DISCOURSE MARKERS IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
BETWEEN DONALD JOHN TRUMP AND HILLARY
CLINTON
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
ELBI AGUS SEMBIRING
Registration Number: 8126112010ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Sembiring, Elbi Agus. Reg.No.8126112010. Discourse Markers in Presidential Debate between Donald John Trump and Hillary Clinton. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Post Graduate School, State University of Medan.
The objectives of the study are: (1) to find the types of discourse markers used in the presidential debate between Donald John Trump and Hillary Clinton. (2) to find the function of discourse markers in the debate (3) to elaborate the reasons of occurrence of discourse markers used in the Debate. This study is descriptive qualitative based. The data were taken from the discourse markers utterances produced by both Donald John Trump and Hillary Clinton in presidential debate that took place in September 26th, 2016 in New York which was divided into three topics, namely: Achieving prosperity, America’s direction and securing America. The data were collected by downloading the full debate from www.youtobe.com, watching and listening to the debate, transcribing the utterances produced in the debate, rewriting the transcription to become series of paragraphs and printing out all complete paragraphs as the data. Then they were analyzed by identifying the types, finding the function and analyzing the reasons of discourse markers use. The findings reveal that the four types of discourse markers namely: Interpersonal category, Referential category, Structural category and Cognitive category were found. In terms of the type, the proportion of Discourse markers were identified as the following proportion: the highest percentage of Discourse marker was Referential Category (56.60%), the second was Structural category (22.07% ), the third was Interpersonal Category (19.48 %) and Cognitive Category was the lowest percentage (1.85%). There were three functions of discourse markers namely: Subjective function, interpersonal (interactional) function and textual function. They were realized by the different various conditions occurred. The reasons of discourse markers in presidential debate caused the situation context referred to the environment created the relationship between the speaker and listener. It was realized by words used as crucial to fulfill meaning of words. It was proved by having participant engaged through configuration of process field, tenor and mode.
ABSTRAK
Sembiring, Elbi Agus. NIM 8126112010. Pemarka wacana di Debat Presiden Donald John Trump dan Hillary Clinton. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk: (1) menemukan jenis pemarka wacana yang digunakan dalam debat presiden antara Donald John Trump dan Hillary Clinton. (2) menemukan fungsi pemarka yang digunakan dalam debat (3) menguraikan alasan terjadinya pemarka wacana yang digunakan dalam debat tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Data diperoleh dari ujaran-ujaran yang dihasilkan oleh Donald John Trump dan Hillary Clinton dalam debat presiden yang berlangsung pada tanggal 26 September 2016 di New York yang dibagi menjadi tiga topik, yaitu: Mencapai kemakmuran Amerika, tujuan Amerika dan keamanan Amerika. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara mengunduh video yang bersumber dari www.youtobe.com, menonton dan mendengarkan tayangan debat, menyalin ujaran-ujaran dalam perdebatan, menulis ulang transkripsi yang menjadi rangkaian paragraf dan mencetak semua paragraph menjadi data. Kemudian data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan jenis, fungsi dan alasan penggunaan pemarka wacana. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada empat jenis pemarka wacana yakni: Kategori Interpersonal, Kategori Referensial, Kategori Struktural dan Kategori Kognitif. Proporsi pemarka wacana adalah sebagai berikut: persentase tertinggi pada pemarka wacana adalah Kategori Referensial (56,60%), yang kedua adalah Kategori Struktural (22,07%), ketiga adalah Kategori Interpersonal (19,48% ) dan terendah adalah Kategori Kognitif (1,85%). Adapun Fungsi pemarka wacana yaitu: fungsi subyektif, fungsi interpersonal (interaksional) dan fungsi tekstual. Pemarka diwujudkan dengan berbagai konteks yang berbeda. Alasan pemarka wacana dalam debat presiden adalah konteks situasi yang menciptakan hubungan antara pembicara dan pendengar. Hal itu diwujudkan dengan kata-kata yang digunakan untuk memenuhi maksud kata tersebut. Hal itu dibuktikan dengan adanya field, tenor dan mode.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express his gratitude to Almighty God
who blesses him to complete this thesis to fulfill one of requirements in obtaining
the degree of Magister Humaniora of English Applied Linguistics Study Program,
Post Graduate School at State University of Medan.
He offers his very sincere gratitude to both of his advisers, Prof. Amrin
Saragih, M.A.,P.hD and Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed, TESP who have supported him
with their knowledge, patience, and generosity. Without their assistance, this
thesis might not have been completed.
Then, his appreciation also goes to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed as the Head
of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan M.
Hum as the Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program who have
assisted him in processing the administration requirements during the process of
his studies in the Postgraduate School of the State University of Medan.
The great thanks also goes to his reviewers and examiners, Prof. Dr. Berlin
Sibarani, M.Pd, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed. and Dr.Anni Holila Pulungan,
M.Hum who had given valuable inputs, suggestions, criticisms and improvements
for this thesis. He also would like to express his thankfulness for all lecturers
teaching him during the academic years of LTBI. And include to Mas Farid for
Then, his special gratitude is dedicated to his beloved parents, his late
father K.Sembiring Colia and late mother R.Br.Damanik. Thanks a lot for love he
had ever had in this world. Rest in Peace.
And also special thanks for my lovely wife going to be Pdt. Desniria
Ginting, S.Th for endless love, caring, supports and prayers. Then, his gratitude
goes to his brothers and sisters, Tua Pinta, Tengah Linda, Tengah Morel, Kak
Eka, Karunia, and Frengki for caring and supporting him. Special gratitude also
goes to the kind, generous and smart brother who has guided him in completing
the thesis Masferu Zulfikar M.Hum.
And also for my friends of LTBI, Yulima and Ayu who struggle in
completing their thesis. Thank you for your supports.
The last but not least, I need to thank to the board of YAPIM North
Sumatra and Riau, all colleagues, the principle of Yapim North Sumatera and
Riau for nice friendship. Especially, to all teachers and staff of YAPIM Biru-biru.
Medan, 16 Maret2017
The writer,
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... v
LIST OF FIGURES ... viii
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1The Background of the Study ... 1
1.2The Problems of The Study ... 8
1.3The Objectives of the study ... 8
1.4The scope of the study ... 9
1.5The significances of the Study ... 9
CHAPTER II.REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 11
2.1Discourse Analysis ... 11
2.1.1The Types of Discourse ... 13
2.1.2 Property of Discourse ... 17
2.2Pragmatics ... 19
2.3Discourse Markers ... 22
vi
2.3.2 The Function of Discourse Markers ... 41
2.3.2.1 Subjective Function of Discourse Markers ... 41
2.3.2.2 The Interpersonal (interactional)Function of DiscourseMarkers ... 44
2.3.2.3 The Textual Function of Discourse Markers ... 50
2.3.3 The Reasons of Using Discourse Markers Based on The Situational Context ... 53
2.4 Language in Political Discourse ... 56
2.5 Genre ... 57
3.3 Technique of Collecting Data ... 73
3.4 The Instrument of Collecting the Data ... 73
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ... 74
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study... 75
CHAPTER IV.DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 78
4.1Data Analysis ... 78
4.1.1 The Types of Discourse Markers ... 79
4.1.2 The Function of Discourse Markers ... 98
vii
4.1.2.2The Interpersonal (Interaction Function) of Discourse
Markers ... 101
4.1.2.3The Textual Function of Discourse Markers ... 103
4.1.3The Reasons of Using Discourse Markers ... 104
4.1.3.1The Context of Lexical markers ... 105
4.1.3.1.1 Situational Context ... 106
4.1.3.1.1.1Field ... 106
4.1.3.1.1.2Tenor... 108
4.1.3.1.1.3Mode ... 110
4.2 Research Findings ... 112
4.3 Discussion ... 112
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 115
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ... 115
5.2 SUGGESTIONS ... 116
REFERENCES ... 118
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 4.1 Types of Discourse Markers in Presidential Debate ...79
Table 4.2. Distribution number of Types of Discourse markers ...80
Table 4.3 The Distribution of Discourse Markers in Interpersonal Category....81
Table 4.4 The Distribution of Discourse Markers in Referential Category ...87
Table 4.5 The distribution of Discourse Markers in Structural Category ...92
Table 4.6 The distribution of Discourse Markers in Cognitive Category ...95
Table 4.7 The Function of Discourse Markers in the Presidential Debate ...98
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 The Conceptual Framework ... 71
Figure 3.1 Interactive Modelof Analysis Miles,
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. Types of discourse markers used by Donald John Trump ... 122
Appendix 2. Types of discourse markers used by Hillary Clinton ... 162
Appendix 3. The Functions of Discourse Markers of Donald Trump ... 178
Appendix 4. The Functions of Discourse Markers of Hillary Clinton ... .194
Appendix 5. New Discourse markers found in Donald Trump Presidential debate ... 199
115
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data analysis on the previous chapter, the study made it
possible to arrive at the following conclusions.
(1) The conclusions presented here rest on the statistical analysis carried out
on the basis of 811markers between Trump and Clinton, which were in
way sufficient to claim the results to beuniversal. Focusing on the types of
discourse markers were used in presidential debate between Trump and
Clinton, the research relates the findings of the types of the discourse
markersin the Presidential Debate between Trump and Clinton the first
was Interpersonal category about 158 markers (19.48%), the second was
Referential category had number of markers 459 (56.60%), and the third
was structural category had about 179 markers (22.07%) and the last was
Cognitive category was about 15 (1.85).
(2) After analyzing the data had shown that the problem of discourse markers,
theirfunctions and distribution of discourse markers in the presediential
debate between Trump and Clinton had been discussedfrom different
angles in linguistic literature. Although they have been labelled
andclassified in many various ways, all their functions, properties and
classification are stillnot well delimitated by linguists. Consistent with the
116
play in a coherent text (include of delevering debate) and proved
that,although they fall into three domains namely subjective, interactional
and textual, they were mutually exclusive. That is, they could appear
simultaneously.
(3) Discourse markers were essential in all the situation context. However, the
choice of theselinguistic items and their functioning depend on the
specificity of field, tenor and mode. itself. Each ofthe discussed situational
context possesses a certain quantity of discourse markers. They were
themost widespread in presidential debate between Trump and Clinton.
The markers were in the presidential debate being the closest to spoken
discourse was rich inrepetition of such discourse markers as oh,I know,
well, I mean, I guess, etc. whereas the other lexical markers used more
strict expressions.
5.2. SUGGESTIONS
In relation to the conclusions, suggestion are staged as the following:
(1) It is suggested that other researcher should study about the discourse and
pragmatics to analyze the utterances or language used by male and female
(2) It is recommended that other researcher should elaborate the study about
discourse markers in other field, such as in Indonesian presidential debate,
Indonesian presidential speech or even in teaching and learning process or
117
(3) It is advisedthat discourse markers assume a pragmatic function.So, in
order to attain certain goals relatable to the complex pattern of social
interactions;political figures (leaders) use specific discourse markers to
influence the hearers mentally or emotionally, thus modifying their
118
REFERENCES
Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Alam, M. 2015. Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers: A Review of
Related Literature.International Journal on Studies in English Language
and Literature (IJSELL)Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015, PP 1-10ISSN 2347-3126 (Print) & ISSN 2347-3134. English Language Center, Salalah College of Technology, Salalah, Oman. Accessed March 5. 2017.
Andersen, G. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Benoit, W. 2002. Persuasive attact and defense. Tuscaloosa. University of Albama Press.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin,1995 Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary
Communication -Cognition / Culture/ Power, New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Black, M. 1987.. Philosophical Review, 56, 258-272.
Bogdan, R.C & Biklen, S.K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods Limitations of a behaviouristic semiotic
Brinton. 1996. The Use and Functions of Discourse Markers in EFL Classroom
Interaction.Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Colombia.
Cook. 1992. Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal second language writing. Vol. 15, No. 1
Choxter and M. McCarthy (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (Ed.). 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dragusin, D. 2016.Discourse Markers: Contextual Indices Of Communication. Cultural and linguistic communication. Volume 6 • Issue 2, April / June 2016. Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Letters, Bucharest, Romania. Accessed February 18, 2017.
Eggins,S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics(2nd ed.) London.Continuum International Publishing Group.
119
Fraser, B. 1993. Discourse Markers Across Language: Pragmatics and Language
Learning Monograph Series, Vol.4:
Fraser, B. 1996. “What are discourse markers?”Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931– 952. Vol. 2, No. 9
Fung, L. & Carter, R., 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and
learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics, 28 (3), 410-439.
Gregory & Carroll. 1978. Language and situation: Language Varieties and their
Social context.Oxford University Press
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and Semantics 3: Speech Acts(pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Hansen. 1997. Discourse markers and modal particle. New York. Benyamin Company
Halliday, M.A.K. &Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and text: aspects of
language in a social-semiotic perspective: Oxford University Press
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. H. 1978. Cohesion in English. London: Longman
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1992. Cohesion in English: Longman group Limited
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.): London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Ismail, H.M. 2014.Discourse Markers in Political SpeechesForms and
Functions.Journal Of College Of Education For Women-University of
Anbar. Departement of English.Vol. 23 (4) 2014. Accessed on March 19, 2017.
Jones, C & Carter, R. 2014. Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: A
comparison of III and PPP. International JournalofEnglish Studies
(IJES).University of Murcia. JES, vol. 14 2014, pp. 37-54. Print ISSN: 1578-7044; Online ISSN: 19896131.Accessed 23 February, 2017.
Kempson. 1986. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. New York. Benyamin company.
Khazaee, H. (2012).Use of Discourse Markers by Iranian Teachers of English as
120
Scientific Research. Department of English Translation, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan, Iran. Accessed March 5, 2017.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lincolnl, Y.S & Guba E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills California. Sage Publication, Inc
Lyons. 1982. Introduction Subjectivity, as an "intangible, seemingly nebulous
concept" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. 1985. ‘Language, register and genre’ Purposes, System, Prospect,
Cross Currents. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R., 1993. A Contextual Theory of Language. In The Powers of Literacy
-- A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, Pittsburgh, University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Moghadam, A.Z & Bikineh, L. 2015. Discourse Markers in Political Interviews:
A Contrastive Study ofPersian and English. International Journal of
Society, Culture and Language (IJSLC).ISSN 2329-2210. Accessed March 3, 2017.
Morris, C. H. 1938. Foundation of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miles & Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. California; SAGE Publications Inc
Miles, M.B , Huberman , A.M. &Saldana 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
sourcebook of New Methods. California; SAGE Publications Inc
Nejadansari & Mohammadi. 2014, The frequencies and functions of discourse
markers in theIranian university EFL classroom discourse. International
Journal of research study in language learning . Consortia Academia PublishingPrint ISSN: 2243-7754
Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis: Penguin
Pütz, M., & Neff-Aertselaer, J. 2008. Introduction: Developing contrastive pragmatics. In M. Pütz, & J. Neff-Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing
Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-cultural Perspectives,
121
Roever, C. 2010. Researching pragmatics. In B. Paltridege & A. Phakiti (Eds.),
Continuum Comparison to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp.
240-255). London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Rose, K. R. 2001. Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications
for pragmatics research and language teaching. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 39, 309-326.
Schauer, G. A. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatics development: The study abroad
context. London: Continuum
Scheinkman, J. A. 2008. Social interactions. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics(2nd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1995. Approaches to Discourse: Blackwell Publishers Inc., USA
Semrud-Clikeman, M., Walkowiak, J., Wilkinson, A., & Minne, E. P. 2010. Direct and indirect measures of social perception, behavior, and
emotional functioning in children with asperger‟s disorder, nonverbal
learning disability, or ADHD. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 38, 509-519.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language: The University of Chicago Press
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas. 1995. An Introduction to Pragmatics.Language Arts & Disciplines. London. Longman
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and
apologies. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trujillo Saez, F. 2003. Culture in Writing: Discourse Markers in English and
Spanish Student Writing. Internet: http://www.ugr.es/~ftsaez/research.pdf
Van Dijk , T.A. 2002. Ideology: Political Discourse and Cognition. In P.Chilton and Ch.Schaffer (eds.). Politics and text and talk. Amsterdam: Benjamines
Vygotsky. 1978. Interaction between language and development. New York. Scientific american books.
Wierzbicka, A. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human
122
Yunu, M.M & Haris, S.N.F. 2014. The Use of Discourse Markers among Form
FourSLL Students in Essay Writing. International Education Studies; Vol. 7,
No. 2; 2014 ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039. Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. Accessed March 3, 2017.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
