PAPER

DISCOURSE STRUCTURE

BY GROUP 1 :

ST NURFADHILLA GAZALI ( 105351100918 )

ADELINA NOVIYANTI ( 105351101218 )
MUH YUSRIL (105351102518 )
SRI NUR AISYAH ( 105351102718 )
VERANDA AMIR ( 105351103118 )
CINDY AYUDHIA ( 10535110328 )
SITI HUSNUL KHATIMA ( 105351103418 )

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH MAKASSAR 2021/2022
 PREFACE

First of all, thanks to Allah SWT because of the help of Allah, writer
finished writing the paper entitled "Discourse Structure" right in the calculated
time.
The purpose in writing this paper is to fulfill the assignment that given by
Mam Siti Aisyah Fatta and Mam Ratnasari Dewi as lecturer in Discourse Analysis
major.
In arranging this paper, the writer trully get lots challenges and
obstructions but with help of many indiviuals, those obstructions could passed.
writer also realized there are still many mistakes in process of writing this paper.

Because of that, the writer says thank you to all individuals who helps in
the process of writing this paper. hopefully allah replies all helps and bless you
all.the writer realized tha this paper still imperfect in arrangment and the content.
then the writer hope the criticism from the readers can help the writer in
perfecting the next paper.last but not the least Hopefully, this paper can helps the
readers to gain more knowledge about Discourse Analysis major

Makassar, November 2021

Group 1

i
 TABLE OF CONTENS

PREFACE .......................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENS ................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
A. Background ........................................................................................................... 1
B. formulation of the problem ................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER II REVIE OF CONTEN ................................................................................. 4
A. Definition of Discourse Structure ......................................................................... 4
B. Two theories about the structure of discourse ....................................................... 5
C. Approaches To Build Discourse Analysis .......................................................... 14
CHAPTER III CLOSING ............................................................................................... 18
A. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 18

ii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Discourse is a language unit that is larger than a sentence. The
units below are sentences, phrases, words, and sounds, respectively.
Sequentially, a series of sounds forms a word. A series of words forms a
phrase and a series of phrases forms a sentence. Finally, a series of
sentences forms a discourse (Rani, et al., 2006: 3). Discourse refers to a
unified whole language, which is generally larger than a sentence, whether
delivered orally or in writing. Discourse is a series of harmonious
sentences, which connect propositions and other propositions, one
sentence to another, forming a single unit.
Discourse is said to be complete because in it there are complete
concepts, ideas, thoughts, or ideas, which can be understood by the reader
(in written discourse) or by listeners (in oral discourse) without any doubt.
Discourse is said to be the highest or largest because discourse is formed
from sentences or sentences that meet grammatical and other discursive
requirements (cohesion and coherence). Cohesion is the harmonious
relationship of elements in the discourse, while coherence is the
integration of discourse so that certain ideas are understood by the
audience.
The classical definition of discourse derived from the assumption
of formalists (in Hyme's term "Structural") is that discourse is "language
above sentences or clauses" (Stubbs, 1983). Mey said that discourse is the
language used to communicate. The term discourse refers to a complete
linguistic record of communication events. Communication can use
spoken language, and can also use written language (Samsuri,
1987/1988:1). Discourse treats grammatical rules as a resource that adapts
to those rules when they are treated.
Dijk (1985:4) observes "structural descriptions characterize
discourse at a number of levels or dimensions of analysis and in various

1
units, categories, schematic patterns or relations." In addition to the
diversity of structural approaches proposed by Van Dijk, there is also a
common core. Structural analyzes focus on a variety of different units
functioning in relation to one another (a focus that is broadly similar to
structuralism, but ignores functional relations with context (discourse is
part of it). For precisely this relationship (between discourse and the
context of which discourse is a part) that characterizes functional analysis,
it seems to feel that the two approaches have little in common.
The language expressed in written form is of various types, namely
in the form of discourse. Discourse is the most complete unit, while its
concrete form can be in the form of novels, books, articles, and so on
(Kridalaksana in Sumarlam, 2008:9). The written language is expressed
through print and electronic mass media. One form of print mass media is
newspapers, which are used to convey information about various events or
things that are happening. Kompas daily newspaper is a form of print
mass media consisting of columns, rubrics, news, and articles.
Discourse is sometimes defined as an individualization of a group
of statements and sometimes it is interpreted as a regulatory practice seen
from a number of statements (Foucoult, 1972). Another view of discourse
as put forward by Roger Fowler (1977) which states that discourse is
written communication seen from the point of view of beliefs, values, and
categories included in it; belief here represents a worldview; an
organization or representation of experience.
Discourse is one of the words used to study various disciplines,
such as language, psychology, sociology, politics, communication, culture
and so on. On the one hand, there are those who interpret discourse as the
largest language unit of a sentence. On the other hand, there are also those
who say that discourse is a conversation or discourse, or discourse is a
social practice. To understand more deeply what discourse is, several
concepts are needed about it. In addition, the terms, types, and functions

2
 of discourse are also presented. Furthermore, it also discusses several
discourse paradigms and discourse analysis models from various views.

B. formulation of the problem

1. What is discourse structure?
2. What are the two theories about the structure of discourse?
3. What are the approaches to constructing discourse structures?

3
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF CONTENT

A. Definition of Discourse Structure

Discourse structure is concerned with the explanation of how
sequential organisation in discourse is explained and understood.
Discourse in this context refers to any body of text that involves
interaction between two or more speakers. This includes casual
conversation such as one might encounter at some social event, telephone
conversations, interaction in a classroom, interviewing candidates for jobs
etc. All of these examples involve some form of interaction between
speakers of a somewhat different nature. For example certain things can be
assumed in a social conversation that cannot in a telephone conversation
because of the proximity of the participants in the social conversation, the
rules for interaction in a formal interview are different to those of a
consultation with a doctor and so on.
Baryadi in the Fundamentals of Discourse Analysis in Language
Studies 2002 explains the nature of discourse etymologically. Discourse
comes from the Sanskrit word vacana which means 'reading' which then
enters the Old Javanese vocabulary and New Javanese language discourse
which means 'talk, word, speech'. The word discourse in the New
Javanese language is then absorbed into Indonesian into a discourse which
means "speech, conversation, speech which is a unitary unit of the
Dictionary Compilation Team, 2008: 1612. The word discourse in
Indonesian is used as the equivalent of the word discourse in English.
Baryadi, 2002: 1. According to the Linguistics Dictionary, discourse is the
highest or largest grammatical unit Kridalaksana, 2008: 231. Discourse is
produced by a continuous verbal communication process, namely from the
starting point, in progress, to the end point. The stages of communication
determine the structure of the discourse it produces. In accordance with
the stages of communication, discourse has parts, namely the beginning of

4
the discourse, the body of the discourse, and the closing part of
Luxembourg 1984: 100. As a structure, each part of the discourse has its
own function. The initial part of the discourse serves as the opening of the
discourse, the body part of the discourse serves as an expository of the
content of the discourse, and the closing part serves as a marker of the end
of the discourse. Of the three parts, the part that must exist is the body of
discourse. The other two parts are not always present in every discourse.
Baryadi, 2002: 14.
In accordance with the linear nature of language use, discourse has
a structure. Discourse structure is more open than sentence structure.
That is, the possibility of variations in the arrangement of the elements of a
sentence is very limited, while the possibility of variations in the
arrangement of the elements of the structure of discourse is greater.
There are various points of view in determining the structure of
discourse so that there are various descriptions of the structure of
discourse.
Tarigan (2009: 92) argues that, like language, discourse also has
form and meaning. Coherence of meaning and neatness of form are
important factors to determine the level of readability of a discourse. For
this reason, the following will explain the integrity of the discourse
structure, in which there is cohesion and coherence.
1. Cohesion
Cohesion according to Halliday (in Oktavianus 2006:53) is a
semantic relationship that exists in a text. Cohesion will arise if the
interpretation of an element in a text or discourse depends on other
elements in the text or discourse. According to Tarigan (2009: 96),
cohesion is a syntactic organization and is a container for sentences
that are arranged cohesively and densely to produce speech.
Meanwhile, according to Mulyana (2005:26) cohesion is
defined as a cohesive form that structurally forms a syntactical bond.
It can be concluded that cohesion is the relationship between sentences

5
in a discourse, both on a grammatical scale and on a certain lexical
scale, that is, cohesion is a formal aspect of language in discourse.
Halliday and Hasan (in Oktavianus 2006:53) divide the tools of
cohesion into grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.
a. Grammatical Cohesion
Grammatical cohesion is cohesion that involves the use of
elements of language rules. Grammatical cohesion markers consist
of references, substitutions, ellipsis, and conjunctions.
• Reference
Reference according to Ogden and Richard (in
Oktavianus 2006: 53) is the relationship between the symbol
and the object being referred to. Reference relationships can be
divided into two types, namely endophores and exophores.
Endophoric references are when the elements being
referred to exist in the text (intratextual). Meanwhile,
exophores are references to elements that are outside the
language (extratextual), namely in the context of the situation.
For example in the utterance "That's the sun". The word in the
utterance refers to something outside the text, namely a
glowing object that illuminates this world.
Endophoric references are also divided into two types,
namely anaphora and cataphoric references. Anaphora
references refer to elements that have been mentioned earlier
(previously) or backward references, for example found in the
following utterances:
"Guys, we have to finish this discourse analysis task
immediately."
In the above utterance, the word "we" refers to the
words of the speaker's friends and self.
While the cataphoric reference is a reference
relationship that refers to the elements mentioned later. For

6
 example: “Give them food! The children seem very hungry.”
From these utterances, we can conclude that the word "they"
refers to the word "the children".

• Substitution
Substitution is the process and result of replacing
language elements by other elements in larger units to obtain
distinguishing elements or explain certain structures.
Example :
“Yesterday, Riri married her idol. As a woman, of
course, one day Anita will also want the same thing.”
In the discourse above, the phrase wanting the same
thing is a substitute for getting married to his idol.
• Ellipsis
According to Kridalaksana (in Oktavianus 2006:57),
ellipsis is the removal of some elements in an utterance. The
omitted part can be identified through the context of language
and non-language context. Meanwhile, according to Mulyana
(2005:28), ellipsis or omission is the process of removing
words or other linguistic units. The form or element that is
removed can be estimated from its meaning from the context of
the language or context outside the language.
• Conunctions
Conjunctions are elements that connect words with
words, phrases with phrases, clauses with clauses, sentences
with sentences and even paragraphs with paragraphs.
Conjunctions are divided into coordinating
conjunctions, subordinating conjunctions, correlative
conjunctions, conjunctions between sentences, and
conjunctions between paragraphs.
b. Lexical Cohesion

7
 The forms of lexical cohesion that are often found are
repetition, synonym, antonym, hyponym, collocation, and
equivalence. Repetition is the appearance of the same form which
refers to the same meaning in a discourse. Repetition in discourse
serves as an element of affirmation, the creation of language styles,
and the expression of emotional feelings. The meaning of
repetition in a discourse depends on the context. Example :
Sorry? Are you sorry Hayati? After all the leaves of my
life you loosened, you broke all the shoots of my hope. You're
sorry? (TKV,195)
At the lexicon level, synonyms can be said to have the same
meaning but have different forms. The synonym pattern of each
language in constructing a text is interesting to observe. In
addition, cultural richness and intensity of contact with other
languages determine the color of synonyms in a language.
Example :
The pattern of synonyms of the Minangkabau language in
building relationships between elements to construct a text.
Be smart, people
You know roasting raso
Don't worry about losing.
(DR-BG, 1983)
Antonym is the opposite of words. A dynamic discourse
also often places lexical cohesion in a flexible and varied manner
by contrasting opposite meanings.
Example :
It is impossible that he will be able to accept my love,
because he is heaven and I am earth, his people are high and I live
from him a place to attach Zainab's heart. (DLK, 17)
Hyponyms are the relationship of generic words to more
specific words. Hyponyms are very commonly used in discourse,

8
 besides that, hyponyms also form a field of meaning, so that they
can be used to build a discourse that has a variety of lexical forms.
Example:
The use of hyponyms in a discourse
If it's not a tiger, I'll chase the animal until I get it.
Collocations are word comparisons. Examples of
collocations are books, newspapers, magazines and mass media.
These words are considered collocations because they are all one
unit, namely reading material.

Example:
To improve my learning achievement, my mother had to
buy books, newspapers and other reading materials in the form of
mass media.
2. Coherence
Coherence is divided into two parts, namely, cohesion and
connection. Cohesion is defined as an act or condition of connecting
or linking an element with other elements so that a discourse is formed
whose cohesive elements are arranged in such a way that the message
or meaning conveyed is easy to understand.
Example:
Whatever he buys, Joni still doesn't forget his mother
In the above statement, he has a bond with Joni. The use of
pronouns in addition to building speech coherence also avoids
repeating the same elements. Connections are matched and matched
relationships or dependencies on each other and those dependencies
should be neat. In Oktavinus (2006:66) Tarigan suggests that
coherence in a discourse can be built by developing a discourse
through additive descriptions, sequences, use of pronouns, reletition,
synonyms, descriptions of the general, the particular, comparison,
contrast, giving.

9
 Discourse development can be done through the addition of
elements that are considered to be able to expand a discourse. The
additive relationship markers are and, again, anyway. Relationships
that express a sequence are marked by first, second, next, then, next,
finally.
Example:
Life and death are two realities that cannot be avoided by living
beings

B. Two theories about the structure of discourse

Discourse structure is a composite of three interacting constituents:
a linguistic structure, an intentional struc- ture, and an attentional state.
These three constituents of discourse structure deal with different aspects
of the utterances in a discourse. Utterances - the actual saying or writing of
particular sequences of phrases and clauses are the linguistic structure's
basic elements. Intentions of a particular sort and a small number of
relationships between them provide the basic elements of the inten- tional
structure. Attentional state contains information about the objects,
properties, relations, and discourse intentions that are most salient at any
given:point. It is an abstraction of the focus of attention of the discourse
participants; it serves to summarize information from previous utterances
crucial for processing subsequent ones, thus obviating the need for
keeping a complete history of the discourse.
Together the three constituents of discourse structure supply the
information needed by the CPs to determine how an individual utterance
fits with the rest of the discourse - in essence, enabling them to figure out
why it was said and what it means. The context provided by these
constituents also forms the basis for certain expec- tations about what is to
come; these expectations play a role in accommodating new utterances.
The attentional state serves an additional purpose: namely, it furnishes the

10
means for actually using the information in the other two structures in
generating and interpreting individual utterances.

LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE
The first component of discourse structure is the struc- ture of the
sequence of utterances that comprise a discourse. 1 Just as the words in a
single sentence form constituent phrases, the utterances in a discourse are
naturally aggregated into discourse segments. The utter- ances in a
segment, like the words in a phrase, serve particular roles with respect to
that segment. In addition, the discourse segments, like the phrases, fulfill
certain functions with respect to the overall discourse. Although two
consecutive utterances may be in the same discourse segment, it is also
common for two consecutive utter- ances to be in different segments. It is
also possible for two utterances that are nonconsecutive to be in the same
segment.
The factoring of discourses into segments has been observed across
a wide range of discourse types. Grosz (1978a) showed this for task-
oriented dialogues. Linde (1979) found it valid for descriptions of
apartments; Linde and Goguen (1978) describe such structuring in the
Watergate transcripts. Reichman-Adar (1984) observed it in informal
debates, explanations, and thera- peutic discourse. Cohen (1983) found
similar structures in essays in rhetorical texts. Polanyi and Scha (1986)
discuss this feature of narratives.
Although different researchers with different theories have
examined a variety of discourse types and found discourse-level
segmentation, there has been very little investigation of the extent of
agreement about where the segment boundaries lie. There have been no
psycholog- ical studies of the consistency of recognition of section
boundaries. However, Mann (Mann et al. 1975) asked several people to
segment a set of dialogues. He has reported [personal communication] that
his subjects segmented the discourses approximately the same; their

11
disagreements were about utterances at the boundaries of segments. 2
Several studies of spontaneously produced discourses provide additional
evidence of the existence of segment boundaries, as well as suggesting
some of the linguistic cues available for detecting boundaries. Chafe (1979,
1980) found differences in pause lengths at segment boundaries.
Butterworth (1975) found speech rate differences that correlated with
segments; speech rate is slower at start of a segment than toward the end.
The linguistic structure consists of the discourse segments and an
embedding relationship that can hold between them. As we discuss in
Sections 2.2 and 5, the embedding relationships are a surface reflection of
relationships among elements of the intentional structure. It is important to
recognize that the linguistic structure is not strictly decompositional. An
individual segment may include a combination of subsegments and
utterances only in that segment (and not members of any of its embedded
subsegments). Both of the examples in Section 3 exhibit such nonstrict
decompositionality. Because the linguistic structure is not strictly
decompositional, various properties of the discourse (most notably the
intentional structure) are functions of properties of individual utter- ances
and properties of segments.
There is a two-way interaction between the discourse segment
structure and the utterances constituting the discourse: linguistic
expressions can be used to convey information about the discourse
structure; conversely, the discourse structure constrains the interpretation
of expressions (and hence affects what a speaker says and how a hearer
will interpret what is said). Not surprising- ly, linguistic expressions are
among the primary indica- tors of discourse segment boundaries. The
explicit use of certain words and phrases (e.g., in the first place) and more
subtle cues, such as intonation or changes in tense and aspect, are included
in the repertoire of linguistic devices that function, wholly or in part, to
indicate these boundaries (Grosz 1978a, Reichman-Adar 1984, Cohen
1983, Polanyi and Scha 1983, Hirschberg and Pierre- humbert 1986).

12
Reichman (1981) discusses some words that function in this way and
coined the term clue words. We will use the term cue phrases to generalize
on her observation as well as many others because each one of these
devices cue the hearer to some change in the discourse structure.
As discussed in Section 6, these linguistic boundary markers can
be divided according to whether they explic- itly indicate changes in the
intentional structure or in the attentional state of the discourse. The
differential use of these linguistic markers provides one piece of evidence
for considering these two components to be distinct. Because these
linguistic devices function explicitly as indicators of discourse structure, it
becomes clear that they are best seen as providing information at the
discourse level, and not at the sentence level; hence, certain kinds of
questions (e.g., about their contribution to the truth conditions of an
individual sentence) do not make sense. For example, in the utterance
Incidentally, Jane swims every day, the incidentally indicates an inter-
ruption of the main flow of discourse rather than affect- ing in any way the
meaning of Jane swims every day. Jane's swimming every day could
hardly be fortuitous.
Just as linguistic devices affect structure, so the discourse
segmentation affects the interpretation of linguistic expressions in a
discourse. Referring expressions provide the primary example of this
effect.3 The segmentation of discourse constrains the use of referring
expressions by delineating certain points at which there is a significant
change in what entities (objects, properties, or relations) are being
discussed. For example, there are different constraints on the use of
pronouns and reduced definite-noun phrases within a segment than across
segment boundaries. While discourse segmentation is obviously not the
only factor governing the use of referring expressions, it is an impor- tant
one.

INTENTIONAL STRUCTURE

13
 A rather straightforward property of discourses, namely, that they
(or, more accurately, those who participate in them) have an overall
purpose, turns out to play a funda- mental role in the theory of discourse
structure. In particular, some of the purposes that underlie discourses, and
their component segments, provide the means of individuating discourses
and of distinguishing discourses that are coherent from those that are not.
These purposes also make it possible to determine when a sequence of
utterances comprises more than one discourse.
Although typically the participants in a discourse may have more
than one aim in participating in the discourse (e.g., a story may entertain
its listeners as well as describe an event; an argument may establish a
person's brilliance as well as convince someone that a claim or allegation
is true), we distinguish one of these purposes as foundational to the
discourse. We will refer to it as the discourse purpose (DP). From an
intuitive perspective, the discourse purpose is the intention that underlies
engaging in the particular discourse. This intention provides both the
reason a discourse (a linguistic act), rather than some other action, is being
performed and the reason the particular content of this discourse is being
conveyed rather than some other information. For each of the discourse
segments, we can also single out one intention - the discourse segment
purpose (DSP). From an intuitive standpoint, the DSP specifies how this
segment contrib- utes to achieving the overall discourse purpose. The
assumption that there are single such intentions will in the end prove too
strong. However, this assumption allows us to describe the basic theory
more clearly. We must leave to future research (and a subsequent paper)
the exploration and discussion of the complications that result from
relaxing this assumption.
Typically, an ICP will have a number of different kinds of
intentions that lead to initiating a discourse. One kind might include
intentions to speak in a certain language or to utter certain words. Another
might include intentions to amuse or to impress. The kinds of intentions

14
that can serve as discourse purposes or discourse segment purposes are
distinguished from other intentions by the fact that they are intended to be
recognized (cf. Allen and Perrault 1980, Sidner 1985), whereas other
intentions are private; that is, the recognition of the DP or DSP is essential
to its achieving its intended effect. Discourse purposes and discourse
segment purposes share this property with certain utterance-level
intentions that Grice (1969) uses in defining utterance meaning (see
Section 7). It is important to distinguish intentions that are intended to be
recognized from other kinds of intentions that are associated with
discourse. Intentions that are intended to be recognized achieve their
intended effect only if the intention is recognized. For example, a
compliment achieves its intended effect only if the inten- tion to
compliment is recognized; in contrast, a scream of boo typically achieves
its intended effect (scaring the hearer) without the hearer having to
recognize the speak- er's intention.
Some intention that is private and not intended to be recognized
may be the primary motivation for an ICP to begin a discourse. For
example, the ICP may intend to impress someone or may plan to teach
someone. In neither case is the ICP's intention necessarily intended to be
recognized. Quite the opposite may be true in the case of impressing, as
the ICP may not want the OCP to be aware of his intention. When
teaching, the ICP may not care whether the OCP knows the ICP is
teaching him or her. Thus, the intention that motivates the ICP to engage
in a discourse may be private. By contrast, the discourse segment purpose
is always intended to be recognized.
DPs and DSPs are basically the same sorts of intentions. If an
intention is a DP, then its satisfaction is a main purpose of the discourse,
whereas if it is a DSP, "then its satisfaction contributes to the satisfaction
of the DP. The following are some of the types of intentions that could
serve as DP/DSPs, followed by one example of each type.

15
 1. Intend that some agent intend to perform some phys- ical task.
Example: Intend that Ruth intend to fix the flat tire.
2. Intend that some agent believe some fact. Example: Intend that
Ruth believe the campfire has started.
3. Intend that some agent believe that one fact supports another.
Example: lntend that Ruth believe the smell of smoke provides
evidence that the campfire is started.
4. Intend that some agent intend to identify an object (existing
physical object, imaginary object, plan, event, event sequence).
Example: Intend that Ruth intend to identify my bicycle.
5. Intend that some agent know some property of an object. Example:
Intend that Ruth know that my bicy- cle has a flat tire.
We have identified two structural relations that play an important
role in discourse structure: dominance and satisfaction-precedence. An
action that satisfies one intention, say DSP1, may be intended to provide
part of the satisfaction of another, say DSP2. When this is the case, we
will say that DSP1 contributes to DSP2; conversely, we will say that DSP2
dominates DSP1 (or DSP2 DOM DSP1). The dominance relation invokes
a partial ordering on DSPs that we will refer to as the domi- nance
hierarchy. For some discourses, including task-or- iented ones, the order in
which the DSPs are satisfied may be significant, as well as being intended
to be recog- nized. We will say that DSP1 satisfaction-precedes DSP2 (or,
DSP1 SP DSP2) whenever DSP1 must be satisfied before DSP2.4
Any of the intentions on the preceding list could be either a DP or a
DSP. Furthermore, a given instance of any one of them could contribute to
another, or to a different, instance of the same type. For example, the
intention that someone intend to identify some object might dominate
several intentions that she or he know some property of that object;
likewise, the intention to get someone to believe some fact might dominate
a number of contributing intentions that that person believe other facts.

16
 As the above list makes clear, the range of intentions that can serve
as discourse, or discourse segment, purposes is open-ended (cf.
Wittgenstein 1953: para- graph 23), much like the range of intentions that
underlie more general purposeful action. There is no finite list of discourse
purposes, as there is, say, of syntactic catego- ries. It remains an
unresolved research question whether there is a finite description of the
open-ended set of such intentions. However, even if there were finite
descriptions, there would still be no finite list of intentions from which to
choose. Thus, a theory of discourse structure cannot depend on choosing
the DP/DSPs from a fixed list (cf. Reichman-Adar 1984, Schank et al.
1982, Mann and Thompson 1983), nor on the particulars of individual
intentions. Although the particulars of individual intentions, like a wide
range of common sense knowledge, are crucial to understanding any
discourse, such particulars cannot serve as the basis for determining
discourse structure.
What is essential for discourse structure is that such intentions bear
certain kinds of structural relationships to one another. Since the CPs can
never know the whole set of intentions that,might serve as DP/DSPs, what
they must recognize is the relevant structural relationships among
intentions. Although there is an infinite number of intentions, there are
only a small number of relations relevant to discourse structure that can
hold between them.
In this paper we distinguish between the determination of the DSP
and the recognition of it. We use the term determination to refer to a
semantic-like notion, namely, the complete specification of what
isintended by whom; we use the term recognition to refer to a processing
notion, namely, the processing that leads a discourse participant to identify
what the intention is. These are obviously related concepts; the same
information that determines a DSP may be used by an OCP to recognize it.
However, some questions are relevant to only one of them. For example,
the question of when the informa- tion becomes available is not relevant to

17
 determination but is crucial to recognition. An analogous distinction has
been drawn with respect to sentence structure; the parse tree
(determination) is differentiated from the pars- ing process (recognition)
that produces the tree.

The structure of the discourse is based on the transformational grammar

theory by using an analogy, the sentence is composed of several words in
line with the discourse is composed of several sentences. Signs :
1. The inner structure of the sentence consists of a phrase marker
component and the end syllable of the phrase marker falling on the
word.
2. Semantic components are known through the direct elements of each
branch.
3. The rules of discourse formation can be seen semantically by
analyzing the relationship of sentences that form the basic structure of
discourse.
4. The basic structure of discourse is known by semantic interpretation.
5. The inner structure of a sentence can be described by a sentence
transformation that produces a direct element in the form of words.
6. The basic structure of discourse can be described by discourse
transformations that produce a series of inner structures of sentences.
7. The direct structure can be interpreted through a morphonemic process
in the sequence of segmental sounds
8. Disadvantages: (1) the structure of the discourse above is only limited
to the sequence of sentences in forming discourse. (2) only provides
information about groups of sentences and their order.
C. Approaches To Build Discourse Analysis
1. Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (Dialectical-
Relational Approach/ DRA)
The approach of critical discourse analysis made by Norman
Fairclough is that discourse is a social practice. This causes a related

18
relationship between social practice and the process of forming discourse.
For this reason, a search must be carried out on the context of text
production, text consumption, and socio-cultural aspects that influence the
formation of discourse. Fairclough (1989) explains that there is a
dialectical relationship between social practice and the process of
discourse formation, namely discourse influences social order and social
order influences discourse. Therefore, discourse can shape and be shaped
by society. In addition, discourse can also shape and change knowledge,
social relations, and social identity. Furthermore, discourse is shaped by
power associated with ideology. Thus, the critical discourse analysis
approach created by Fairclough is called the Dialectical-Relational
Approach (DRA) or also known as the social change approach.

2. Theo Van Leeuwen's Critical Discourse Analysis (Social Actors

Approach/SAA)
Theo van Leeuwen introduced this critical discourse analysis approach
to explain how a group is created or hidden. Van Leeuwen's critical
discourse analysis approach explains how certain people and social actors
appear in discourse. How a group that dominates is more in control and a
group whose position is low is described as a bad person. For example,
marginalized groups, such as: unemployed, prostitutes, laborers, and
women are considered groups that do not have power and power, they are
also described as uneducated, socially ill, disruptive, and always doing
evil. The bad image depicted in the media to this marginal group is
considered as a bad group and the dominating group becomes the party
that looks 'disadvantaged'.
In connection with the above, Van Leeuwen quoted by Fauzan (2014)
focuses on two things, namely the exclusion process and the inclusion
process. The exclusion process is a process that explains that in discourse
there are groups or actors who are not shown in the news, that is, by not
showing or disguising the main mastermind so that the aggrieved party

19
becomes the center of attention of the news. The process of eliminating the
main mastermind can change people's minds about an event and legalize
certain positions of understanding. The inclusion process, which is the
process of entering a certain person or group into the discourse, is the
opposite of the exclusion process. The process of exclusion and inclusion
is a discourse strategy. The process of exclusion and inclusion is a way of
presenting social actors in discourse by utilizing wordplay or diction,
sentences, language styles, and certain ways of telling stories to display
the desired social actors in a discourse.

3. Critical Discourse Analysis by Teun A. Van Dijk (Socio-cognitive

Approach/SCA)
The critical discourse analysis approach proposed by Van Dijk is
known as the "social cognitive approach". This critical discourse analysis
approach is not only based on text analysis, but also has to be seen how the
text can be produced, so that a knowledge of why such a text can be
obtained.
Discourse by Van Dijk quoted by Fauzan (2014) is described as having
three dimensions, namely text, social cognition, and social context and the
three dimensions of discourse are combined into a single unit for analysis.
In the text dimension, what is analyzed is the structure of the text and the
discourse strategy used to clarify the themes created. The dimension of
social cognition analyzes the process of obtaining news texts that involve
individual cognition from other people. The dimension of social context
analyzes the discourse framework that develops in the general public about
a news.

4. Ruth Wodak's Critical Discourse Analysis (Discourse-Historica

Approaches/DHA)
The critical discourse analysis approach proposed by Wodak quoted by
Fauzan (2014), is to analyze a discourse by looking at historical factors in

20
a discourse. The critical discourse analysis approach that was developed is
called the historical discourse approach because in analyzing discourse
one must include a historical context to explain a particular group or
community.
The critical discourse analysis approach proposed by Wodak can be
carried out in three ways: (1) determining the main topic of a specific
discourse; (2) reviewing discursive strategies (including argumentation
strategies); and (3) analyzing the real meanings in language, as well as
linguistic meanings in other forms.

5. Sara Mills' Critical Discourse Analysis (Feminist Stylistics

Approach/FSA)
Sara Mills' critical discourse analysis approach focuses on how women
appear in discourse. So far, women have always been excluded and in bad
conditions and women are not given the opportunity to defend themselves.
This critical discourse approach is often referred to as a feminist/feminist
stylistics perspective of discourse analysis approach. According to Sara
Mills quoted by Fauzan (2014), this feminist perspective approach has the
aim of explaining what is in conventional stylistics will become clearer in
analyzing discourse. This will maximize the stylistic function in discourse
analysis that whether language just exists or does it have to exist and be
raised.
Sara Mills developed this approach to observe what actors look like in
discourse. That is, who will be the subject of the story and who will be the
object of the story. Thus, it will be obtained what kind of discourse
building and what meaning is in the discourse in detail. Sara Mills also
observes how readers and writers are treated and how readers identify and
place themselves in discourse. This will place the reader in one position
and affect how the discourse is realized. The style of storytelling and the

21
positions that are placed and displayed in this discourse make one party
legalized and the other party not legalized.
Furthermore, Sara Mills divides into three levels to analyze critical
discourse, the three levels are as follows.
(a) Word level, which includes sexism in language and sexism in meaning.
(b) Phrase/sentence level, including: naming, harassment of women,
mercy, dwarfism, and refinement.
(c) Discourse levels, including: character, role, fragmentation,
vocalization, schemata.

22
 BAB III
CLOSING

A. Conclusion
Critical discourse analysis is a study linguistics that discusses
discourse is not from the linguistic element, but relate it to context. Base
theoretical discourse analysis is based on some historical developments in
philosophy of knowledge and social theory. By Therefore, historical,
social, and ideology is the main source of critical discourse analysis
framework. The main purpose of critical discourse analysis is to open the
existing obscurity in discourse.

23