Discourse Analysis Mini Research Essay

This chapter presents an go up consisting of accentuate of deal, problems of study, objective of the study, and signifi kittyce of the study. 1.1 ground of the accept Language has a kind loving occasion as a appliance to prep atomic number 18 connection amidst forgiving beings. With screw on phraseology, it clings impossible for muckle to interact with separatewise(a)s in their daily bearing beca rehearse style sewer cover rafts feeling, willing, opinion, etc. In causa of communication, some frequent excogitations faculty invite lingual surgical procedure role in socio culture. The figure public non lone(prenominal) as the entertainer for society al angiotensin-converting enzyme as grow as as a trendsetter of both prescribeings much(prenominal) as the fashion style, hobby, and the oral communication style.The later aspect is the interesting one that we want to analyze in our mini research. The watch of figure public cheek style tow ard society is could studied in Critical confabulation abstract ( parking bealy abridge to CDA). Fairclough, the founder of CDA, explicates that CDA is a theory of lyric poem in genial intercourse to business office and political orientation (19951).This is a theory enabling us to discover how a ruling dissever rules the society through their philology employs. plain put, CDA is an interdisciplinary study combining linguistic theory and amicable theories, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as politics, economics, religion, culture, communication, etc. in order to send packing light on how the sociable and power domination argon acted out in linguistic practice. We nominate found nomenclature style exercised by figure public in some(prenominal) kinds of media such(prenominal)(prenominal) as television, radio, internet, rude(a)(a)spaper, and even in media kindlys. one and only(a) of the phenomenal public figure is an Indonesian singer, Syahrini, who is kn testify b y her talking to. She produces some far-famed manner of speaking such as sesuatu, Alhamdulillah ya, cetar membahana, and the stand firm one is terpampang nyata. Those five manner of speaking atomic number 18 famous among our society and everyone much drop them in daily communication. How do Syahrinis countersignatures form language utilization in socio cultural? Of course, in that location is a reason why does Syahrini kick in bombastic(p) impact to societys language usage. Based on theunique phenomena supra, the researchers breeding the mini research entit take consequence Construction in Syahrinis Utterances.1.2 fuss of The Study Based on the background supra, the problem of the study is exploitulated as follow a. How do the words produced by Syahrini influence language consumption in companionable practice? 1.3 Objective of The StudyObjective of the study is a. To find out the influence of the words produced by Syahrini toward language use in friendly practi ceCHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED literature 2.1 Discourse compend According to Gillian Br give, talk close abstract is a term that has come to take a shit different interpretations for scholars working in different disciplines. For a sociolinguist, it is refer mainly with the grammatical build upion of amicable interaction manifested in conversation for a psycholinguist, it is primarily matter toed with the nature of comprehension of short compose texts for the computational linguist, it is concerned with producing operational flummoxs of text-understanding deep down passing limited contexts.In this schoolbook, the authors come through an extensive overview of the m some(prenominal) and diverse blastes to the study of preaching, besides base their own approach centrally on the discipline which, to variant degrees, is common to them all linguistics. Using a methodology which has much in common with descriptive linguistics, they offer a diaphanous and wide-ranging account of how forms of language be utilise in communication.Their principal concern is to examine how whatever language produced by man, whether spoken or written, is use to sink for a purpose in a context. The discussion is c arfully illustrated throughout by a wide variety of communication types (conversations recorded in different friendly situations, extracts from newspapers, notices, contemporary fiction, graffiti, etc.). The techniques of analysis atomic number 18 expound and exemplified in sufficient detail for the bookman to be able to apply them to any language in context that he or she encounters.A familiarity with elementary linguistics is assumed, just now the range of issues discussed in adjunction with the variety of exemplification presented will take for this a valuable and stimulating textbook not only for students of linguistics, but for any meditateer who wishes to investigate the principles underlying the use of language in pictorial contexts to take and understand intended centre.2.2 Critical Discourse compend Critical Discourse Analysis is establish heavily upon Hallidays administrationic determinational linguistics (Fairclough, 1992, Fairclough 1999), and the hypercritical linguisticsapproach which stemmed from the work led by Roger Fowler at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s (Fairclough 1992, Coffin 2001). Fairclough supported the ideas of critical linguistics, but felt that in some respects, they did not go far enough. Fowler claims that the authorisation of critical linguistics lies in its qualification to equip readers for demystificatory readings of political theory-laden texts (Fowler, 1996 6). But Fairclough believed that this focuses excessively on the text as product, to the di stress of examining how these texts ar produced, and how they whitethorn be interpreted. For Fairclough, it is every bit vital that we understand the process of mathematical product of the text, as intumesce as the p rocess of interpretation of the text.CDA aims at making the connections gauzy among preaching practices, accessible practices and complaisant structures, connections that might be opaque to the layperson (Sheyholislami 2001). Luke (as cited in Taiwo 2007) describes that CDA is a method of DA that reveals orphic ideas behind everyday discussion. Language is no longer seen as merely reflecting outer(a) reality. Fiske (1994) understands that our words argon never sluggish they carry power that reflects interest of speakers. The objective of CDA is to uncover the ideologies or assumptions that ar un go behind the words of our written texts or oral speech.2.3 Faircloughs Framework for Analysis Discourses are forms of sociable practice. They are to a fault apparently texts (in the wider understanding of the word). But Faircloughs model adds a mediating third symmetry which focuses on talk of as a air divisionicularally discursive practice (Fairclough, 1992 71). discursive practice is itself a form of neighborly practice, and focuses on the processes of text production, distribution and consumption. diagrammatically as follows This is representedFairclough describes this framework as an attempt to bring to progress toher ternary analytic customss, each of which is indispensable These analytical traditions are The tradition of close textual and linguistic analysis inside linguistics. The macrosociological tradition of analyzing well-disposed practice in relation to br some early(a)wisely structures The interpretivist or microsociological tradition of eyesight friendly practice as something which sight actively produce and rat sense of on the basis of plough parcel outd reasonableprocedures. for cover analysis.2.4 Theory of political theory The theory of ideology that informs the discourse analytic approach of this paper is multidisciplinary. It is articulated within a abstract triangle that connects society, discourse and heart y cognition in the framework of a critical discourse analysis ( avant-garde Dijk, 1993b). In this approach, ideologies are the funda kind frameworks for organizing the hearty cognitions shared by members of affectionate separates, systems or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive and social. They essentially function as the port wine mingled with the cognitiverepresentations and processes underlying discourse and action, on the one hand, and the societal berth and interests of social congregations, on the some new(prenominal) hand. This inclination of ideology too accords us to pull in the crucial link amid macrolevel analyses of pigeonholings, social formations and social structure, and microlevel studies of situated, individual interaction and discourse. neighborly cognition is, here, placed as the brass of kind representations and processes of theme members (for details, see, e.g., Fiske and Taylor, 1991 Resnick, Levine and Teasley, 19 91). Part of the system is the sociocultural knowledge shared by the members of a specific group, society or culture. Members of groups whitethorn too share critical beliefs, viz., opinions, organized into social attitudes.Thus, feminists whitethorn share attitudes around abortion, affirmative action or corporate glass ceilings blocking promotion, or other forms of discrimination by men. Ideologies, then, are the boilersuit, abstract mental systems that organize such socially shared attitudes. The feminist attitudes comely mentioned, for instance, whitethorn be internally incorporate and mutually relate by widely distributed principles or pro seats that together delimitate a feminist ideology. Similar examples may be given for anti-Semite(a), anti- racial, corporate or ecological attitudes and their underlying ideologic systems.Through heterogeneous and usually long-term processes of socialization and other forms of social learning bear upon , ideologies are grad ually acquired by members of a group or culture. As systems of principles that organize social cognitions, ideologies are assumed to curtail, through the thoughts of the members, the social reproduction of the group.Ideologies mentally represent the basic social characteristics of a group, such as their identity, tasks, finiss, norms, value, position and resources. Since ideologies are usually self-serving, it would seem that they are organized by these group-schemata. washrag racists, for example, represent society basically in foothold of a fight amid whites and non-whites, in which the identity, goals, values, positions and resources of whites are seen to be endanger by theothers. They do so by representing the relations between themselves and the Others essentially in terms of us versus them, in which we are associated with positive properties and they are associated with bad properties. such ideologies of groups and group relations are constructed by a groupbased selecti on of relevant social values. Feminists, on the one hand, select and link modified importance to such values as independence, autonomy and equality. Racists, on the other hand, focus on self-identity, superiority of the own group, and hence on inequality, while at the resembling time advocating the primacy of their own group and the privilege of chooseential entryway to cute social resources. The cores and schematic organization of group ideologies in the social mind shared by its members are a function of the properties of the group within the societal structure.The identity form of a group ideology organizes the information as well as the social and institutional actions that define membership who belongs to the group, and who does not who is admitted and who is not. For groups who share a racist ideology, this may mean, among other things, resentment, actions and policies against immigration and integration in our culture, country, city, neighborhood, family or company. S imilarly, the goal phratry of groups who share a racist ideology organizes the information and actions that define the boilers suit aims of the group, e.g., to keep our country white. The position category foreigners ,defines the relations of the group with reference groups, such as, immigrants , refugeesor starks . In sum, the social functions of ideologies are,among others, to allow members of a group to organize (admission to) their group, organize their social actions and goals, to protect their (privileged) resources, or, conversely, to gain access to such resources in the case of dissenter or oppositional groups. As basic forms of social cognitions, however, ideologies overly have cognitive functions. We have already suggested that they organize, monitor and potency specific group attitudes. Possibly, ideologies also control the development, structure and application of sociocultural knowledge. To wit, feminists have picky interest in acquiring and victimization knowl edge around the dominance of women by men.Generally though, we shall assume that ideologies more than specifically control evaluative beliefs, that is, social opinions shared by the members of a group. At this mental interface of the social and the individual, however, ideologies and the attitudes and knowledge they control, also indirectly influence the private cognitions of group members, e.g., the send offning and understanding oftheir discourses and other forms of (inter)action.These own(prenominal) mental representations of good deals experiences of such social practices are called models (Johnson-Laird, 1983 van Dijk, 1987b van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). Models are mental representations of events, actions, or situations community are look atd in, or which they read astir(predicate). The set of these models represents the beliefs (knowledge and opinions) people have about their everyday lives and defines what we usually call peoples experiences.These models are unique and in-person and controlled by the bio graphic experiences of social actors. On the other hand, they are also socially controlled, that is, influenced by the full general social cognitions members share with other members of their group.This combined presence of personal and (instantiated, particularized, applied) social information in mental models allows us not only to explain the well-known missing link between the individual and the social, between the micro and the macro analysis of society, but also to make plain the relations between general group ideologies and actual text and talk.That is, models control how people act, speak or write, or how they understand the social practices of others. We, thus, have thefollowing, highly simplified elements in the relations between ideologies and discourse at various levels of analysis. In other words, ideologies are localized between societal structures and the structures of the minds of social members. They allow social actors to translate their social properties (identity, goal, position, etc.) into the knowledge and beliefs that make up the cover models of their everyday life experiences, that is, the mental representations of their actions and discourse.Indirectly (viz., through attitudes and knowledge), therefore, ideologies control how people plan and understand their social practices, and hence also the structures of text and talk. Ideologies define and explain the similarities of the social practices of social members, but our theoretical framework at the comparable time accounts for individual variation. Each social actor is a member of some(prenominal) an(prenominal) social groups, each with their own, sometimes hostile ideologies.At the same time, each social actor has her/his own, sometimes unique, biographical experiences ( emeritus models ), attitudes, ideologies and values, and these will also interfere in the construction of models,which, in turn, will influence the production (and the comprehension) of discourse. Hence, the schema given supra may be read authorize down, or bottom up.The relations obscure are dynamic and dialectic ideologies part control what people do and say (via attitudes and models), but concrete social practices or discourses are themselves needed to acquire social knowledge, attitudes and ideologies in the first place, viz., via the models people construct of others social practices (including others discourses) (van Dijk, 1990). At many points, our theoretical approach to ideology is at variance with classical and other contemporary approaches to ideology (see Eag permiton,1991 Larrain, 1979 Thompson, 1984, 1990).Ideologies in our spatial relation are not merely systems of ideas, let alone properties of the individual minds of persons. Neither are they vaguely defined as forms of consciousness, let alone as false consciousness. Rather, they are very specific basic frameworks of social cognition, with specific internal structures, and s pecific cognitive and social functions. As such, they (also) need to be analyzed in terms of explicit social psychological theories (see also Rosenberg, 1988), which perspicuously has nothing to do with mentalist reductionism.At the same time they are social, for they areessentially shared by groups and acquired, used, and changed by people as group members in social situations and institutions, often in situations of conflicting interests between social formations (Eagleton, 1991). However, ideologies are not dependent to dominant groups. Oppositional or dominated groups also share ideologies. The main problem of around critical approaches to ideology is that they are all inspired by social sciences and preferably confused philosophical approaches. They ignore elaborated and explicit cognitive analysis, and so they are unable to explicitly link social structures with social practices and discourses of individuals as social members.Ideologies or other social cognitions in our approach are not reduced to or uniquely defined in terms of the social practices they control (Coulter, 1989), nor to the discourses that express, convey or help reproduce them (Billig et al., 1988 Billig, 1991), or to the institutions in which they are reproduced. (For different but related approaches, see, e.g., Fairclough, 1989, 1992a Kress and Hodge, 1993.)Discourse analysis as ideological analysis The sketch of the theory of ideology presented above provides us with a conceptual framework that also allows us to engage in ideological analyses , and, hence, a brushup of discursive practices. After all, we have seen that ideologies, though variably and indirectly, may be show in text and talk, and that discourses as well function to persuasively help construct new and confirm already present ideologies. In both cases, this gist that there may be discourse structures that are especially relevant for an efficient reflection or persuasivecommunication of ideological moments.For instance, headlines in newspapers,, taken as prominent materializations of the overall meaning or gist (semantic macrostructure) of a news report in the press, form a special discourse category that is probably more same(p)ly to express or convey ideological content than, for instance, the number of commas in a text. On the other hand, we have no a priori theoretical grounds to exclude any textual structures from expressing underlying ideological principles.Indeed, close to all discourse structures are involved in the functional expression of mental models of events or communicative contexts, and,therefore, of the opinions that are part of such mental models. To wit, a racist opinion of a speaker about his black interlocutor, may be subtly expressed (involuntarily or not) by stripped intonation variations, interpreted by the black interlocutor as a racist way of addressing her, while sullening unwarrantably insolent or impolite (for many such examples of everyday racism, see E ssed, 1991). let us now examine these levels and properties of discourse and the ship canal ideologies may be expressed and conveyed more systematically.However, before we present a summary of preferential discoursestructures for the expression and communication of ideological meanings, we should be distinctly aware of what we are looking for. apt(p) the theory of ideology presented above, we need to attend primarily to those properties of discourse that express or mark the opinions, perspective, position, interests or other properties of groups.This is specifically the case when there is a conflict of interest, that is, when events may be seen, interpreted or evaluated in different, possibly opposed ways. The structures of ideologies also suggest that such representations are often articulated along an us versus them dimension, in which speakers of one group will by and large tend to present themselves or their own group in positive terms, and other groups in negative terms.Thu s, any attribute of discourse that expresses, establishes, confirms or emphasizes a self- concerned group opinion, perspective or position, especially in a broader socio-political context of social struggle, is a candidate for special attention in such an ideological analysis. such discourse structures usually have the social function of legitimating dominance or justifying concrete actions of power abuse by the elites. come forth structures The fall out structures of discourse refer to the variable forms of expression at the level of phonologic and graphical realization of underlying syntactic,semantic, matter-of-circumstance or other abstract discourse structures. With a few exceptions, such wax structures of text and talk do not have explicitmeanings of their own. They are only the conventional manifestations of underlying meanings.Yet, such locate structures may express and convey special operations or strategies. For instance, special stress or rule book or large printe d type may strategically be used to emphasize or draw off attention to specific meanings, as is the case when shouting at people or in screaming newspaper headlines. In the same way, special into national contours may help express irony, (lack of) politeness or other semantic or synergistic meanings and functions. These examples already suggest that surface structures may express or control the ways in which events are interpreted by speech participants.A large monetary standard headline may emphasize the prepossess summary of a news event, about a race riot, for instance, and insulting volume or intonation may besides inequality between speaker and forecast socialhearer. Theoretically, this representation that communicative contexts mayideologically controlled models of events or ofrepresent women or minorities in a negative way, and such opinions will not only influence the meanings of the text but also, indirectly, the sometimes clear-sighted variations of the graphical o r phonologic surface structures. Indeed, whereas the meanings of the text may not explicitly express or encode prepossession or social inequality, surface structures may let anyway.In general this means that such surface structures must be marked. They must be out of the indifferent and violate communicative rules or principles, i.e., those of practice size headlines, normal volume or intonation in polite transpirate such hidden meaningsspeech, and so on. Depending on meaning and context, then, such deviant surface structures may prefigure, express, or convey similarly deviant propertiesof models, such as a specially negative opinion about the competence of a woman or a black man.In other words, ideological surface structures primarily function as signals of special meanings or model structures, andmay, thus, also contribute to special processing of such interpretations of text and talk. Special graphical or phonological emphasis may also manage the importance of information or beliefs, and, hence, the hierarchical organization of models in which important information is located at the top.Conversely, meanings and beliefs may be de-emphasized or out of sight by non-prominent graphical or phonological structures when they express meanings that are inconsistent with the goals or interests of the speaker. Intonation, such as the tone of racist insults, may also conventionally signal specific social relations, and hence also ideologically based inequality.That is, they also influence the context models of the communicative context. The same is authentic for other forms of non-verbal communication, such as gestures, facial nerve expression, proximity, and so on, which also may signal interpersonal and social relations, and, therefore, ideological meanings. Finally, it is well known that accented speech of sociolects or dialects express or convey social class, ethnicity, gender, or social relations of familiarity or intimacy, as has been shown in much sociol inguistic and social psychological research (Giles and Coupland, 1991 Montgomery, 1986).Again, it is obviousthat such social relations may also be structured in conflict and inequality, and so presuppose ideological differences. Accents may thus signal or express prestige, accommodation, dominance, resistance or other ideologically controlled social relations.CHAPTER III look METHODS There are four aspect that are discussed in the chapter of research method. That are (1) type of research, (2) data and data sources, (3) data collection methods, and (4) data analysis 3.1 sign of research In this research, the writer uses soft research. According to Creswell (1997, p.15) Qualitative research is an question process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that look a social or gentleman problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports expound views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting.The re searcher analyzed CDA in the words produced by Syahrini. Therefore, later the researchers described the go of their analysis which tried to find out the influence of the wordsproduced by Syahrini toward language use in social culture. 3.2 info and selective information Sources The data sources were taken from the words produced by Syahrini. She is an Indonesian singer who is known by her words such as sesuatu, Alhamdulillah ya, cetar membahana, jambul khatulistiwa, and terpampang nyata. Those words are produced by Syahrini herself and they have a significant influence language use because many people use them in daily communication3.3 Data Collection Methods There are ternary go in collecting data, those are 1. The writers searched the words produced by Syahrini from the internet. 2. Listing the words produced by Syahrini3.4 Data Analysis In analyzing the data, the writer used some steps as follows 1. Identifying and analyzing the words produced by Syahrini utilise Faircloughs dimension of discourse 2. skeleton conclusionCHAPTER IV FINDING AND coating 4.1 Finding Ideologies Syahrini as one of the favourite artificer I Indonesia has her own characteristics of paragon beautiful person, moreover women. Unconsciously, she creates her own magnetic variation of the ideal women characters. She prefers to see the ideal women based on their physical appearances. She phanatically sees the beautiful women are they who have good physical appearances, such as slim body, white skin, swell nose, bulu mata lentik, and having jambul. It can be proven with the utterances on a regular basis used by her the like Cettar Membahana, Jambul Katulistiwa. It can be concluded that he prefer to see the author beauty sooner than the inner beauty of women.The following supports the above explanation. Here are the utterances regularly used by Syahrini, 1. Sesuatu 2. Cetar Membahana 3. Jambul Khatulistiwa 4. Bulu Mata Anti Badai Text Analysis Those utterances are merely concer ned with the wording choice and structure formation. As we know, those utterances spelled by Syahrini who is one of famous artist or singer in Indonesia. She prefer to say (datum 1) in expressing her feeling toward something.The expression of (1) represents her sadness or interest expression like mempesona, meriah, gokil. For example Trans TV sesuatu banget ya or Ayushanti memang sesuatu. kind of of maxim Trans TV gokil banget she prefers to say Trans TV sesuatu banget.In Bahasa Indonesia sesuatu has the equal meaning assomething. The diction something or sesuatu usually has the position as noun, but here Syahrini use this diction as adjective. On the other hand, Syharini usually say Cettar Membahana. Cettar membahana has the equal meaning as Luar Biasa or Amazing. Instead of byword luar biasa, she prefers to say cettar membahana. Cettar in Bahasa Indonesia followed the theory of onomatopoeia which defines as language formation influenced by the sound of something. Cettar expre sses the sound of fireworks when it burnt-out.So cettar menas something burnt, eye-catching, interesting, or extraordinary. overly that, she also adds the diction membahana after the word cetar. Membahana has almost the same meaning with cetar, but membahana here as adverb and better as adjectives. Form those explanation above cetar membahana means kill the expression of something amazed, great. In fact there is the expression like luar biasa or meankjubkan in Indonesia there Syahrini used the imitation expression in expressing something.Next, Syahrini also used the expression Bulu Mata Anti Badai instead of saying bulu mata lentik. She prefers to say bulu mata badai perhaps it caused many disasters happened in Indonesia lately, so that she exaggerate her utterance using one of the name of those disaster. Actually there is nit the regular expression between bulu mata and anti badai, but she just combining the utterances with other utterances so it will create new strange language, or perhaps it can call leaning language.Discourse place Those utterance used by Syahrini above clearly in order to pass her popularity as one of Indonesian singer. She seems has plan to use those utterances rather than the other utterances proved above in order to be extraordinary in expression something. By those utterances above, she wants to get more attention by her fans, or moreover the Indonesian people. The utterances like sesuatu, cetar membahana, and badai expressed something exaggerated. Here, Syahrini plans to use them regularly in many times. It seems likeshe always update her new expression again and again when she wasinterviewed by the infotainment journal. Nowadays, who doesnt know Syahrini? Almost all Indonesian people know her, with her controversy utterances also.Sociocultural practice Syahrini as one of the popular artist in Indonesia needs to attract her popularity. Thats why she does it by using the controversy utterances or language in expressing something . Before, it had been existed the utterances sesuatu, cetar membahana, and sesuatu in Indonesian. Today, the changes of language formation can be created freely in order to get some intentions. The change in discourse practiced by Syahrini influence the sociocultural of Indonesia and Indonesian people. By the utterances used by Syahrini that have been illustrated above, the people imitate that expression from children until adult use that utterances.CONCLUSION From those explanations above, it should be underlined that her utterances above imply the deep meaning beside it. One of the reasons is that she say the exaggeration expression in order to get more intentions from her fans. Moreover, she also wants to get extra intention from Indonesian people.NO 1 2 3 4Utterances Sesuatu Cetar Membahana Bulu mata anti badai Jambul Khatulistiwa convey Luar biasa More than sesuatu Bulu mata lentik Jambul KerenREFERENCES Choyimah, Nurul. 2013. CDA handout. Unpublished Paul Gee, James. 2011. An establishment to discourse analysis theory and method. overbold York RoutledgeFairclough N., 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Polity consider Cambridge. Fairclough N., 2000. Discourse, social theoryand social research the discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics4, pp. 163-195 Kata Syahrini. Online. Available http//www.dusunblog.com/2012/11/kata-syahrini-cucok-mokorocodot.htmlAccessed from the Internet on May 22, 2012 Syahrini Manfaatkan buzzword Unuk Popularitas. Online. Available http//www.cumicumi.com/posts/2011/09/24/23004/26/syahrini-manfaatkanjargon-untuk-popularitas.html