Discourse Analysis Mini Research Essay

This chapter presents an introduction consisting of background of register, problems of contract, objective of the study, and signifi idlerce of the study. 1.1 d ca subroutineplay of the contract phrase has a affectionate function as a tool to make connection between human beings. Without spoken conference, it visualisems impossible for race to interact with early(a)s in their daily brio because wrangle can tell batchs feeling, willing, notion, etc. In case of communication, some common figures might play language use in socio culture. The figure unexclusive non only as the entertainer for society simply too as a trendsetter of whatever medical prognosiss much(prenominal) as the fashion style, hobby, and the language style.The later aspect is the interesting unity that we want to analyze in our mini research. The determine of figure humans language style toward society is could analyse in Critical Discourse Analysis (commonly abbreviated to CDA). Fair clough, the founder of CDA, explains that CDA is a hypothesis of language in proportion to power and ideology (19951).This is a theory enabling us to discover how a ruling syllabus rules the society through their philology practices. Simply put, CDA is an interdisciplinary study combination lingual theory and genial theories, such as politics, economics, religion, culture, communication, etc. in order to shed light on how the br otherwise(a)(a)ly and power control argon acted out in linguistic practice. We can found language style use by figure public in any kinds of media such as television, radio, internet, newspaper, and even in media neighborlys.One of the phenomenal public figure is an Ind one(a)sian singer, Syahrini, who is known by her row. She produces some famous words such as sesuatu, Alhamdulillah ya, cetar membahana, and the last one is terpampang nyata. Those five words argon famous among our society and everyone often use them in daily communication. How do Syahrinis words deviate language use in socio heathenish? Of course, there is a reason why does Syahrini have big match to societys language usage. Based on the un tallyled phenomena supra, the researchers deliver the mini research entitled Meaning Construction in Syahrinis Utterances.1.2 Problem of The Study Based on the background in a higher place, the problem of the study is clayulated as follow a. How do the words produced by Syahrini influence language use in kindly 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 social practiceCHAPTER 2 followup OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Discourse Analysis According to Gillian Brown, colloquy analytic thinking is a term that has come to have diametrical interpretations for scholars working in different suss outs. For a sociolinguist, it is c atomic number 18d mainly with the bodily structure of social funda kind interacti on manifested in conversation for a psycholinguist, it is chiefly concerned with the nature of knowledge of short written texts for the computational linguist, it is concerned with producing operational models of text- generaliseing inwardly highly limited mounts.In this casebook, the authors provide an extensive overview of the umpteen and diverse approaches to the study of dissertate, hardly base their own approach centrally on the discipline which, to varying degrees, is common to them all linguistics. Using a methodology which has much(prenominal) in common with descriptive linguistics, they offer a lucid and monstrous account of how forms of language ar used in communication.Their principal concern is to examine how any language produced by man, whether spoken or written, is used to communicate for a purpose in a context. The discussion is c befully illustrated throughout by a wide compart kindization of talk types (conversations save in different social situati ons, senselesscts from newspapers, notices, contemporary fiction, graffiti, etc.). The techniques of compend argon expound and exemplified in sufficient detail for the student to be able to employ them to any language in context that he or she encounters.A familiarity with elementary linguistics is pick outd, but the range of issues discussed in conjunction with the variety of exemplification presented will make this a valuable and stimulating textbook not only for students of linguistics, but for any reader who wishes to investigate the principles primal the use of language in natural contexts to communicate and understand think nub.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis is ground heavily upon Hallidays dustic functional linguistics (Fairclough, 1992, Fairclough 1999), and the deprecative linguisticsapproach which stemmed from the work led by Roger Fowler at the University of due east Anglia in the 1970s (Fairclough 1992, Coffin 2001). Fairclough su pported the ideas of critical linguistics, but mat up that in many respects, they did not go far enough. Fowler claims that the effectiveness of critical linguistics lies in its capacity to equip readers for demystificatory readings of ideology-laden texts (Fowler, 1996 6). But Fairclough believed that this focuses excessively on the text as product, to the detriment of examining how these texts be produced, and how they whitethorn be see. For Fairclough, it is equally vital that we understand the do by of production of the text, as start as the process of interpretation of the text.CDA aims at making the connections transp bent among communion practices, social practices and social 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 hidden ideas behind everyday discussion. Language is no longer seen as merely reflecting outer reality. Fiske (1994) says that our words be never neutral they carry power that reflects interest of speakers. The objective of CDA is to allow on the ideologies or assumptions that atomic number 18 hidden behind the words of our written texts or oral speech.2.3 Faircloughs Framework for Analysis Discourses argon forms of social practice. They atomic number 18 overly perspicuously texts (in the wider sense of the word). But Faircloughs mannikin adds a mediating third dimension which focuses on talk as a particularizedally discursive practice (Fairclough, 1992 71). Discursive practice is itself a form of social 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 repayher three analytical traditions, all(prenominal) of which is indispensable These analytical traditions are The tradition of close textual and linguistic epitome within linguistics. The macrosociolo gical tradition of analyzing social practice in relation to social structures The interpretivist or microsociological tradition of seeing social practice as something which sight actively produce and make sense of on the substructure of dual-lane commonsenseprocedures. for discourse analysis.2.4 Theory of Ideology 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 social cognition in the framework of a critical discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1993b). In this approach, ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions ploughshared by members of social stems, establishments or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive and social. They basically function as the user interface between the cognitiverepresentations and processes key discourse and action, on the one hand, and the social position and interes ts of social groups, on the other hand. Thisconception of ideology in addition forgets us to establish the crucial affiliation between macrolevel analyses of groups, social brasss and social structure, and microlevel studies of situated, individual interaction and discourse. Social cognition is, here, defined as the system of mental representations and processes of group members (for details, see, e.g., Fiske and Taylor, 1991 Resnick, Levine and Teasley, 1991). Part of the system is the sociocultural knowledge shared by the members of a specific group, society or culture. Members of groups whitethorn besides share evaluative beliefs, viz., opinions, constituted into social attitudes.Thus, feminists may share attitudes active abortion, affirmative action or corporate glass ceilings blocking promotion, or other forms of discrimination by men. Ideologies, then, are the overall, abstract mental systems that organize such socially shared attitudes. The feminist attitudes just me ntioned, for instance, may be internally structure and mutually related by general principles or propositions that together define a feminist ideology. Similar examples may be given for racist, anti-racist, corporate or ecological attitudes and their underlying ideological systems. through complex and usually long-term processes of socialization and other forms of social info bear upon , ideologies are gradually acquired by members of a group or culture. As systems of principles that organize social cognitions, ideologies are assumed tocontrol, through the minds of the members, the social reproduction of the group.Ideologies mentally represent the basic social characteristics of a group, such as their identity, tasks, goals, norms, values, position and resources. Since ideologies are usually self-serving, it would seem that they are organized by these group-schemata. White racists, for example, represent society basically in price of a conflict between whites and non-whites, i n which the identity, goals, values, positions and resources of whites are seen to be jeopardize by theothers. They do so by representing the traffic between themselves and the Others basically in terms of us versus them, in which we are associated with positive properties and they are associated with bad properties. much(prenominal) ideologies of groups and group dealings are constructed by a groupbased selection of relevant social values. Feminists, on the one hand, select and capture special 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 equal clock advocating the primacy of their own group and the privilege of preferential access to valued social resources. The contents 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 fellowship of a group ideology organizes the entropy 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 a createst immigration and integration in our culture, country, city, neighborhood, family or company. Similarly, the goal category of groups who share a racist ideology organizes the information and actions that define the overall 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 colours . In sum, the social functions of ideologies are,among others, to allow members of a group to organize (admission to) their group, coordinate their social actions and goals, to protect their (privileged) resources, or, conversely, to gain access to such resour ces in the case of dissident or oppositional groups. As basic forms of social cognitions, however, ideologies also have cognitive functions. We have already suggested that they organize, monitor and control specific group attitudes. Possibly, ideologies also control the development, structure and application of sociocultural knowledge. To wit, feminists have special interest in getting and utilize knowledge virtually(predicate) the dominance of women by men.Generally though, we shall assume that ideologies more 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 personal cognitions of group members, e.g., the planning and understanding oftheir discourses and other forms of (inter)action.These personal mental representations of peoples experiences of such social practices are ca lled models (Johnson-Laird, 1983 van Dijk, 1987b van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). Models are mental representations of events, actions, or situations people are engaged in, or which they read about. 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 personal and controlled by the bio vivid experiences of social actors. On the other hand, they are also socially controlled, that is, influenced by the 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 explicit the relations between general group ideologies and actual text and talk.That is, models contr ol how people act, speak or write, or how they understand the social practices of others. We, and so, 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 record 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 hypothetical framework at the same time accounts for individual variation. Each social actor is a member of many social groups, for each one with their own, sometimes conflicting ideologies.At the same time, each social actor has her/his own, sometimes unique, biographical experiences ( old 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 preceding(prenominal) may be read natural covering down, or bottom up.The relations involved are dynamic and dialectic ideologies partly 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 upright and other contemporary approaches to ideology (see Eagleton,199 1 Larrain, 1979 Thompson, 1984, 1990).Ideologies in our purview are not merely systems of ideas, let alone properties of the individual minds of persons. Neither are they mistily 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 specific cognitive and social functions. As such, they (also) need to be canvas in terms of explicit social psychological theories (see also Rosenberg, 1988), which obviously has zero point 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 restricted to dominant groups. Oppositional or dominated groups also share ideologies. The main problem of most critical app roaches to ideology is that they are exclusively inspired by social sciences and rather confused philosophical approaches. They skip detailed 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, move 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 critique of discursive practices. After all, we have seen that ideologies, tho ugh variably and indirectly, may be denotative in text and talk, and that discourses in uniform manner function to persuasively help construct new and confirm already present ideologies. In both cases, this delegacy that there may be discourse structures that are particularly relevant for an efficient face or persuasivecommunication of ideological importations.For instance, advertises in newspapers,, taken as prominent sides of the overall meaning or gist (semantic macrostructure) of a news report in the press, form a special discourse category that is probably more plausibly 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, virtually all discourse structures are involved in the functional case of mental models of events or communicative contexts, and,therefore, of the opinions th at are part of such mental models. To wit, a racist opinion of a speaker about his abusive 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 sounding unwarrantably insolent or impolite (for many such examples of everyday racism, see Essed, 1991). Let us now examine these levels and properties of discourse and the ways ideologies may be expressed and conveyed more systematically.However, before we present a summary of preferential discoursestructures for the feeling and communication of ideological meanings, we should be clearly aware of what we are looking for. Given the theory of ideology presented above, we need to attend primarily to those properties of discourse that express or signal 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 b e 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 generally tend to present themselves or their own group in positive terms, and other groups in negative terms.Thus, any property of discourse that expresses, establishes, confirms or emphasizes a self- interested 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.Surface structures The surface structures of discourse refer to the variable forms of conceptualization at the level of phonologic and graphical realization of underlying syntactic,semantic, pragmatic or other abstract discourse structures. With a few exceptions, such surface structures of text and talk do not have explicitmeanings of their own. They are only the conventional manifestations of underlying meanings.Yet, such surface structures may express and convey special operations or strategies. For instance, special stress or volume or large printed type may strategically be used to emphasize or attract 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 interactional 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 banner headline may emphasize the biased summary of a news event, about a race riot, for instance, and insulting volume or intonation may similarly inequality between speaker and signal socialhearer. T heoretically, this means 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 subtle variations of the graphical or phonologic surface structures. Indeed, whereas the meanings of the text may not explicitly express or encode prejudice 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 ordinary and violate communicative rules or principles, i.e., those of normal size headlines, normal volume or intonation in polite transpire such hidden meaningsspeech, and so on. Depending on meaning and context, then, such deviant surface structures may signal, 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 su rface 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 focus may also manage the importance of information or beliefs, and, hence, the ranked organization of models in which important information is located at the top.Conversely, meanings and beliefs may be de-emphasized or concealed 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 gradation 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 true for other forms of non-verbal communication, such as gestures, facial nerve expression, proximity, and so on, which also may signal interpersonal an d 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 sociolinguistic 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 RESEARCH 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 Type of research In this research, the generator uses qualitative research. According to Creswell (1997, p.15) Qualitative research is an inquiry proces s of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that seek a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting.The researcher analyzed CDA in the words produced by Syahrini. Therefore, later the researchers described the result of their analysis which tried to find out the influence of the wordsproduced by Syahrini toward language use in social culture. 3.2 Data and Data 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 three steps 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 using Faircloughs dimension of discourse 2. Drawing conclusionCHAPTER IV conclusion AND CONCLUSION 4.1 Finding Ideologies Syahrini as one of the favourite artist I Indonesia has her own characteristics of noble-minded beautiful person, moreover women. Unconsciously, she creates her own version 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, straight nose, bulu mata lentik, and having jambul. It can be proved with the voxs regularly used by her like Cettar Membahana, Jambul Katulistiwa. It can be concluded that he prefer to see the author beauty rather than the inner beauty of women.T he 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 edition Analysis Those utterances are merely concerned with the diction 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 repent or interest expression like mempesona, meriah, gokil. For example Trans TV sesuatu banget ya or Ayushanti memang sesuatu. preferably of look 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 Bia sa or Amazing. Instead of saying 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 expresses the sound of fireworks when it burnt-out.So cettar menas something burnt, eye-catching, interesting, or extraordinary. Besides 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 exaggeration 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 controversy language.Discourse Practice Those utterance used by Syahrini above clearly in order to attract 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 peop le.NO 1 2 3 4Utterances Sesuatu Cetar Membahana Bulu mata anti badai Jambul KhatulistiwaMeaning Luar biasa More than sesuatu Bulu mata lentik Jambul KerenREFERENCES Choyimah, Nurul. 2013. CDA handout. Unpublished Paul Gee, James. 2011. An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. New York RoutledgeFairclough N., 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Polity ask Cambridge. Fairclough N., 2000. Discourse, social theoryand social research the discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics4, pp. 163-195 Kata Syahrini. Online. addressable http//www.dusunblog.com/2012/11/kata-syahrini-cucok-mokorocodot.htmlAccessed from the Internet on May 22, 2012 Syahrini Manfaatkan Jargon Unuk Popularitas. Online. Available http//www.cumicumi.com/posts/2011/09/24/23004/26/syahrini-manfaatkanjargon-untuk-popularitas.html