bugis expressions in Bugis society
compared to the present Bugis community.

3.7 Literature
Another discipline of study in DA is on literature. It should be noted that in
doing DA, written productions, which are commonly known as “literary text” can also
be a part of analysis. Mey (2001) confirms that a pragmatic study of literary activity
can be concentrated to “the features that characterize the dialectic aspect of literary
production” (p. 788).
Studies will be directed to investigate the usage of literary works as resources
of texts for analysis. Any kinds of literary work such as poems, drama, short stories,
and novels can be used as resources of text to analyze. Drama, for example, can be
used to analyze spoken discourse. Students can be assigned to perform one type of
drama in the class. The performance can be recorded and interpreted later. Next
activity will be about elaborating the transcribed texts in relation to language use (e.g.
phonological, morphological, context).

3.8 Law
Shuy (2001) states that “the area of law provides an open opportunity for DA”
and that “law is a fertile field for DA”’. The field of law is generally regarded “as a
field containing written discourse” and that “cases occurring in court are preserved in
written form to serve as the basis for later decisions and to record the cases for later
review”. Shuy mentions some forms of written or spoken text that can be obtained
from law field such as motions, counterclaims, judges’ opinions, trial testimony,
questioning, and argument (2001, p. 437).
In this law field, or as referred by Shuy (2001) as “legal context”, many
possibilities of occurring cases can become the focus of doing DA, either in the form
of written or spoken language. An example is the study of criminal cases. The study
can be focused on court hearings. A case of divorce, for example, may provide written
and spoken discourse on reasons for sexual harassment in family. Spoken data can be
obtained by recording the explanations of suspects, or any related persons. Shuy’s
study (1993, cited in Shuy, 2001, p. 440), for example, analyzed speech acts such as
promising, offering, denying, agreeing, threatening, warning, and apologizing as
evidence in criminal cases.

3.9 Education
The field of education provides outstanding resources for doing DA. That is
because people involved in the areas of educations, teachers, school principals,
students can have contributions to the study of talks. Rogers (2004) points out the
important roles of education as the source of DA as follows:
that educational contexts are potential sources of studying discourses such as
interactions between teachers and students, curriculum documents, institutional
meetings, state think tanks charged to address current educational issues. Therefore,
researchers are able to describe, interpret, and explain the relationships among
language and important educational issues (p. 10).

Shuy and Griffin (cited in Adger, 2001, p. 503) has noted that “whatever goes
on there, what they do in schools on any day is talk”. Adger furthermore states that
“the fabric of schooling is woven in linguistic interaction” (2001, p. 503). Adger
(2001) further mentions the focuses of DA in educational settings such as “to uncover
the ways in which talk at school is unique and thus what children must be able to do
linguistically in order to succeed there” (p. 503).
Therefore, interaction in the schools is potential issues in DA. The focus can be
in the class activities, such as teaching by teachers and learning by students. Teachers
and students interactions in the class, for examples, questions and answers, lecturing,
class discussion, can be the focus of DA.
 Adger (2001) promotes some topics to be explored in educational settings
such as exploring classroom interaction as cultural practice (e.g. cultural background
of teachers and students), literacy development of students (e.g. the acquisition and
use of written language, the interweaving of talk and text, and the genres or discourses
associated with schools), and discourse study of second language development.
An example of study is the use of code-switching in the class by teachers and
students (Elridge, 1996; Hutahuruk, 2009). Focus of study can be by observing the
kinds of languages used by teachers and students in the classroom interactions and
their reasons to switch their languages to one another.

3.10 Politics
Politics is one of the potential fields of exploring discourses. Activities in
political matters can provide critical areas and issues to be potentially explored in
relation to discourses. In this discipline, ideas on power and other related issues may
be brought into discussion. Wilson (2001) comments that studies of political matters
have become the interest of discourse analysts since the early 1980s and its main
purpose is to find out how “language choice is manipulated for specific political effect”
(p. 410).
One example of study in this political discourse is a study of Obama’s speech
by Yulimar (2010) and Ginting (2009). Ginting in his study, for example, found some
differences in the ways the two presidents, Obama and the former Indonesian
President, Soesilo Bambang Yudoyono delivered their speech in their inauguration
day. Some differences can be seen in terms of politeness, the use of identity and group
markers, promising, and offering, and so on.

3.11 Summary
The above explanation only covers some of the disciplines under the scope of
DA. Each of them provides nuanced and broad issues to be explored under the
discipline of DA. I belief that there are still some other disciplines that had not been
mentioned through this chapter. I just want to categorize that whatever there are
people interacting to each other by using a language, potential data for discourse are
there.
3.12 Questions for Discussion
1. What are the different approaches applied in discourse for the disciplines
discussed in this chapter?
2. Find one example of issue that can be analyzed under each of the discipline
above.
3. Find one article in national or international journal that become the example of
work of DA in those above discipline.
DOING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION

By

MURNI MAHMUD

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

i
 This book is dedicated to:

Adhwa Dhaifullah Anwar

My cute son born in Canberra, Australia by the end of

my thesis submission. He is now 8 years old

You are the light of my lights

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

First of all, I would like to extend my high gratitude to Almighty God

who has given me His endless blessing, without which I would not have been able
to complete this most remarkable work in my life, my most precious contribution
to knowledge.
It is my privilege to announce that this book is a compilation of my
teaching materials during the time I teach the subject. The need to provide
valuable resources for teaching Discourse Analysis encourages me to compile this
book.
Thanks to my university, State University of Makassar. I am glad to say
that this book is my prominent contribution to my academic life. I am also
thankful to the Graduate Program of the State University of Makassar. The
Director, Prof. Dr. Jasruddin, M.Si. and Head of English Study Program, Prof. Dr.
H. Haryanto, M.Pd., who had supported me in the writing of this book and had
given a chance to use the book as reading material in one of the subjects in
English Study Program.
I would like to express my appreciation to my students who had taken
Discourse Analysis as their focus of their research: Andi Patmasari, Reski
Uspayanti, Yusnaeni, Agussatriana, Muthmainnah Mursidin, Nurul Hasanah, Eka
Fatmawati, Adi Chandra, Sujariati, Markus Deli Girik, Nilma Tau’labi, Ramli,
Sulfiah Ulfa, Suryani Jihad, Ramlan Purnawan, Nunung Anugrawati, and many
others, whom I cannot mention one by one. Hopefully, doing Discourse Analysis
in your research gives you all new inspiration in developing your ideas about
research. I am sure that although doing Discourse Analysis is a rather conflicting
work, it will soon become a fantastic job when you are accustomed to it. You will
enjoy it.
Thanks also to all of the students of Graduate Program whom I teach
Discourse Analysis. I will say that you are all my inspirations to always conduct a
research. Working with you all always encourages me to do research more and
more. In my inauguration speech for my Professorship, 18 March 2015, I stated:

Semoga gelar yang saya terima ini bukan hanya menjadikan nama saya
lebih panjang, tetapi lebih sebagai motivasi untuk terus berkarya

“Hopefully the title of professor awarded for me is not merely to make my

name longer, but more as a motivation to continue working”

This book is intended to accommodate my idea to be inspiring Professor

with beneficial work. Hopefully this book invites more ideas for me to write in the
future.

iii
 I ask for forgiveness for not mentioning all the names in this book. I do
hope this book will become good resource for readings in Discourse Analysis and
in linguistic study as a whole.

Makassar, 26 November 2016

Murni Mahmud

iv
 CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
CONTENTS v
AUTHOR’S PREFACE vii
FOREWORD x
Chapter 1 Introducing Discourse Analysis 1
1.1 What is Discourse 1
1.2 Discourse Analysis (DA) 3
1.3 Content Analysis 7
1.4 Conversation Analysis (CA) 8
1.5 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 10
1.6 Historical Overview 11
1.7 Why Discourse Analysis 12
1.8 Summary 13
1.92 Tm0 g0 G[( )] TJETQq0.000008872 0 595.4 841.8 reW* nBT/F5 12 Tnf1 0 0 1 268

v
 4.1 Areas of Discourse Analysis 39
4.1.1 Classroom Interaction 39
4.1.2 Courtroom Interaction 40
4.1.3 Children Conversation 40
4.1.4 Mass Media and Social Media 41
4.1.5 Other Formal and Informal Settings 41
4.2 Issues in Discourse Analysis 42
4.2.1 Politeness 42
4.2.2 Speech Acts 43
4.2.3 Power Conflict 44
4.2.4 Gender-Related Issues 45
4.2.5 Non-Verbal Communication 46
4.2.6 Code-Switching 47
4.2.7 Discourse Markers 48
4.2.8 Teacher Talk 49
4.2.9 Summary 49
4.2.10 Questions for Discussion 50
Chapter 5 Methods of Discourse Analysis 51
5.1 The Ground 51
5.2 Data Collection 54
5.2.1 Types of Discourse Data 54
5.2.2 Methods of Producing Data 56
5.3 Data Analysis 60
5.3.1 Selecting Data 60
5.3.2 Transcription 61
5.3.3 Interpreting 62
5.3.4 Reporting 65
5.4 Summary 65
5.5 Questions for Discussion 66
Chapter 6 Samples of Discourse Analysis 68
6.1 Politeness 68
6.2 Conversational Implicature 78
6.3 Code-Switching 81
6.4 Speech Acts 84
6.5 Summary 86
6.7 Questions for Discussion 86
References 87
Curriculum Vitae 95

vi
 AUTHOR’S PREFACE
The writing of this book is inspired by the need to provide appropriate
books in the course of Discourse Analysis. This course is an important part of
linguistic study. This course becomes the main subject studied by university
students in all levels, in undergraduate degree, in master degree, and in the
doctorate degree. In addition, Discourse Analysis, which I then wrote as DA in
this book is now a trending method in doing research, especially in qualitative
research. Researchers have been using this method in data analysis, besides the
use of quasi-experimental design.
My main intention in writing this book is to explore the theoretical
background of DA as a branch of study in linguistics. I attempt as well to examine
the methods used in doing DA and later to give exercises for students in doing DA.
This book can become a good reference for students in doing DA, as additional
sources for doing DA.
During the time I teach this course, I find some interesting cases. Students
find many copied books. They have plenty of books on DA copied from original
books. They can also read many resources about DA from the internet through
free search engines such as Google or Wikipedia. Indeed, they can download a
free e-book from the internet about DA. The problem that I think it is urgent is
that those students find difficulties to understand the theories of DA. Not only that,
several students told me that they had learned DA in their level before such as in
undergraduate program; however, they still do not understand what DA is exactly.
More problems exist when they were asked about what to do in DA. Often when
they had read so many books in DA, problems occurred when the questions came
to “how to do DA?”. What they need besides learning theories is actually
practicing to apply DA in their work, their paper, and also in their research later.
In undergraduate degree, for example, when I explained a little bit about
DA in the class of Introduction to Linguistics as a part of linguistic study, I got the
impression that the students had not got ideas about it. Especially when I
explained that DA requires higher level of thinking as it is about analysis not only
on the sentences, clauses, or phrases, but within the sentences, clauses, or phrases,
students said that the study must be very difficult.
In master degree program when I am usually given the responsibility to
teach the course, students gave a lot comments. One of them is about the
difficulties they encountered when doing DA, especially when they were given
the tasks to analyze spoken discourses. Problems cover when they had to produce
data by recording, transcribing the collected data, and later interpreting the data.
One of the students said, “let’s pray so we can pass this subject”. Another
comment, “I always got dizzy after joining the class DA”. Some students said that
they did not actually know or understand about DA. I asked them again, “what did
you do during the course?”. They said “it was just discussion about theories”. My
impression is that what they want actually is not only theories and concepts on
DA, but also on practices of doing DA.
Surprisingly, students in the post-graduate program (S3) admitted that DA
is a new thing for them. They said, “It is new for me”. When I asked whether they

vii
had learned it before, they said, “We never studied it before”. Another comment
was “I have studied it but I did not know what DA was”. When I asked their
reasons, they said that they only learned about theories, no methods or practices.

viii
from my study on Politeness in Bugis, a part of my Ph.D thesis. Because my
intention is not only for doing DA in English language only, I also provide some
examples from other languages, such as Bugis language and Indonesian language.
The book was written in six chapters. In the first chapter, I provide
theories and concepts that readers need to have as a starting point in
understanding DA. The second chapter is about some important concepts and
approaches for DA. The third chapter is about the disciplines which become the
scope of study in DA. Reading this chapter will give underlying ideas about what
fields to be discussed in order to use and do DA. The fourth part is about the areas
and issues in doing DA containing the setting or areas and the issues that may be
taken as a focus in doing DA. The fifth part of the book is about the methods of
doing DA, providing the steps in doing DA and aspects related to the process of
collecting and analyzing the discourse data. The sixth chapter is examples of work
in doing DA, which are very important as a model in doing DA. Exercises and
examples of articles written in DA are also provided.
Since this is the first edition, I guess that the book is still far from being
perfect. I still do the editing process and wish to provide better product in the next
edition.
The Author,
Murni Mahmud, 26 November 2016

ix
 FOREWORD
Head of English Study Program, Graduate Program, State University of
Makassar
It is my privilege to introduce this book entitled “Doing Discourse
Analysis: An Introduction”, written by Murni Mahmud, Professor in English
Education Department, Faculty of Languages and Literature, State University of
Makassar. Murni Mahmud is majoring in Anthropology Linguistics. She teaches
some subjects in the area of Linguistics such as Sociolinguistics, Anthropology
Linguistics, Morphology, Syntax, and Discourse Analysis (DA).
This book is expected to provide resources in the study of DA. This
subject has become an important subject and has been chosen as a compulsory
subject in the English Study Program, the Graduate Program, State University of
Makassar. Plenty of books on DA are available, copied and obtained from e-books.
This book at least provides good examples and good procedures in doing DA.
What students need is also practices or strategies of applying DA.
Hopefully this book gives benefit in the study of DA. I expect that students
in the Graduate Program, especially in English Study Program, can choose DA as
one method in doing their research. With the increasing interest of qualitative
research, hopefully this book may give introductory steps in doing DA.

Prof. Dr. H. Haryanto, M.Pd.

x
 Chapter 5
Methods of Discourse Analysis

After exploring some of the concepts, disciplines, areas, and issues in doing
Discourse Analysis (DA), I should come to another important aspect, which I consider
as the most important part, that is the methods in doing DA. Theories and concepts in
doing DA had been explored, then ways of doing it or methods are the next important
idea. I should say that theory without practice is nothing, and therefore, what I
explored in this chapter is the basic idea of directing the researcher or discourse
analysts to do the DA in practice.
For that purpose, I divide this part into three important sections. The first
section, which I entitle ‘The Ground’ is about the first step in doing DA, that is the
identifications of problems for investigations. This includes the process of deciding
the discipline, areas, and issues in doing DA. The second one is the data collections
procedures covering some of the important aspects in collecting data. Forms or types
of discourse need to be explained first as the compass in determining the focus,
whether written or spoken. The third or the last section is some steps in process of
analyzing, such as data selection, transcription, interpretation, and reporting.

5.1 The Ground

My conversation with one of the classes I taught DA become inspiration in this
section. I had asked them to identify the topic for their DA project, by deciding the
issue, discipline, and setting for exploration. Then I had asked to record based on
these aspects. To my surprise, one of the students just came to the class with data of
conversation that had been recorded, but did not know what to do with the recording.
Then I said that it was not the recording that should be first provided in doing DA.
Rather, before obtaining the recording for the data, problems of investigation should
be known first. It is not the data that led them to problems, rather it is the problems
that direct them to find suitable data.
They often said that they did not know what to do with the data. This
happened because they did not identify the problems to be investigated. They just
collected data, often very general data, but not specific data which became their
purpose in their research. For example, when they decided to investigate spoken
interaction in the classroom, they directly recorded classroom interactions without
specifying the particular aspects to investigate. Because of the plenty of data they
have obtained, they got confused which one to choose. The ideal way is to decide first
the problems, aspects to be investigated, locations to collect data, and how to collect
data. These what, why, and how procedures can make them easy in data collections.
Consequently, it is necessary to define the ground by identifying the problems
to be investigated. This is very important in order that researchers know exactly what
to do in the field. It is important to bear in mind that DA is one method of doing
research, especially qualitative research. Therefore, what is needed in other researches
is also needed in doing DA such as problems of research, objectives of the research,
and scope of the research.
Therefore, the research ground should be first determined. The first step can be
by choosing the topic, under the scope of DA. When the topic is in your hand, the
next task is to identify the problem. After that, disciplines, areas, and settings are
located in relation to the topic. Next is the identification of the problem, which leads
to know the gap between the things already happened and the things that are expected.
Here it leads the researchers to find the exact problems. This is commonly known as
problem statement, which is according to Evans (1996, p. 63), is the “context of the
research, the reason it was worth tackling, the precursor to the research aim”.
Next is about the purposes of research. Of course, there is a purpose in doing
DA. It is important to lay down the purposes of the research from the very beginning.
The objectives of the research should be correlated with the raised problems. For
example, if the topic is about “discourse markers in the classroom interaction”, decide
first the main objectives. Is that to find out the types of discourse markers or is that to
compare the different usages of teachers’ cohesive devices? Do not directly go to the
classroom and record teh teaching process. Otherwise, the recording will be out of
order without any purposes.
Any benefits from the research? It is useless to do nothing! It is important to
consider the importance of the research. One research without any significance is of
course useless. What is the benefit of conducting the research and what are the
contributions of your findings later to your study particularly and in general. There
should be a follow up after getting the findings later and therefore it is necessary to
specify the benefit or the main advantages of conducting the research.
 When problems have been specified, the next activity is to propose research
questions. These questions lead the research. Investigations are directed to answer
those research questions. Therefore, the questions should be clear.
When the above matters have been fixed, the next task is to locate the
references. Some readings are needed to obtain corresponding materials. The
availability of the references is an important consideration to begin the research. Do
not ever write about a topic when the references are not available. However, it should
not be problems for students to find out appropriate references due to the availability
of supporting references.
In doing DA, the above steps are very important. The choice of the topic, the
identification of the problems, the purposes, and the significance, the research
questions formulation, the references location are needed before collecting data.
Otherwise, the data for the research will not be well-organized and not well directed.
When the topic is clear, it is easier too to determine the discipline and the areas of the
study. One example is as follows:
Topic: language usage by English teachers.
Disciplines: Sociolinguistics, Educations
Areas: Classroom interaction
Purposes:
1. to find out the types of languages used by English teachers
2. to find out the reasons for various language usages of the teachers.
Significance:
Important contributions for language teachers in the classroom in order to find out
the suitable languages used in the classroom.
Research questions:
what language used by English teachers in the classroom
what are their reasons for choosing those languages

Looking at the above example, it can be seen that the project of doing DA will
be in the classroom setting, under the discipline of sociolinguistics. The topics to
investigate is about the language use focusing on two important aspects namely the
types of language use and the reasons for using those types of language use. This
information leads the researcher to decide the next steps in collecting data. He or she
needs to collect data in the classroom by recording teachers’ conversation in the class
such as in teaching or in class discussion.

5.2 Data Collection

The ground of the research as explained previously will lead the researcher to
decide the procedures of data collections. What to investigate? What kinds of data to
be taken, either written or spoken? and of course how to find or produce the data? As
discussed in the previous chapter, there are two kinds of discourse data, namely
spoken and written discourse. The decision of whether to take spoken or written
discourse will be depending on the disciplines and the areas of the DA as discussed in
the previous chapter as well.

5.2.1 Types of Discourse Data

There are two main types of discourse data, namely spoken and written.
Spoken data can be obtained through the recordings of conversations in various
situations. These spoken data need to be transcribed in the forms of text and therefore,
they can be read and analyzed. Meanwhile, written data can be obtained from written
or printed sources such as magazines, newspapers, etc. However, written will need
transcription too.
McCarthy (1991, p. 12) states that DA classifies some types of spoken
interactions as follows:
(1) telephone calls (business and private),
(2) service encounters (shops, ticket offices, etc),
(3) interviews (jobs, journalistic, in official settings),
(4) classroom (classes, seminars, lectures, tutorials),
(5) rituals (church prayers, sermons, weddings),
(6) monologues (speeches, stories, jokes),
(7) language in action (talk accompanying doing: fixing, cooking, assembling,
demonstrating, etc),
(8) casual conversation (strangers, friends, intimates), and
(9) organizing and directing (work, home, in the street)

However, DA also covers written discourse. As stated by McCarthy (1991, p.

12), data in the forms of written also become the areas of DA such as newspaper
articles, letters, stories, recipes, instructions, notices, comics, billboards, leaflets, and
so on. Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 68) classify two main types of discourse, namely
spoken and written discourse.
Table 4: Types of Discourse Data

Spoken Discourse Written Discourse

Face to face interaction: Correspondence type:
home (including residential institutions); Letters; memoranda; messages; e-mail
schools; offices or work sites; medical (including chat groups); questionnaires
settings (hospitals, clinics, physician’s and written responses; requests for
offices, nursing homes); legal settings feedback such as by stores and airlines
(police stations, courthouses, prisons);
playgrounds (athletic clubs, tennis courts,
golf courses); museums; theatres;
cinemas; stores; restaurants; and street
settings. In addition, activities can be
household chores, recreational
interactions, parties such as meals,
meetings, coffee breaks, joint task,
simulations or training exercises; medical
interviews (discussions, meetings,
questions and answer sessions, interviews,
and other exchanges); classroom or
seminar discussions, job talks, book clubs,
focus groups; faculty meetings,
community meetings, conferences,
conventions; ordering and purchasing
merchandise, trading at the stock
exchange, auctions, talk at
information-return-complaint counters;
therapy sessions, medical consultations;
 Besides spoken and written data, there is also non-verbal data. This type of data
can be seen in the analysis of non-verbal communication such as the use of gestures
by the speakers in one communicative activity, teachers’ eye contact and its effects on
students’ interaction, proxemics in the class, and so on.

5.2.2 Methods of Producing Data

There are many kinds of ways of producing data depending on the types of
discourse to be investigated. Let us discuss some of them as follows:
5.2.2.1 Recordings, Records, and Reports
Talking about discourse is automatically referring to the language in use and
not language in the abstract. Therefore, it refers to the words that were spoken and to
the text that was written. Of course what it needed is the audio or video recording for
spoken discourse whereas for written discourse, we need records (Wood and Kroger,
2000, p. 55).
It can be seen that recording and records are two potential sources of DA in
which recordings are for spoken discourse and records for written discourse.
Recording itself can be by audio recording by using tape recorder. In this case, the
tape recorder can only catch verbal data. Video recording can record more than verbal
interactions. It is then potential to get non-verbal interaction as well as verbal
interaction by using video recording.
When doing the recordings, the issue of naturalness is extremely important.
How to get natural recording on particular interaction? Often, researchers are hindered
by the facts that they cannot produce natural recordings. Respondents, for example,
are aware of being recorded and sometimes they pretend to act or perform like what
are expected by researchers. In line with this idea, Wood & Kroger (2000) state that
the concern for discourse is that the recording is “naturally occurring”, which is not
produced through “the instigation of the researcher” and therefore should be
“unplanned or spontaneous” (p. 57). In addition, researchers should be aware that the
recording can be affected by the process of recording, the presence of the researcher
during the process, and so on.
Problems occur because researchers have to get the concerns from the
respondents. It is beyond the ethical reasons for recording people without their
concerns. Respondents do need to know that they are being recorded and of course
they need to know the reasons. Researchers cannot hide the recordings. However,
respondents do not need to know the details of what to record. For example, when I
did my research, my intention was to record speakers’ politeness practices. Some of
the informants only knew that I did research on Bugis culture. They did not indeed
know the detail of the study. A few times of the recording, informants were aware that
they were being recorded. However, when the recording had been conducted for many
times, informants became accustomed to it and did not care anymore about the
recording.
Therefore, researchers need some strategies in order to get a natural recording.
The audio or video recording which last for 5 to 10 minutes may not be used as data
because this duration of the recording is potentially unnatural. Researchers need to
select data from the recording that last after 10 minutes.
By applying participant observation in which researchers are getting closer
interactions with respondents, researchers may be able to produce natural recordings.
Often fieldwork needs at least one year or more than one year to conduct research.
Few months of the fieldwork are needed by researchers to get familiar with
respondents, so that respondents still aware of being recorded but researchers can get
natural recordings (see 2.2.3 about ethnography of communication in chapter 3).
When I did my fieldwork for my Ph.D studies, I did not get difficulties to get
natural recordings. My background as Bugis helped me to interact with the local
community. My respondents still knew that they were going to be recorded. But, they
did not know details of my purposes. Some intended recordings were obtained but I
applied good selections among the recordings.
In order to control the data recordings, it is important to pay attention to high
fidelity. Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 56) state that, “the recordings of spoken
discourse must be of high fidelity; that is, it must correspond as closely as possible to
the discourse”. Therefore, researchers need to guarantee that the recordings take the
data that become the purpose of the research.
One problem may occur due to the usage of the recordings equipment. Often
respondents keep talking about how well or how modern the equipment used by the
researchers. In this way, researchers need to do data selection later. In addition, it is
suggested that researchers do not use unusual equipment that is not familiar to
respondents, especially when collecting data in remote areas. However, it cannot be
denied that the use of those recording equipment may attract the attentions especially
for villagers. It is necessary to be aware as well that there will be many people who
want to be recorded although they are not target respondents. For this purpose,
researchers need to adjust with the situations.
Besides recordings, data can be collected based on the reports. Reports are “a
recollection of what was said by researchers or other observers” (Wood and Kroger,
2000, p. 55). These kinds of reports are not considered as valuable resources. What is
needed is the sources that can be examined repeatedly, that is the recordings and the
products of the recordings, or records.

5.2.2.2 Archives
Archives refer to collections of any documentaries. These are potential sources
for discourse as they contain different types of discourse pertaining to the same topic,
for example, interviews, speeches, and conversations. Wood and Kroger (2000)
identify some examples of documents from archives as follows:
1. Documentaries and recordings of drama, comedy, news, public affairs, and
talk shows provided by the library
2. Written documents (policy, legal statutes) as well as recording conversations
such as emergency calls, telephone inquiries by government departments
3. Copies of correspondence or of audiotapes of telephone calls by private
companies and organizations such as telephone companies, consumer
organization, airlines, etc.
4. Audiotapes of training procedures in various educational institutions,
government programs, and private industries such as simulations of
physician-patient interactions, the training of customer service representatives,
therapy conducted by apprentice clinicians
(p. 71).

5.2.2.3 Interviews
Interviews have very important roles in doing DA. They are used frequently
as supporting method to elicit data. For example, when recordings have been
performed, it is necessary to interview the respondents being recorded about the
results of the recordings. When doing written DA, for example, analyzing narrative
texts, interviews are needed to acquire clear explanations for written texts.
It is important to know the differences between interviews in doing DA and
general interviews that might have been familiar with the readers. As noted by Wood
and Kroger, differences lie on theories and procedures. Interviews in DA is just
similar to interviews in qualitative research in which they apply open ended questions
and that the answers are not expected to be more specified. In DA, interviewers are
trying to probe more possible answers and expect to encourage participants to speak
fully (2000, p. 72). Potter and Wetherell (1987, p. 164) emphasize that the interviewer
should try “to generate interpretative contexts in such a way that the connections
between the interviewee’s accounting practice and variations in functional context
become clear”.

5.2.2.4 Experiments
Experiments can be conducted for doing DA for some reasons. It can be used
by a researcher who is not an interviewer or other sort of interactant. In this way,
participants are assigned to different conditions because such experiments tend to
involve inappropriate comparisons and quantitative analysis and to obscure variability
both between and within participants. Researchers may wish to bring participants
together to discuss a particular topic or to carry out a specific task. The interaction
may be dyadic or in the form of a focus or discussion group (Wood and Kroger, 2000,
p. 74).

5.3 Data Analysis

In doing the analysis, it is important to have good preparation. Of course, the
data should be there for analysis. For examples, data for spoken language have been
in the forms of audio or video recordings. Probably, there are a lot of cassettes
containing the recordings of spoken language. For written language, for example, data
in the form of written or printed have been collected. The questions may be whether
all of those data are taken or just a part of them. In this case, there should be a process
of data selection and sampling procedures.

5.3.1 Selecting Data

As explained before, data for spoken language should be kept natural.
Spontaneous recordings can be used altogether but for intended recordings, data
selections need to be made such as just choose the recording that last after 5 to 10
minutes.
 Next is about the appropriateness of the data. It needs to question whether the
data selected suitable with the purpose of the research. Therefore, it might be useful to
keep aside some of unimportant or inappropriate data. In this way, sampling is the
next consideration in order to take representative data. Wood and Kroger (2000, p 78)
emphasize that “sample should be relevant to or representative of the phenomenon of
interest”. Potter and Wetherell (1987) emphasize that the interest in DA is not on
language users but in language use. The units of analysis in DA are absolutely on
texts or parts of texts and not on participants. Therefore, more concerns on the text
availability rather than the number of participants.
It is important to consider the size of the sample as it may be time consuming.
Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 80) state that the discourse transcription and analysis is
sometime time-consuming. Therefore, there should be relatively limited number of
samples. When doing research on turn-taking, for example, a single conversation
might be sufficient to yield a large number of instances of turn-taking rather than
many conversations but limited number of utterances.

5.3.2 Transcription
When data have been selected based on the above criteria, the next step is
preparation for analysis. One step to be done for spoken language is transcription
which refers to the “transformation of spoken discourse into a written form that is
fully amenable to analysis and available for inclusion in the report of the research”
(Wood and Kroger, 2000, p. 82).
Transcription is very important in doing DA, especially in doing spoken
discourse. Transcription makes the spoken discourse data readable. Often the spoken
language from the recordings is not good language and therefore need to be
transcribed. Wood and Kroger (2000, p. 82) comment that transcription is needed
because it is difficult to keep the features of discourse in mind while listening to the
data. Hutchby and Wooffitt, (1998, p. 92) confirms that transcription is required in
order that a record of the data can be made available to others for checking the
analysis and also for reanalysis. Edwards (2001, p. 321) also stresses the function of
transcription which is invaluable as it provides “a distillation of the events of an
interaction”.
In doing the transcription, it is important to pay attention to details of spoken
interactions such as pauses, intonation, overlap, interjection, silences, vowel quality,
pitch, etc. These may apply symbols for transcriptions. Some symbols for
transcriptions used for conversations are as follows:
. Final intonation contour (usually a low falling pitch).
, Continuing intonation contour (level, or slight rise).
? Appeal intonation contour (sharp rise in pitch).
-- Truncated/abandoned Intonation Unit.
- Truncated word.
@ One pulse of laughter.
% Glottal stop.
.. Short pause (less than roughly 0.8 seconds)
... Long pause (longer than roughly 0.8 seconds)
<@ words @> Words are spoken while laughing; can also be written @word @word
@word.
<X words X> Uncertain transcription.
(text) explaining what the conversation/the turn is about
[text] giving the literal meaning of the conversations
(text)
(text) indicating interjections
(adapted from Du Bois et al, 1993, pp. 45-90)

In addition, Edwards (2001, p. 330) offers some aspects to be noted in doing the
transcription in order to be effective tool to reveal the corresponding meaning in the
discourse data. Some of them are words, units of analysis, pauses, prosody, rhythm and
coordination, turn-taking and nonverbal aspects and events.

5.3.3. Interpreting
In doing the interpretation, DA requires “a particular orientation to texts, a
particular frame of mind” (Wood and Kroger, 2000, p. 91). Therefore, careful
examinations on texts are needed to get the thread of the discourse. Some steps to be
followed in doing the interpretations are explained here:
1. As you read through a text, ask yourself how you are reading it and why you
are reading in this way. In this process, try to do some exercises such as
identifying the features of the text and the devices that are employed that
produce the reading
2. Do not ignore the obvious. This is a good step to start. It is important to note
that the point of DA is not to generate esoteric accounts of interpretation,
documents, and so on, but to show precisely how the features of the discourse
make particular readings or reactions possible, plausible, and understandable.
3. It is important to note that the focus on the literal meaning of an utterance or
text may be the least helpful analytic strategy. Therefore, it is highly
 recommended to concentrate on what the speaker or writer is doing, how the
segment is related to other segments, and so on.
4. Think about what is not there in both content and form
5. Consider whether the critical issue is that something which is included, not
what it is.
6. Play with the text, by looking at the possibilities if a particular item (word or
phrases) were omitted, or phrased differently, consider the substitutions or
combination with some other items.
7. Look carefully at how text is structured, shaped, and ordered in both
individual segments and overall, because structures are ways of achieving both
content and function.
8. Be alert for multiple functions of discourse, which may not be clearly seen in
the topic, content, structure, and so on in initial readings.
9. It may also be useful to forget that what is doing is in terms of DA
10. Realize that there are not always appropriate terms available for describing
discourse and naming its function, and therefore, it is possible to develop new
terms or new concepts for discourse devices and functions
11. Categorization is not only an activity of the analyst; rather participants
themselves construct and use categories for various reasons
12. In order to focus on variation and adopt a comparative stance, adopt a
questioning stance, that is take nothing for granted. Adopt strategy of reversal
such as treating problems as solutions, solutions as problems, strength as
weakness.
13. Be familiar with the language. The more familiar with the language and how it
is used, the more sensitive will be the analysis to do. Discourse analyst need to
know and be familiar with the language.
14. All of the ideas will constitute the analytical resources. Therefore, it is not
only about how to come up with the patterns, interpretations, and so on, but
also how to justify the identification of the pattern and how to ground the
interpretation
15. Finally, permit yourself to be analysts, that is to do sort of interpretative work
involved in analysis, in generating results.
(cited in Wood and Kroger, 2000, pp. 91-95)
 In addition to the above explanation, Wood and Kroger (2000) offer some
strategies for doing interpretation in the discourse. The first one is substitution, by
considering which utterance could be substituted for other utterances in the issue,
such as substituting like with for example. The second one is reframing, which
involves questioning the kinds of categories deployed by participants in terms of the
nature of the categories themselves, such as considering how utterances are referred to
as metaphorical categories. The third one is by looking at multiple functions, by
looking at the possible hierarchical and sequential organization of the talk. For
example, one utterance ‘good morning’ can be categorized as greeting or can also
function as criticism for students who come late to the class. The fourth one is by
looking at the content, more specifically the subject matter, or what the participants
are talking about. Next the fifth one is by looking at the participants’ meaning, or the
participants’ interpretation of a particular utterance or set of utterances, that is the
meaning given to the utterance. The last, but not the least is by underlying the
similarities and differences in the meanings or potential inconsistencies or
contradictories surrounding the text (pp. 107-111).

5.3.4 Reporting
The last is report the work of DA. Like other types of research paper, the
writing of the work in DA also needs to follow the general conventions of research
writing. Some parts need to be written in the report, such as methodology section,
results, and also the discussion.
An important point in writing the report is the demonstration of the data
(Wood and Kroger, 2000, p. 183). This is basically presenting one or more discourse
excerpts or extracts followed by detailed interpretation as a part of the analysis. In this
case, excerpt is more precise than other possible terms, which is picked out from the
text. Another term is extract, which can be used, although it does not necessarily refer
to text and may suggest an inappropriate concentration of that which is extracted. The
term example is avoided as it implies that the analysis was completed previously
(behind the scenes as it were) and is simply being reported it. Excerpts serve as a clue
that the analysts have active roles in both analysis and write-up, not only finding and
reporting (Ibid).
How to select the excerpts in the writing? The basic answer is not about the
number, but on the representation of the excerpts based on the raised problems. Wood
and Kroger (2000, p. 165) state that “excerpts are selected with an eye to the
possibilities of intertextual analysis”. In any particular analysis, few excerpts of one
type and large numbers on another, it can also be selected based on diversity.

5.4 Summary
Some important methods in doing DA had been discussed in this part, with the
main intention is to provide basic strategies to apply theories of DA that had been
discussed in the previous parts. Like other kinds of research, doing DA follow some
rules in doing the research such as problem identification, data collection, data
analysis, and finally writing the report based on the research.
It is worthwhile to consider the types of discourse to be investigated after
designing the problems, which then lead the researcher to locate the settings, the
issues, and the potential topics to observe. Later, choices of data collection are
available such as by recordings, interviews, or possibly by examining the existing
recordings.
Analysis is then the next step followed by the reporting. In this case, the role of
transcription is very important as the basic sources of data to investigate. Both written
and spoken discourse requires transcription as the source for analysis. Later, in the
writing of the report, taking extracts or the best term excerpts from the transcription is
demanded as the next step to demonstrate the findings that had been interpreted.

5.5 Questions for Discussion

1. With the topic that you had chosen in the previous chapter, can you decide the
research design for you to conduct your mini research in DA?
2. Record conversations in relation to the topic and transcribed. Discuss in the class.
3. analyze the conversations that you had transcribed
4. Examine the following text:
S: power is something…something who can make people to do something ee if
something who can make something change, I think we can make power,
according to me. How about you?
H: e kau e..(asking her friend to speak)
P: according to me, power ee is just the same as what you say just now, how
people, how people, how people do something, so the point is how people
can influence in other society. How about you?
H: apa, kau mo deh..kau mo dulu
W: language and age, language and social status, gender, ee I think, this is, this is
the point of the power that ee, the point is, there are..
P: so but ee
W: the power is
P: what does the power mean?
W: something that can influence us
S: the same
W: yeah
S: we can have conclusion that power is something that can have influence to do
something. We can continue about language.
(break)
M: what is the relation between language and power?
S: Language and power is that the place ee someone can understand what, what
Ieee
M: you can use Indonesian
S: what the power itu adalah bagaimana seseorang mentransfer apa yang dia
inginkan pada orang lain, bagaimana caranya ia meyakinkan apa yang dia
maksudkan pada orang lain
M: oke, kita pindah ke Evi
E: jawaban saya sama dengan teman saya, ee language and power is , the
personal, the personal is able to transfer e e the personal the personal mean
for the other people.
M: how to your transfer your opinion to other people, that is power.
(Data recorded by Murni Mahmud)

What can you do in relation to the above text? Explain in relation to DA,
conversation analysis, or content analysis!
 Chapter 6
Samples of Analysis in Discourse

I finally come to this part of the book, in which I would like to give examples
of work analyzed under the work of Discourse Analysis (DA). After exploring some
previous concepts, theories, and methods, my next concern is to provide examples of
work in DA.
In this following part, I then present some work in DA that I collected from
several resources such as from journal articles that had been published. Some of them
are from students’ work of thesis that had gone through the final examination. For this
purpose, I only take some of the issues, namely politeness, conversational implicature,
code-switching, and speech acts. These issues were analyzed in some settings and
different disciplines. Politeness issues studied in this example was analyzed in the
discipline of linguistic anthropology and in education. The settings were different.
One was in one of the communities (Mahmud, 2008) and another one in classroom
context (Senowarsito, 2013). Conversational implicature was studied under the scope
of pragmatics in mass media setting, that is in one of the television programs (Nanda,
Sukyadi, & Sudarsono, 2012). Code-switching and speech acts were analyzed in
classroom setting under the scope of sociolinguistics and educations by Purnawan
(2014) and Uspayanti (2015).

6.1 Politeness
Politeness study has attracted attention of many scholars in different disciplines.
Politeness is usually studied under the scope of sociolinguistics, anthropolinguistics,
as well as pragmatics. Analysis will rely on the politeness strategies applied by the
speakers. The following examples are taken from my studies about politeness. One of
them is about politeness in Bugis society, which was studied under the discipline of
Linguistic Anthropology (Mahmud, 2008).
In discussing about politeness, Mahmud (2008) discussed some strategies of
Bugis people in expressing their politeness. One of them was the use of pronoun
choices. For analysis, conversations among several speakers were recorded,
transcribed, and brought into analysis. The main concern was to show the use of
 This direct use of the second person -ko by PAM to PAS is acceptable because the
interlocutors are of similar status and are close relatives and neighbours.
(Mahmud, 2008)

Since the two speakers were the same age and social status, familiarity can be
implied from them which then caused them to use less polite pronoun in Bugis. The
writer stated “This familiarity encouraged PAM to use the familiar pronoun –ko”. For
comparison, the writer presented extract 2 about the conversation of the high social
status woman with the lower status woman, allowing analysis on the way the
interlocutors used pronoun choices influenced by the social status differences.

Extract 2: Asking a female fish seller

PAM was talking to a female of similar age but different social status,
Hunaeda (H, 50), a commoner without any hajj or noble status. Hunaeda was selling
shrimps and prawns to PAM.
PAM:magi Hunaeda?
‘what’s the matter with it [i.e. you], Hunaeda?’
H: nulléna
‘how can this be’
PAM:nulléna@@. Balaceng ibalu’
‘how can this be? [We] sell shrimps’
H: lo’ki’ melliwi?
‘are we [i.e. you] going to buy some?’
PAM:tassiawaé’ loppanutu?
‘how much is a cup of those prawns of yours anyway?’
H: duwa sitengnga, Aji
‘two and a half [two thousand five hundred rupiahs], Aji’
(Mahmud, 2008)

The explanation for the above extract as a result of the interpretation can be
seen as follows:
Although they are familiar as close neighbours, are of similar age and have been
friends since a young age, the different status PAM has as hajj and noble encourages
the non-reciprocal use of pronouns. PAM used the familiar possessive pronoun –nu
when she was asking about the price of the prawns, tassiawaé’ loppanutu? ‘how much
is a cup of those prawns of yours?’. Conversely, Hunaeda used the distant pronoun –ki’
in lo’ki’ melliwi? ‘are we [i.e. you] going to buy some?’. This shows the asymmetrical
relations among the interlocutors are influenced by their status differences.
(Mahmud, 2008)

It can be seen that there are different ways of choosing pronoun in extract 1
and extract 2. The lower status woman in extract 2 used polite pronoun to address the
high social status woman which can not be seen in extract 1. Like extract 1, the writer
put the expressions in underlined as indicators of the stressing points of the discussion.
The polite pronoun –ki’ in “lo’ki’ melliwi?” was used by H in extract 2 compare to
the less polite pronoun of nu in “tassiawaé’ loppanutu?”. Since these different
expressions were used by two women of different status, the writer could infer as the
expressions caused by the social status differences.
Discussion in extract 1 and 2 allow us to know the pronoun choices used by
speakers influenced by gender differences, and for comparison, the writer then
presented extract 3 and 4 below:
Extract 3: Asking an older fisherman
PAM was talking to Mardi (M, 65), an older fisherman without any hajj or
noble status. She was asking about Mardi’s daily activities as a fisherman.
PAM:dé’ muno’ tasi’é?
‘didn’t you go to the sea [fishing]?’
M: ba, polémuwa..’
‘yes, I have been..’
PAM:dé’ga muwala?
‘didn’t you catch anything [fish or any other seafood]?’
M: kamuwa na..
‘yes [there are] some but..’
PAM asked Mardi using the familiar pronoun mu- in all of her questions
above: dé’ muno’ tasi’é ‘didn’t you go to the sea [fishing]?’ and dé’ga muwala?
‘didn’t you take anything [fish or any other seafood]?’. Like extract 2 above, this
extract also shows an asymmetrical relation between the speakers influenced by their
status differences. Although Mardi is older, and male, because of the high status of
PAM, Mardi was addressed using the familiar pronoun
(Mahmud, 2008)

As seen in extract 3, the female speaker, PAM, used less polite pronoun mu- to
the male speaker of lower status but used more polite pronoun i-. In explaining the
pronouns used by the speakers, the writer put the expressions in underlined and
quoted again in the analysis.
Extract 4: The mosque donation
PAM was talking to an older male with high status since he is a hajj and
noble, Puang Aji Akil (PAA, 64), who is also a close relative and neighbour. At the
time, they were talking about the money owned by the mosque.
PAA: ko mabbicara makkeda iya’ malamanengngi, tappa uti’ maneng lao masigi’é
‘if [someone] accused me of taking all [the money], then I would take [the
money] directly to the mosque’
PAM:iti’ maneng lo’ka masigi’é?
‘we [i.e. you] took all [the money] to the mosque, didn’t we [i.e. you]?’
PAM used a polite device i- in iti’ instead of using mu- in muti’ which would
have been expressed in the utterance: muti’ maneng lokka masigi’é. This extract
shows the use of the first person plural inclusive agent marker as a generic marker,
where no direct reference to a first person agent is entailed. It is used to refer to a
second person agent, PAA, and it made her more distant and polite. This extract also
shows that although both speakers are familiar, being close relatives and neighbours
and have similar status as hajj and noble, pronoun choice is influenced by age and sex
differences.
(Mahmud, 2008)
 The same case can be seen in extract 4. Indeed, the writer compared the
expressions in less polite to the more polite one by saying “PAM used a polite device
i- in iti’ instead of using mu- in muti’”. In addition, the use of reference as a way of
analysing can be seen in the above extract discussion.

This extract shows the use of the first person plural inclusive agent marker as a
generic marker, where no direct reference to a first person agent is entailed. It is used
to refer to a second person agent, PAA, and it made her more distant and polite
(Mahmud, 2008)

More interpretation can be seen in the analysis. Based on the context of

speaking, as well as the interpretation of the speakers and the setting of
communication, the writer interpreted as follows:

This extract also shows that although both speakers are familiar, being close relatives
and neighbours and have similar status as hajj and noble, pronoun choice is
influenced by age and sex differences
(Mahmud, 2008)

The two extracts above showed the comparison of the ways the female speaker
of high status talked to male of lower status in extract 3 but to man of the same status
in extract 4. It can be seen that there is much influence of social status on the ways the
same woman used the pronoun regardless of the gender differences. She used less
polite pronoun to man of lower status although she is younger but to the man of the
same status and the same age, she then used more polite pronoun, showing an
influence of gender differences.
Overall, the presentations of the four extracts above can represent the ideas of
using pronoun as a way of showing politeness which is influenced by social status,
age, and gender differences. The writer then wrote as follows:
 The two excerpts above were intended to show examples of positive politeness
strategies, as one strategy of politeness. Senowarsito (2013) presented two excerpts
above and pointed the strategy of politeness strategies by the use of greetings, which
is categorized as the use of in-group identity marker, one strategy proposed by Brown
and Levinson (1987). In referring to the first extract, he said:

Excerpt (1) is an example of a student-teacher conversation in the classroom

interaction.
(Senowarsito, 2013)

The analysis can be seen as follows:It can be identified that both students and
teacher in opening session employed positive politeness strategies as in strategy 4:
Use in-group identity markers (Brown and Levinson 1987, pp.107-108). It was done
by using group identity marker "class" for calling students, and the students use
“ma’am” to call a female teacher who was considered as a respectable person. Calling
"class" instead of "children" or "students" could be categorized as a positive politeness
strategy, that is, teacher did not position herself as the more powerful or keep a
distance from students. The strategy was to reduce the threat of face (of dignity) of
students. Similarly, referring to "ma’am" for female teacher, the students gave respect
and feel close to the teacher as well. This set of data indicates that the two parties have
good emotional relationship. This was further demonstrated in the utterance ‘I'm fine,
and you?’ ‘I’m not good’ and followed by an expression of sympathy ‘hwoow’ from
the students. This expression is done with exaggerated intonation, stress and some
aspects of prosodic to show sympathy (Brown and Levinson 1987, p.104). In addition,
because of the limitations of utterances to express something, it was possible to
express politeness non-verbally. Non-verbal forms of politeness were shown by the
teacher walking over towards students with a friendly facial expression. This form of
politeness was also expressed by the students by responding to the teacher’s greeting
enthusiastically. The teachers’ perception on learner-centered concept in teaching
learning process influenced the teachers’ perception of the need to employ politeness
strategies. Student-centered activities gave students opportunities to participate and
interact in the class. The teacher thought that it was a must for a teacher to be
emotionally close to the students. It would help him/her to communicate with students.
Because of the students’ cultural background, teacher was still placed as a respected
elder person and institutionally teacher was the single authority in teaching learning
process in the class. The finding shows that the teachers and students felt that the
power difference between them was quite small, but the students give respect to the
teachers.
(Senowarsito, 2013)

Senowarsito used a method of reference to discuss the types of positive

politeness strategies used by the teachers and students in the study. This can be seen
the the third line above:
 It was done by using group identity marker "class" for calling students, and the
students use “ma’am” to call a female teacher who was considered as a respectable
person. Calling "class" instead of "children" or "students" could be categorized as a
positive politeness strategy, that is, teacher did not position herself as the more
powerful or keep a distance from students (line 3)
(Senowarsito, 2013)

To strengthen the analysis, the writer interpreted the utterances produced in

the excerpts as indicators of positive politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson that
can be seen in the following statement (line 8 above):

The strategy was to reduce the threat of face (of dignity) of students. Similarly,
referring to "ma’am" for female teacher, the students gave respect and feel close to
the teacher as well. This set of data indicates that the two parties have good emotional
relationship. This was further demonstrated in the utterance ‘I'm fine, and you?’ ‘I’m
not good’ and followed by an expression of sympathy ‘hwoow’ from the students.
This expression is done with exaggerated intonation, stress and some aspects of
prosodic to show sympathy (Brown and Levinson 1987, p. 104).
(Senowarsito, 2013)

The same case can be seen in the way he interpreted excerpt 2 as another
example of positive politeness strategies as seen below:

Excerpt (2) shows that the social distance and the power inequality of the students
and the teachers were small. It can be seen from the students’ response on the
teacher’s directing student’s attention ‘Hello..?’, they responded by repeating the
same expression ‘Hello..’ followed by personal marker ‘Ma’am’. It means that the
students felt close to the teacher but still gave respect to her.
(Senowarsito, 2013)

The roles of context in interpretation can be clearly seen in excerpt 2 when the
writer examined the use of “hello” by both speakers. The writer interpreted as the
signal of close relationships among the speakers, which is also categorized as positive
politeness strategies adapted from Brown and Levinson (1987).
The two excerpts presented by Senowarsito above are examples of positive
politeness strategies used by teachers and students in the class. Since this discussion is
about positive politeness, Senowarsito continued to present more excerpts regarding
negative politeness strategies used by teachers and students. Other excerpts of
conversation were demonstrated by Senowarsito to show other politeness strategies,
that is negative politeness, used by the teachers and students in the study as seen as
follows:
 Negative Politeness Strategies
Negative politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing
deference. These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting
disagreements as opinions (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Excerpt (9) was an
example of one of the occasions where the teacher softened his direct expression
with the conventionally polite expression ‘please’.
(9) Teacher : The first speaker. Come on. Please come here.
(Senowarsito, 2013)

In discussing strategies of negative politeness strategies, Senowarsito put the

excerpt above by pointing that the use of please can indicate the negative politeness of
the teacher. He then continued by analyzing other excerpts that show negative
politeness as see below:

In Excerpt (10), teacher tried to modify direct expression with polite

expression in order to attempt to avoid a great deal of imposition on the
students. She used expression ‘a little’ to lessen the imposition by implying
that the students were not asked to do very much.

(10) Teacher : e…e..e.. yea! Before we start our class today, I would like to
review a little about err..err..err.. the materials we have discussed
together. Hmm.. do you still remember the…err…err…readers’ e]e ] "
6.2 Conversational Implicature
Conversation implicature is one of the topics discussed under the scope of
pragmatics using Gricean Cooperative principle. A definition by Widdowson (2007, p.
128) best explain about conversational implicature, that is “meaning that is not
explicitly expressed but implied by the violation of the cooperative principle”.
The cooperative principle was proposed by Grice as ‘a shared assumption by
the parties in a conversation that they will co-operate with each other for the purpose
of their talk by keeping to certain conversational maxim”. According to Grice, there
are four maxims. The first one is the quantity maxim, which is the amount of
information provided. The second is the quality maxim, which is about the truth. The
third is the relation maxim, which relates to relevance. The last one is the manner
maxim, the maxim that shows how to express (cited in Widdowson (2007, p. 130).
In the following example, the writers, Nanda et al., (2012) examined the
conversations of one TV program in one TV station in Indonesia. The writer took the
episode XXII of the show purposively as sample. Qualitative method was employed
in processing the transcription of the 204 recorded implicature data. The intended
features were identified, classified, calculated and then separately analyzed based on
conversational implicature theory proposed by Grice (1975). One of the examples is
as follows:

C: Kami kembali untuk anda, pemirsa setia kami di Take Me Out Indonesia. Ini
saatnya menghadirkan pria single kedua. Namun, sebelumnya kita nyalakan
lampu mereka dulu. Nyala! (Sound of the turned-off lamps) Satu pendatang
baru langsung menemukan pasangannya. Ini harusnya jadi motivasi, lagi
penggerak buat para senior. Ayo lebih giat lagi mencari. Mungkin pria single
kedua yang akan memikat hati anda. Tunjukkan dirimu! <music> Bro.
Selamat malam, Bro.
R: Selamat malam, Choky

In expression “Ini harusnya jadi motivasi, lagi penggerak buat para senior.”
(“This should be a motivation and driving force for the seniors.”), the phrase “the
seniors” implies that if there are seniors there must be also juniors. It can be said that
the word junior is the opposite of the word senior. In this case, the word refers to the
participants who have participated earlier and latter in the program.

(Nanda et al., 2012)

In analyzing the conversation of the speaker (C), Nanda et al took one

sequence of C’s utterance followed by the response of R as the second speaker. Nanda
et al. quoted one of the expressions of C as the speaker: “Ini harusnya jadi motivasi,
lagi penggerak buat para senior.”
The expression above becomes the main point of the discussion, that is the
type of conversational implicature, (that is to imply the opposite). The writer then
interpreted that expression as one form of conversational implicatures, proposed by
Gricean’ cooperative principle. Note that the writers used the word ‘implies’ to show
that they interpreted the conversation in the context. Also they used the word ‘refers’
to show the referring terms in the text. To compare with another conversational
implicature, the writer took another excerpt:

C: Inilah awal perjumpaan yang saya katakan, dimana awal perjumpaan kita tadi,
Pemirsa. Semua dimulai dari pandangan pertama. Pendatang baru kita
minggu ini di Take Me Out Indonesia serius mencari pasangan mapan dan
kamu adalah tipe pria yang dia cari. Pria ini bergerak super cepat, Pemirsa.
Dan dia memilih pendatang baru kita malam ini, Elsa, sang wiraswasta
otomotif dan pengusaha katering. <music> Hello, Elsa. Selamat, Bro atas
pilihan anda.
H: Thank you
(Nanda et al., 2012)

In analyzing another conversational implicature, Nanda et al (2012) took

another excerpt above and analyzed by the following way:

In expression, “Pendatang baru kita minggu ini di Take Me Out Indonesia serius
mencari pasangan mapan dan kamu adalah tipe pria yang dia cari.” (“Our new
comer this week in Take Me Out Indonesia seriously looks for a settled soul mate
and you are a kind of man she is looking for.”), the phrase “new comer” refers to
the female participant who stands behind the podium. The literal opposite of the
word „new‟ is „old‟. „Old‟ in this context does not refer to the scales of age but to
the time when the event took place. The words „new‟ and „old‟ in the utterance (2)
can be simply interpreted as early and later. Therefore, if there is a new comer, there
must be the old or the earlier one/s.
(Nanda et al., 2012)

Nanda et al quoted the expression from the text:

Pendatang baru kita minggu ini di Take Me Out Indonesia serius mencari pasangan
mapan dan kamu adalah tipe pria yang dia cari.” (“Our new comer this week in
Take Me Out Indonesia seriously looks for a settled soul mate and you are a kind of
man she is looking for.
(Nanda et al., 2012

Then, Nanda et al. (2012) put this expression as the main point of discussion.
Note how the writers put referring things by the use of word ‘refer’. He referred the
word ‘new comer’ to something else in the text, that is ‘the female participant who
stands behind the podium’. They also stated, ‘old’ in this context, showing that the
writers see the expressions in context. Another example is seen below:

C: … Pria ini begitu percaya diri. Saya pinjam kacamatanya saja auranya sudah
kerasa bahwa dia seorang pekerja keras. Tentukan pilihanmu sekarang. Lima,
empat, tiga, dua, satu. (Sound of the turned-off lamps) Tenang, tenang,
tenang. (sound of the turned-off lamps) Woi, woi. Slow, slow, Ladies. Pake
dulu kacamatanya, Sob. (more sounds of the turned-off lamps) Wow! Santai,
Rudi. Pendapat kamu calon dokter gigi?.
Dr.G: Menurut saya, a…(.) dari pertama ngeliatnya… Oke, sebenarnya saya kurang
suka sama jaketnya. Tapi nggak apa-apa. Ya, okelah gayanya. Sama kaya
saya usaha distro, ya? Pengen tahu aja sih kaya apa kehidupannya dia

(Nanda et al., 2012)

See the way the writers explain the above extract as one example of
conversational implicature

In expression, ”Pendapat kamu calon dokter gigi?” (“Your opinion, the would-be
dentist?”), the phrase, “calon dokter gigi” (“would be dentist”), means that the
addressee is not currently a dentist. At least it does not happen in the present but it
does have a big chance to occur in the future. In other words, „a dentist to be‟ is not
already a dentist. Without ”calon dokter gigi”, it can be assumed that the person whom
the speaker talks to is a dentist at the time the utterance is uttered. Therefore, the
sentence infringes the statement‟s validity at the time it is being uttered.
(Nanda et al., 2012)

The excerpt taken above was to show another conversational implicature of

the utterance produced by the speaker C. Like the previous two extracts, the writers
quoted the expression which became the center of discussion, ”Pendapat kamu calon
dokter gigi?”. The writers then interpreted by saying
means that the addressee is not currently a dentist. At least it does not happen in the
present but it does have a big chance to occur in the future. In other words, „a dentist
to be‟ is not already a dentist
(Nanda et al., 2012)

This allows interpretation of the writers about one function of conversational

implicature of the interlocutor being studied. The expression “it can be assumed” is
the signal of the interpretation of the writers.
6.3 Code-Switching
Code-switching is another topic that can be analyzed by using DA. The
following example analyzed data recorded in term5(i)8
*owm1owm1owm1owm12of210 G[pe12of-282(a)-5(
 1. Intra-sentential switching
This kind of code-switching occurs within a sentence or a clause, including
within the word boundary or translation of words or phrase substitution within a
sentence, this type can be explained that the teacher uses two languages in one
sentence in one utterance. These types of code switching used by the teachers in
teaching and learning process are as follows:
Extract 2
T: good morning
Oke listen your name
(good morning
Oke listen your name)
(the teacher check attended students)
T: oke anak-anak sekalian hari ini PRnya di kerja
(Okay students today do you working your home work)
S: adaka PR pa (is there any home work sir?)
S: tidak ada PR pa. (no home work sir)
oh tidak ada, saya kira PRnya ada yang cari artinya di activity twenty two,
saya kasi waktu hari apa itu, where your home work tidak ada yang kerja
bagaimana caranya kelas tiga itu sudah banyak tugas, makanya jangan
berleha-leha, kamusnya juga untung kalau ada yang bawa.
(oh no, I think your home work find meaning in activity twenty two, I cautions
what time of day it is, where your home work there are three classes of work
how it has many tasks, so do not be careless, the dictionary also lucky if there
is a carry.)
Ss: adaji pa kalau kamus. (there is dictionary sir)
In this extract the first teacher used intra-sentential code-switching, the first the
teacher opening the lesson in the class, ask for home work the students, but the students
said they didn’t have home work then the teacher continue to give explanation to the
students how to do the task and switches his explanation by using Indonesian and altered
to English by saying,” oh tidak ada, saya kira prnya ada yang cari artinya di activity
twenty two, saya kasi waktu hari apa itu,” then the teacher switch his explanation again
by using English and altered to Indonesia by saying, “where is your home work tidak ada
yang kerja bagaimana caranya kelas tiga itu sudah banyak tugas, makanya jangan
berleha-leha, kamusnya juga untung kalau ada yang bawa.” The teacher used
code-switching twice so the students could be understand how to do the task.
(Purnawan, 2014)

Like the previous extract above, the writer, Purnawan identified the utterances
in the text which can be categorized as another type of code-switching, that is
intra-sentential switching. Since the main focus is the same that is to identify the types
of code-switching, the writer’s analysis just showed the existence of code-switching
type in the text. Deep analysis can also be obtained when the writer tried to discuss the
reasons or the factors influencing the use of that type of code-switching in the class.
The discussion would have touched the analysis of discourse if the writer tried to
explain the differences of extract 1 and 2 in order to see the comparison of the two
extracts in terms of the type of code-switching. As discussed in the previous chapter,
looking at similarities and differences can become the focus of discussion in doing DA.
6.4 Speech Acts
As discussed previously, speech acts are potential topics for discourse and can
also be used as an approach to discourse. The following example showed the analysis
of speech acts used by teachers in the school. The writer, Uspayanti (2015) recorded
the conversations of the teachers in teaching process, transcribed, and interpreted
based on the taxonomy of Searle’s speech acts.

Extract 1 (Giving information and assertion)

In this situation, the teacher A asked the students about the topic of the material.
Moreover the teacher A asserted the topic of the material.

T: Last week, it (is) related to structure, but today (the material) is

listening. In this time, we are talking about surprise and disbelieve
ya.. disbelieve and surprise… disbelieve and surprise.
SS: Disbelieve and surprise

Based on the extract 1, the teacher A used representative speech act in

classroom interaction when he told the actual state by saying ”Last structure, it (is)
related to structure, but today (the material) is listening. In this time, we are talking
about surprise and disbelieve ya.. disbelieve and surprise… disbelieve and surprise”.
In that utterance, the teacher A reported or informed the students about the topic
before the teacher explained the main material so the students got better
understanding when he explained the material. Beside that, the teacher A also
informed about the topic of the material that he had explained before that was
structure. Regarding to the context above, the function of representative speech act
was giving information.
(Uspayanti, 2015)

Like the previous examples, the extract above was taken as an example of one
of the types of the speech acts. The theory used was based on Searle’s taxonomy of
speech acts, namely five classes of speech acts: (1) representatives (e.g. asserting,
concluding), which commits the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, (2)
directives (e.g. requesting, questioning), which are attempts by the speaker to get the
addressee to do something or to direct someone towards some goals of the speakers,
(3) commissives (e.g. promising, threatening, offering), which commit the speaker to
some future course of action, (4) expressives (e.g. thanking, apologizing, welcoming,
congratulating), which express a psychological state and express the inner state of the
speaker, and (5) declarations (e.g. appointing, excommunicating, declaring), which
affect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on
elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (cited in Schriffin, 1994, p. 57).
As seen in the extract above, the writer took the extract above as the example of
representative speech act. The writer explained the speech act by saying “the teacher
A used representative speech act in classroom interaction when he told the actual state”
In this way, she interpreted the utterance based on the context. In the last part, she
also stated “Regarding to the context above, the function of representative speech act
was giving information”, in which was explaining the function of the speech act. The
writer then presented another extract from the transcription to show another type of
the speech act, based on Searle’s classification. This can be seen in the following
example:
Extract 2 (Asking question)
Before the teacher A explained the news item text, he asked the student about news
item to check their understanding before explanation.
SS : Yes
T : How about this text? Please say something about news item. Apa
itu News item? Seperti apa itu?
[How about this text? Please say something about news item. What
6.6 Questions for Discussion
1. In a group of three of four, writer your paper as a sample of work of DA and
present in the class. You can choose the topics as sampled in this chapter or
you can also find other topics.
2. At the end, what are the advantages and disadvantages of doing DA?
3. Are there are difficulties you encountered in doing DA? Share with the class.
References

Adger, C. T. (2001). Discourse in education settings. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H.

E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 503-517). USA:
Blackwell Publishers.

Amarien, N. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics: A study of the refusal strategies of

Indonesian speakers speaking English. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on
the Teaching and Learning of English, 8(1). Retrieved July 28, 2014, from
http://journal.teflin.org/index.php/teflin/article/view/178/66

Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation.

In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 248-261). California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Basthomi, Y. (2014). No=Yes or Yes=No? Strategies in responding to an

offer/invitation among Indonesians. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum., 22 (4),
1133-1146.

Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. E. (1995). Patterns of code-switching and patterns of

language contact. Lingua, 96(2), 95-93.

Berman, L. (1998). Speaking through the silence: Narrative, social conventions,

and power in Java. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bharuthram, S. (2003). Politeness phenomena in the Hindu sector of the South

African Indian English speaking community, Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10),
1523-1544.

Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of

messages. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brinton, L. J. (2001). Historical discourse analysis. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H.

E. Hamilton (eds). The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 138-160). USA:
Blackwell Publishers.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to

language pedagogy (4th Ed.). USA: Longman.

Brown, G. & Yule, B. (1983). Discourse analysis. London: Cambridge University

Press.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

1
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1972). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In P. P.
Giglioli (Ed.), language and social context (pp. 252-282). Great Britain:
Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading.

Chambers Concise Dictionary. (2004). Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers

Ltd.

Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective.

London: Continuum.

Cook, G. (1990). Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook-Gumperz, J. & Kyratzis, A. (2001). Child discourse. In D. Schriffin, D.

Tannen, H. E. Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.
590-611). USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Cotter, C. (2001). Discourse and media. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H. E.

Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 416-436). USA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Dardjowijjojo, S. (2008). Psikolinguistik: Pengantar pemahaman bahasa manusia.

Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Dijk, T. A. V. (Ed). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic

Press.

Dijk, T. A. V. (1997). The study of discourse. In T.A.V. Dijk (Ed), Discourse as

structure and process (pp. 1-34). London: Sage Publication.

Dijk, T. A. V. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H. E.

Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). USA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Dijk, T.A.V. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Du Bois, J.W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S. & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of

discourse transcription. In J. Edward & M.D. Lampert (Eds), Talking Data:
Transcription and coding discourse research (pp. 48-89). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

2
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Edward, J.A. (2001). The transcription of discourse. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H.

E. Hamilton (Eds). The handbook of discourse analysis. (pp. 321-348). USA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Elridge, J. (1996). Code-Switching in a Turkish Secondary School. ELT Journal,

50(4), 303-311.

Errington, J. J. (1985). Language and social change in Java: Linguistic reflexes of

modernization in a traditional royal polity. Ohio, USA: Center for
International Studies, Ohio University.

Errington, J. J. (1986). Continuity and change in Indonesian language development.

The Journal of Asian Studies, 45(2), 329-353.

Errington, J. J. (1988). Structure and style in Javanese: A semiotic view of linguistic

etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Errington, J. J. (1998). Shifting languages: Interaction and identity in Javanese

Indonesian. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, D. (1996). How to write a better thesis report. Melbourne: Melbourne

University Press.

Fairclough, N. L. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A.V. Dijk

(Ed), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol 2 (pp.
258-284). London: Sage Publication.

Filmore, C. J. (1985). Linguistics as a tool for discourse analysis. In T.A.V. Dijk

(Ed). Handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic Press.

Fiske,

3
Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York and London:
Routledge.

Ginting, D. (2009). Gaya retorika dan strategi kesopanan dalam pidato politik
kepala negara studi kasus: Analisis isi terhadap pidato pelantikan Presiden
Barrack Obama dan Presiden Soesilo Bambang Yudoyono (pp: 51-57).
Proceeding of KOLITA 7 (Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan 7 Tingkat
Internasional). Jakarta: Unika Atma Jaya.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.),

Syntax and semantics (vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.
Griffin, M.A., D. McGahee, and J. Slate. (1999). Gender differences in nonverbal
communication. Valdosta State University.

Halliday, M.A. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Handoko, M. F. X. (2007). Multilingualism in transition: Intergenerational code

choice in two multilingual totok Chinese families in Surabaya. Linguistics
Department, Research Schools of Pacific and Asian Studies. Canberra, The
Australian National University.

Have, P. T. (2000). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London,

California: New Delhi, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand

English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28(4), 485-508.

Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy.

Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 445-465.

Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. London and New York:
Longman.

Hutahuruk, B. S. (2009). Code-switching made by lecturers in bilingual classes at

Bunda Mulia University. Paper at the Proceeding of the Second
International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2) (pp.
143-146). Bandung: Language Centre, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Huttcby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices,

and applications. Oxford: Polity Press.

Izadi, A. (2013). Politeness in spoken review genre: Viva voce context. Pertanika
J. Soc. Sci. & Hum., 21(4), 1411–1429.

4
Jones, R. H. (2011). Data collection and transcription in discourse analysis. In K.
Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to discourse
analysis (pp. 9-21). London: Bloomsbury.

Kelly, S.D. (2001). Broadening the units of analysis in communication: Speech

and nonverbal behaviours in pragmatic comprehension. J. Child Lan, 28,
325-349.

Kendall, S. & Tannen, D. (2001). Discourse and gender. In D. Schriffin, D.

Tannen, H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.
548-567). USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. UK: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, R.T. (1976). Language and woman's place. New York: Octagon Books.

Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London:

Continuum.

Mahmud, M. (2008). Politeness in Bugis. A Thesis. Canberra: The Australian

National University.

Mahmud, M. (2014). Teachers’ ritual to be polite in the class: Contesting power

and solidarity. Journal of Language and Literature, 5(2).

Mahyuni (2003). Speech styles and cultural perspectives in Sasak community. A

Thesis. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.

Malik, L (1994). Sociolinguistics: A study of code-switching. Anmol Publications:

New Delhi.
Martin, J.R. (2001). Cohesion and texture. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H. & E.
Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 35-53). USA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Mey, J. L. (2001), Literary pragmatics. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, H. & E.

Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 787-797). USA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

5
Milal, A. D. (2011). Indicators of the practice of power in language classrooms.
The TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of
English, 22(1), 1-11.

Mizutani, O. & Mizutani, N. (1987). How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo, Japan:

The Japan Times, Ltd.

Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse.

Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Nanda, S., Sukyadi, D., Sudarsono, I. (2012). Conversational implicature of the

presenters of Take Me Out Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1(2), 120-138.

Negi, J.S. (2009). The role of teachers’ non-verbal communication in ELT

classroom. Journal of NELTA, 14(2), 101-110.

Papaja, K. (2011). Analyzing types of classroom interaction in CLIL.

Glottodidactica, 38, 43-52.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publication.

Purnawan, R. (2014). Code-switching in teachers-students interaction in English

classes (A case study at SMK Negeri 1 Walenrang Kabupaten Luwu). A
Thesis. Makassar: Graduate Program State University of Makassar.

Rogers, R. (2004). An Introduction to critical discourse in education. In R. Rogers

(Ed), An introduction to critical discourse in education (pp. 1-18). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.

Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics.

USA: Oxford University Press.

Sari, A. (2010). Female EFL learners’ request realization in relation to their ethnic
backgrounds. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching and
Learning of English, 21(1), 41-56. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from
http://journal.teflin.org/index.php/teflin/article/view/210/152

Sattar, H. Q. A., Lah, S. C., & Suleiman, R. R. R. (2011). Refusal strategies in

English by Malay university students. GEMA Online Journal of Language
Studies, 11(3), 69-81.

Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An introduction.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

6
Schriffin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schriffin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Schriffin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The handbook of discourse

analysis. USA: Blackwell Publisher.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.

Cambridge: University Press.

Senowarsito, S. (2013). Politeness strategies in teacher-student interaction in an

EFL classroom context. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 82-96.

Sert, O. (2005). The functions of code-switching in ELT classrooms. The Internet

TESL Journal. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwiching.html. Accessed
on 11 July 2009.

Setiawati, L. (2012). A descriptive study on the teacher talk at EYL classroom.

Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 33-48.

Shuy, R. W. (2001). Discourse analysis in the legal context. In D. Schriffin, D.

Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.
437-452).USA: Blackwell Publishers.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.

Struever, N.S. (1985). Historical discourse. In T.A.V. Dijk (Ed). Handbook of

discourse analysis (pp. 249-272). London: Academic Press.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural

language. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: Morrow.

7
Uspayanti, R. (2015). An analysis of speech act and its effects on classroom
interaction in English as a foreign language classes. A Thesis. Makassar:
Graduate Program State University of Makassar.

Vanfossen, B. (2001). Gender differences in communication. ITROW's Women

and Expression Conference.

Wajdi, M. (2009). Alih kode dan silang kode: Strategi komunikasi dalam bahasa
diglossia Jawa. Proceeding of The Second International Conference on
Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2) (pp. 304-317). Bandung: Balai Bahasa
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).

Wessing, R. (1974). Language levels in Sundanese, Man 9(1), 5-22.

Widdowson, H.G. (2007). Discourse analysis. UK: Oxford University Express.

Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schriffin, D. Tannen, & H. E.

Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398-415). USA:
Blackwell Publishers.

Wisniewski, K. (2006). What is discourse analysis?

http:www.tluemaczenia-angieslski.info/linguistics/discourse.htm.

Wocowicz, S & Zyusiczyuski, P. (2012). Human honest signaling and nonverbal

communication. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(2),
113-130.

Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. New Delhi:

SAGE Publications.

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis. London: Sage

Publication.

Wouk, F. (1998). Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker kan.

Multilingua, 17, 379-406.

Wouk, F. (2001). Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya,

Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 171-191.

Wouk, F. (2006). The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia. Journal of

Pragmatics, 38(9), 1457-1486.

Yulimar, V. A. (2010). A political discourse analysis of Barrack Obama’s

speeches. Paper at the 57th TEFLIN (Teaching English as a Foreign
Language in Indonesia), Bandung: UPI

8
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Prof. Murni Mahmud, S.Pd, M.Hum, Ph.D is the second child of two
sisters and one brother from the marriage of her parents, Haji Mahmud Mudda
and Hajjah Mustika Asse. She was born in a small village named Pakkang,
District of Segeri, Pangkep Regency, on 26 November 1973. She is the wife of
Muh. Anwar with one son, born in Canberra, Australia, Adhwa Dhaifullah Anwar.
Her formal education started from Elementary School, SD No 10 Bone,
Junior High School, SMPN Segeri, and Senior High School, SPGN Pangkep. Her
First Degree, Sarjana, was in English Education Department of IKIP Ujuang
Pandang (1991-1994), now State University of Makassar (UNM). Funded by
URGE (University Research of Graduate Education) from DIKTI, she continued
her study to American Studies Graduate Program, Gadjah Mada University
(1996-1998). She finished her Ph.D (Philosophy Doctor) in the Anthropology
Department, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian
National University, Canberra, Australia, awarded by the Australian Development
Studies (ADS) Scholarship (2003-2008).
She has published a book entitled Bahasa dan Gender dalam Masyarakat
Bugis by PUSTAKA REFLEKSI, Makassar, 2008. Another book is Politeness in
Bugis: A Study in Linguistic Anthropology (Volume I and II) by UNM Press, 2010.
Her novel entitled Sang Etnograf had just recently published by Pustaka Puitika
(2016).
Her articles have been published in scientific journals. In national journals,
her articles are as follows:
1. Language and Gender in English Language Teaching, TEFLIN Journal,
21(2), 2010, UM Malang.
2. Grammatical Expressions of Bugis Politeness, Lingua, 5 (1), 2010,
Muhammadiyah University of Malang.
3. Language Change in Bugis Society: to be Polite or to be Maju, Linguistik
Indonesia, 28(1), 2010, Atma Jaya University, Jakarta
4. Rituals of Politeness in Bugis Society, Linguistika, 18(34), 2011, Udayana
University, Bali.
5. Pronoun Choices in Bugis Society: The Road to Encode Politeness,
Humaniora, 23(2), 2011, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.
6. Politeness Practices in Bugis Society, Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 26(1),
2011, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

9
7. Exploring Gender Roles in the Story of I La Galigo, Sosiohumaniora, 16(1),
2014, University of Padjajaran, Bandung.
Beside publications in national journals, she also actively writes articles
for international publications. Some of her articles had been published:
1. Speaking Bugis and Speaking Indonesian, Journal of RIMA (Review
Indonesia Malaysia Affairs), 42(2), 2008, Sydney Australia,
2. Teachers’ Ritual to be Polite in the Class, Journal of Language and Literature,
5(2), 2014, ISSN: 2078-0303, DOI: 10.7813/jll.2014/5-2/5.
3. Nonverbal Communication in the Class: Students’ Perspectives, Journal of
Language and Literature, 5(3), 2014, ISSN: 2078-0303, DOI:
10.7813/jll.2014/5-3/60.
4. Questioning Power of the Students in the Class, Journal of Language and
Teaching Research, 4(12), 2014, ISSN 1799-2591. © 2014 ACADEMY
PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2581-2587
5. Students’ Problems in Answering the TOEFL Test, Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 6(1), 2015, by ACADEMY PUBLICATION
Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2581-2587.
6. Gender Differences in English Language Teaching, ASIAN EFL Journal,
Indonesian Conference Paper, Volume 4, December 2016.
7. Students’ Expectations toward Their Teachers: A Study on Teachers’
Competence, Gender Issues and Politeness between Teachers and Students in
Indonesian Context, Journal of ELT Worldwide, 2(1), 2015, State University
of Makassar. http://www.ojs.unm.ac.id/index.php/ELT.
8. Framing Indonesian Realities: Essays in Symbolic Anthropology in Honor of
Reimar Schefold, Book review at TAPJA (the Asia Pacific Journal of
Anthropology), RSPAS, the Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia.
She actively participates as editor of the following work:
1. Journal of Performance, English Education Department, Faculty of
Language and Literature, State University of Makassar.
2. Proceeding of International Conference on Language Education I, 23-24
November 2009, hosted by Language Center of the State University of
Makassar.
3. Proceeding of International Conference on Language Education II, 3-4
Desember 2010, hosted by Language Center of the State University of
Makassar.
4. Proceeding of International Conference on Education (ICE), 22-23 Juli 2011,
hosted by the Graduate Program of the State University of Makassar.
5. Proceeding of National Seminar on Gender, 27 January 2011, held by
Women Studies Centre, State University of Makassar.
She also actively participates in seminars and conferences as presenters.
Some of her papers had been presented at
1. Women Studies Centre, STAIN Parepare, 2005;
2. Anthropology Joint Seminar and the Seminar of Language and Linguistics,
The Australian National University, 2006;

10
3. Konferensi International Linguistik Tahunan, (KOLITA) 7, UNIKA Atma
Jaya, Jakarta, 27-

11
 She was awarded Professor of Anthropology Linguistics by Directorate of
Higher Education (DIKTI), 1 October 2014 and had her inauguration speech on
18 March 2015.

12
 The writing of this hook is inspired by he need
Prof. Murni Mahmud, S.Pd, to provide appropriate hooks in the course of
M.Hum, Ph.D was born in a Discourse Analysis. The fact is that this course
smalt village named Pakkang, is an important part of linguistic field of study.
District of Segeri, Pangkep This course becomes the main subject studied by
Regency, on 26 November 1973. university students in all le\ els. in undergraduate
She has pt&Bshed a book degree, in m aster degree, and in the doctorate
entitled Bahasa dan Gender degree. In addition. Discourse Analysis is now
dalam Masyarakat Bugis(2008).
a trending method in doing research, especially
Another book is Politeness in
in qualitative research. Many researchers have
Bugis: A Study in Linguistic been using this method in data analysis, besides
Anthropology (Volume I and II)
the use of quasi-experimental design.
(2010). Her novel entitled Sang
Etnograf hasbeen recently The main intention in writing this book is tol
published (2016).Her articles explore the theoretical background of Discourse]
have been published in scientific Analysis as a branch of study in linguistics,
journals.She was awarded attempt as well to examine the methods used ini
Professor of Anthropology doing Discourse Analysis, and later to give exercisesj
Linguistics by Directorate of for students in doing Discourse Analysis. Thi
Higher Education (DIKTt), 1 book can become a good reference for student
October 2014 and had her in doing Discourse Analysis.
inauguration speech on 18
March 2015. The A uthoi

ISBN 978-602-61718-9-4

PH L N 1X
PUBLISHER