Group 7

DISCOURSE AND CULTURE :

DA, COHESION, AND COHERENCE

This paper was made to fulfil the assignment of course :

Semantics and Pragmatics

Supporting Lecturer : Hasanul Misbah, M.Pd

Arranged by :

1. Afifah Nurul Izzah 2011040006

2. Arya Prakarsa 2011040029

3. Fadia Maulida Ahmad 2011040213

4. Vanesa Adi Putri 2011040387

Major/Class : English Education/5B

ENGLISH EDUCATION
TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY
ISLAMIC STATE UNIVERSITY OF RADEN INTAN LAMPUNG
2022

i
 PREFACE

Praise to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala who has given his bless and
guidance therefore we able to complete our paper with title Discourse and
Culture: DA, Cohesion, and Coherence. The aim of creating this paper is to fulfil
assignment of Semantics and Pragmatics Course lectured by Mr. Hasanul Misbah,
M.Pd. Furthermore, this paper also aimed to increase the insight about Semantics
and Pragmatics Course for the readers and also the authors.

We are sincerely thankful to Mr. Hasanul Misbah, M.Pd. who had

provided this assignment for us therefore we able to increase our insight in the
field that we study. We realize this paper still lack of perfect for this reason, we
hope the helpful criticism and suggestion for the perfection of our paper.

Bandar Lampung, November 24th, 2022

Authors

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER...........................................................................................................i
PREFACE.....................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................iii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.................................................................1
Background of the Paper................................................................................1
Problem Formulation......................................................................................2
Objective of the Paper....................................................................................2
CHAPTER II DISCUSSION.......................................................................3
Discourse and Culture.....................................................................................3
Discourse Analysis.........................................................................................4
Cohesion and Coherence................................................................................6
CHAPTER III CONCLUDING..................................................................9
Conclusion......................................................................................................9
Suggestion.......................................................................................................9
REFERENCES...........................................................................................10

iii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Paper

In the context of communication we use language to get effectiveness in
getting our aim. Language is conventional speech community, so it is related with
the some aspect like politics, religion, culture, mass media etc. In linguistics cover
there are interesting branch namely pragmatic and discourse. Pragmatics and
discourse are well connected like wife and husband, so when we talk about
pragmatics we also must talk about discourse. As we know that pragmatics is the
concept and discourse is the application of it. Pragmatics and discourse are also
analogized like soul and body, because pragmatics is talking about the concept to
find out the speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and also invisible meaning of
discourse in form of text or communication. Pragmatics is determined brain and
environment. Discourse is the output of pragmatics, because it is the manifestation
of human conducts.

Jacob L. Mey (1998:263) states that pragmatics is properness of a

particular expression in a particular context of use. The problem is that those
contexts of use liable to be rather different from culture to culture, and
consequently from language to language. It is mean that pragmatics here always
have relation with culture and also language in the next. For the example across
culture pragmatics in Japanese and English in the context of communication.
When they express ‘sumimasen’ in Japan and ‘I am sorry’ in English. In Japanese
culture ‘sumimasen’ is used to express use thanks, but in English culture it is used
widely express  use an apology and it is also often implies that one somehow feels
guilty, it is called by intercultural pragmatics.

Gillian Brown and George Yule (1988: 26) also states that any analytic
approach in linguistics which involves contextual considerations properly belongs
to that area of language study called pragmatics. Pragmatics has definition as the
relations of signs to interpreters, the connection become quite clear. In discourse

1
analysis domain as in pragmatics are concerned with what people using language
are doing and accounting for the linguistics features in the discourse as the means
employed in what they are doing.

George Yule (2002: 83) states that the accent of discourse actually related
with the language and also its relation with the social interactions. It is language
use and functional of language are: Interpersonal function (taking part
interaction), textual function (creating well-formed and appropriate text), and
ideational function (representing though and experience in a coherent way).  And
here the using of discourse analysis is investigating the form and function of what
is said and written (written text has no immediate interactive feedback, therefore
more explicit structural mechanism are necessary for the organization text).

B. Problem Formulation
1. What are discourse and culture?
2. What is discourse analysis?
3. What are cohesion and coherence?

C. Objective of the Paper

1. To understanding the definition of discourse and culture
2. To understanding the definition of discourse analysis
3. To understanding the definition of cohesion and coherence

2
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. Discourse and Culture

1. Definition of Discourse
Discourse is a series of utterances that form an orderly and
systematic act of communication that contains ideas, concepts, or effects
formed in a particular context (Foucault, 1972:48-49). Discourse can be in
the form of oral or written. In the Contemporary Indonesian Dictionary,
there are three the meaning of the word discourse. First, conversation,
speech, and speech. Second, whole speech or conversation which is a unit.
Third, the largest, most complete language unit, whose realization is in
form
Whole essays, such as novels, books and articles.
The term discourse refers to a complete unit of language which are
generally larger than sentences, whether delivered orally as well as
writing. Discourse is a series of sentences that match connecting one
sentence with another sentence so that form one unit. Discourse is a form
of language communication, both spoken and written arranged using
regular, systematic and directed sentences so that one sentence with
another will become a single unit which has meaning. This is also
inseparable from the relationship between texts and context.

2. Definition of Culture
Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of
people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and
are transmitted from generation to generation. A culture is a way of life of
a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they
accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along
by communication and imitation from one generation to the next. Culture
is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group's skills,

3
 knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols
are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its
institutions.

3. Relation between Discourse and Culture

In terms of discourse and culture, we can see from the perspective
of socio-cultural knowledge in the inferences of inter-ethnic conversation
and communication, as well as discourse, change, and hegemony. In
conversational inference, it can be seen from the pitch and so on. Inter-
ethnic communication is more directed to the meeting of cultures from one
ethnic or different tribe with other tribes.
The application of culture in the study of discourse is of course
closely related, especially when discourse examines acts of
communication in society that are culturally conditioned. The cultural
element in the linguistic unit is clearly seen in the example of the Javanese
song entitled "Ilir-Ilir" composed by Sunan Kali Jaga. This song implies
that Muslims will immediately rise from adversity and laziness to build
faith as hard as climbing a slippery starfruit tree to get happiness in the
afterlife. The same discourse phenomenon can also be seen in the song
"Gundul-Gundul Pacul". This song describes how a leader must not be
arrogant in carrying out the mandate of the people, leaders have the
responsibility for the welfare of the people. The two examples of songs
above reflect the phenomenon of discourse in a linguistic unit which can
only be interpreted with a Javanese cultural background because it uses
Javanese and Islamic aspects, namely Islamic teachings related to the faith
of its adherents.

B. Discourse Analysis

1. Definition of Discourse Analysis

4
 In short, discourse analysis is a way or method for studying the
discourse contained or contained in communication messages, both
textually and contextually. Discourse analysis emerged as an attempt to
generate descriptions more complete language because there are language
features that are not enough if only analyzed by using the aspect of
structure and meaning alone. Therefore, through discourse analysis, an
explanation of correlation can be obtained between what is said, what is
meant, and what is understood certain context. This is in accordance with
the opinion of Cutting (2002: 1) which said that discourse analysis is an
approach that examines relations between the language and the context
behind it.
The first linguist to refer to discourse analysis was Zellig Harris. In
1952, he investigated the connectedness of sentences, naming his study
'discourse analysis.' Harris claimed explicitly that discourse is the next
level in a hierarchy of morphemes, clauses and sentences. He viewed
discourse analysis procedurally as a formal methodology, derived from
structural methods of linguistic analysis: such a methodology could break
a text down into relationships (such as equivalence, substitution) among its
lower-level constituents.
Discourse analysis is necessarily the analysis of language in use.
The functionalist view of discourse analysis asserts that 'the study of
discourse is the study of any aspect of language use' (Fasold 1990:65).
Discourse analysis can not be restricted to the description of linguistic
forms independent of the purposes and functions which these forms
perform. Functional analyses of discourse rely less upon the strictly
grammatical characteristics of utterances as sentences, than upon the way
utterances are situated in contexts.

2. Discourse Analysis in Communication

Discourse analysis in communication is the study of people talking
with each other. Cook stated that discourse analysis is a study that

5
 discusses about discourse, and while discourse is language used to
communicate. The meaning of discourse analysis conceptually is to refer
to the effort to study the arrangement of language in sentences. Review
units of language in broader way. Discourse analysis is the study of
structure message in communication. Discourse analysis can be
exemplified by interpreting texts below.
a. Selling is prohibited here (on the bulletin board)
b. Watch out for fierce dogs (written above the gate)
The two clauses above are text. Texts (a) and (b) can be called
discourse because they contain clear context i.e. on the notice board and at
the door fence. Two texts above have a complete unity of meaning, and
two texts above convey messages in the form of warnings and
prohibitions. Therefore the readers or listeners will easily interpret the
message conveyed by the author or speakers.

C. Cohesion and Coherence

1. Definition of Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion refers to the connection of ideas from sentence to
sentence. Cohesion is basically closely related to the semantic aspects
between elements in text. Cohesion is a relationship that is created as a
result of when the interpretation of a textual element depends on other
elements in the text (Renkema, 1993: 35). In other words, cohesion studies
indicate that the meaning described in the text is the meaning interpreted
by speakers and hearers based on the inferences they make about
relationships proposition that underlies what is said (Schiffrin: 1992: 9).
Connections between other words and sentences, which is the field
of cohesion, would not be sufficient to enable one to make sense of what
we read and hear. It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive piece of
discourse which has a lot of connections between the sentences, but which

6
 remain difficult to interpret. It is people who make sense of what they read
and hear.
They try to arrive at on interpretation which is in line with their
experience of the way the world is. So, the 'connectedness' which people
experience in their interpretation of what is being heard or read is
coherence. Coherence refers to the connection of ideas in your paper as a
whole. It deals with the logical development of your thesis and paragraphs.
Cohesion is connectivity of the surface, whereas coherence deals with
connectivity of underlying content. Coherence, in other words, is related to
the mutual accessibility and relevance of concepts and relations that
underlie the surface level. A reader or listener would have to create
meaningful connections which are not always expressed by the words and
sentences, taking into account the surface phenomena. But they remain
two different aspects of linguistic organization: cohesion is the link
between sentences, and coherence the link between the communicative
acts which the sentence perform.

2. Cohesion and Coherence in a Text

Some texts can have cohesion without coherence but texts cannot
have coherence without cohesion. The picture does not make sense unless
the correct pieces are placed in the correct order, even if certain pieces
may be the same size and shape. For instance, “I bought some hummus to
eat with celery. Green vegetables can boost your metabolism. The
Australian Greens is a political party. I couldn’t decide what to wear to the
new year’s party.”

In the example above, there are lexical links from one sentence to
the next; cohesive ties are used to join the sentences. There is evidence of
lexical repetition, ‘green’ ‘party’ and collocations, ‘new years’. However,
this string of sentences do not make any sense; there is no binding

7
semantic link. This is an example of cohesion without coherence. And the
next example is a text consists of cohesion and coherence.

“Readers look for the topics of sentences to tell them what a whole
passage is “about.” If they feel that its sequence of topics focuses on a
limited set of related topics, then they will feel that they are moving
through that passage from a cumulatively coherent point of view. But if
topics seem to shift randomly, then readers have to begin each sentence
from no coherent point of view, and when that happens, readers feel
dislocated, disoriented, and the passage seems out of focus. For many
readers, such an experience is like riding in a car that has a poor
transmission.” This text consists of cohesion and coherence because it
focuses on one central topic: readers.

8
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUDING

A. Conclusion
Discourse is a series of utterances that form an orderly and systematic act
of communication that contains ideas, concepts, or effects formed in a particular
context (Foucault, 1972:48-49). Discourse can be in the form of oral or written. A
culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and
symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are
passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next. In
terms of discourse and culture, we can see from the perspective of socio-cultural
knowledge in the inferences of inter-ethnic conversation and communication, as
well as discourse, change, and hegemony.
Discourse analysis in communication is the study of people talking with
each other. Typically, fields define themselves more broadly than they actually
practice. Cook stated that discourse analysis is a study that discusses about
discourse, and while discourse is language used to communicate.
Cohesion is connectivity of the surface, whereas coherence deals with
connectivity of underlying content. Coherence, in other words, is related to the
mutual accessibility and relevance of concepts and relations that underlie the
surface level. But they remain two different aspects of linguistic organization:
cohesion is the link between sentences, and coherence the link between the
communicative acts which the sentence perform.

9
B. Suggestion
The authors realize there are many mistakes in writing this paper.
Therefore, we hope that readers can provide criticism and suggestions that build
writers to be better in writing papers in the future.

REFERENCES

Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University

Press: New York.

Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London & New York: Routledge.

Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of language. Oxford: Blackwell.

L. Mey, Jacob. 1998. Second Edition Pragmatics an Introduction. Blackwell

Published: USA.

Renkema, Jan. 1993. Discourse Studies: An Introduction Textbook.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1992. Discourse Markers. Great Britain: Cambridge

University

Press.

Yule, George. 2002. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press: New York.

Eriyanto, Analisis Wacana: Pengantar analisis teks media(Yogyakarta : LKiS,

2006),hlm.7
Henry Guntur Taringan, Pengajaran Wacana,(Bandung: Angkasa, 2009), hlm , 24

10
https://people.tamu.edu/~i-choudhury/culture.html

https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/node/39688

http://www.tukangterjemah.com/2017/02/wacana-budaya-dan-hubungannya.html

11