Significance of the Study

10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A. Discourse Analysis

Before describing the term of discourse analysis, it needs to define the term of discourse itself. According to Nunan 1993: 5 discourse is a stretch of language consisting of several sentences which are perceived as being related in some way. The sentences are related not only in terms of the ideas shared, but also in terms of their functions. Crystal in Nunan 1993: 25 says that discourse is a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or story. Discourse brings together language, the individuals producing the language, and the context within which the language is used. Widdowson 2007: 12 defines discourse as an area of the language study which is concerned with how people make meaning and make out of meaning in texts and as a social practice. All texts, whether simple or complex, are the use of language which produces with the interest to refer to something for some purposes. The analysis of discourse is the analysis of language in use. That is the reason why discourse in this study refers broadly to the language used in relation to a particular topic. Discourse analysis is committed to an investigation of what and how the language is used for Brown and Yule, 1983: 1. It means that discourse analysis concerns with the language used for communication and how the 11 addressee worked on linguistic message in order to interpret them. Trudgill 1992: 97 states that discourse analysis is a branch of linguistic units at levels above the sentence, i.e. texts and conversation. Those branches of discourse analysis which come under the heading of language and society presuppose that the language is used in social interaction and thus deal with conversation. Discourse analysis approach is divided based on paradigm of inquiry. According to Hikam in Eriyanto 2012: 3-7 it is divided into three paradigms of inquiry that are developing and competing in human sciences. They are positivist discourse analysis, interpretive discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis.

1. PositivistEmpirics Discourse Analysis

In positivist paradigm, language refers to the bond between human and the object out of them. This approach is represented by positivistempiricist. Human experiences can be directly expressed by the use of language without barrier and distortion as long as they are presented with logical expression and syntactical expressions related to empirical experience Eriyanto, 2012: 4. 2. InterpretiveConstructivist Discourse Analysis This approach relates to phenomenological thought. The proponent of interpretive paradigm refuses the separation of human as subject with the object. Subject language user is the main factor in discourse practice with its social relation. Hikam in Eriyanto 2012: 4 says that subject has an ability to control the purposes in every discourse because every expression is action of meaning composition namely self-construction acts of the speaker. Language 12 can be understood by observing the subject. Human as a subject is convinced to be able to restrain certain aims in a discourse Eriyanto, 2012: 5. 3. Critical Discourse Analysis This approach not only conducts textual interrogation but also reveals the relationship of the interrogation product with the macro contextual behind the text. It is more specifically as a study on how the power is misused or how the domination and the inequality are put into the community. This is called critical view. Hikam in Eriyanto 2012: 6 states that the constructivism does not analyze the factors of inherent power relations in any discourse yet, which play a role in forming certain types and behaviors of the subjects. It gives rise to a critical paradigm. This view is not emphasized on the accuracy rightwrong of grammatical structure or the process of the interpretation as in the analysis of constructivist. Discourse analysis in this paradigm emphasizes on the constellation of power occured in the process of production and reproduction of meaning. Someone is not considered as a neutral subject that can be interpreted freely based on their mind, because they are related to and influenced by the social power in the society. Here language is not understood as a neutral medium which is beyond the speaker or writer. In critical view, language is understood as a role of representation in shaping a particular subject, specific discourse themes, and strategies therein. Therefore, discourse analysis in this paradigm is used to unmask the power which is presented in every process of language: which