The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

(1)

THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKER IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S SPEECHES

A THESIS

BY:

ROSALINA MUNTHE 040705025

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA FACULTY OF LETTERS

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT MEDAN

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise to Almighty God Jesus Christ who has been giving me his mercy and blessing. I would like to thank Him for giving me guidance the power and the ability to finish this thesis.

I would like to thank to Dean of Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara, Drs. Syaifuddin, M.A., Ph.D, the Head of English Department, Dra. Hj. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum and the Secretary of English Department, Drs. Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed TESOL for giving all facilities and opportunities in completing this thesis.

I also would like to thank to all lecturer of English Department who has given me valuable knowledge and guidance during the year of my study in English Department, Faculty of Letters, USU.

Further, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to my Supervisor, Drs. Syahron Lubis, M.A and my Co-Supervisor, Dra. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum for their willingness to share time and patience in guiding and correcting and supervising this thesis.

(3)

Furthermore, I would like to express my great thanks to my best friends, Siska, Agus, Merlin, Erlin and Ocha for giving motivation, advice, knowledge, and sharing their time with me all days. My gratitude goes to all my friends in the members 2004 who have given me support and help during study.

Last but not least, I would like to thank to all my seniors and junior, for their attention and support. Also thank to all staff in English Department and Faculty of Letters for helping me in administration.

May God bless us.

Medan, June 2008

The Writer

(4)

ABSTRAK

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……… i

ABSTRACT ……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… iv

I. INTRODUCTION ……… 1

1.1Background of the Analysis ……… 1

1.2Scope of the analysis ……… 2

1.3Problem of the Analysis ……….. 3

1.4Objective of the Analysis ………. 3

1.5Significance of the Analysis ……… 3

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……….. 4

2.1An Overview of Discourse Analysis ……… 4

2.1.1 The Definitions of Discourse Analysis ……… 4

2.1.2 The Scope of Discourse Analysis ……….. 5

2.1.3 The Types of Discourse ……….. 6

2.1.4 Properties of Discourse ……… 7

2.2 Discourse Markers ………... 9

2. 2.1 Why Analyze Discourse Markers? ……….. 9

(6)

2.3 Relevance Study ……….. 30

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….. 33

3.1Research Method ………. 33

3.2The Population and Sample ……… 33

3.3Method of Collecting Data ………. 34

3.4Method of Analyzing Data ………. 35

IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S SPEECHES ……….. 36

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 89

5.1Conclusion ……….. 89

5.2Suggestion ………... 89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(7)

ABSTRAK

(8)

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Analysis

Speech means communication or expression of thought in spoken words (Crystal 1980:327). It is a general word for a discourse delivered to an audience. Through speech, speaker conveys a message to the audience either it is to convey information or insight, to persuade or to motivate. A speaker must engage his or her audience with a central idea or propositions. If a speaker does not have a clear reason to give a speech, the speech should not be given.

Discourse is a stretch of language larger than a sentence (Crystal 1980:115). It is natural spoken or written language, with meaning being transferred through a sentence of a text, in context. Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used (McCarthy 1991:5). Some words and expression are used to show discourse is constructed. They can show the connection between what has already been written or said and what is going to be written or said. They can indicate what speakers think about what they are saying.

The various linguistic devices that create a text should be ‘coherence’, the way a sentence makes sense, and ‘cohesive marker’ which create link across the boundaries of sentence and also chain related item together. One of linguistic devices is discourse markers.

(9)

what Schriffin (1987:49) says “Discourse markers are part of the more general analysis of discourse coherence-how speaker and hearers jointly integrate forms, meaning, and actions to make overall sense out of what is said”. Discourse markers signal relationships between segments of a discourse. Discourse markers signal how the current utterance related to prior discourse. They organize and extended stretches of discourse helping to make text cohesive and coherent. It also has contribution to the message.

Related to these principles, the writer found that there are many discourse markers such as markers of connectives in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches. The writer considers that discourse markers are important to be analyzed in order to show the function and the influence of using them in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches. Sometimes they are just said without meaning but otherwise they show a cohesion relationship between the markers and the sentence said when the markers are presented. Thus, the title of this thesis is The Use of Discourse Markers in Written Text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches.

1.2Scope of the Analysis

In discourse analysis, there are some topics that can be analyzed. They are transitivity process, theme and rheme, discourse markers, mood element and so on. In this analysis, the writer focuses on discourse markers in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

(10)

marker of response (well), markers of connectives (and, but, or), markers of cause and result (so, because), markers of temporal adverbs (now, then) and markers of information and participation (y’know, then)

1.3 The Problem of the Analysis

The problem of this analysis is how are discourse markers applied in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches ?

1.4 Objective of the Analysis

In relation to the problem, the objective of this analysis is to describe the application of discourse marker in written text of President of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

1.5 The Significance of the Analysis

The findings of the analysis are as follows:

1. It will give new information about speeches to the reader especially who are interested in speeches.

2. It will be useful for the reader to know about discourse markers and their functions in speeches.

(11)

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 2.1.1 The Definition of Discourse Analysis

In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is ‘used’, rather than what its components are. We were, in effect, asking how is that language-users interpret what other language-users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and ask how is that we, as language-users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.

The analysis of discourse is necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independently to the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs. While some linguists may concentrate on determining the formal properties of a language is used for. While the formal approach has a long tradition, manifested in innumerable volumes of grammar, the functional approach is less well documented. Attempts to provide even a general set of labels for principal functions of language have resulted in vague, and often confusing, terminology.

(12)

Roughly speaking, it refers to the attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistics units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular interaction or dialogue between speakers.

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analyst study language in used; written texts of all kinds and spoken data from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk.

2.1.2 The Scope of Discourse Analysis

(13)

2.1.3 The Types of Discourse

Discourse can be classified into two kinds, namely: 1) Oral Discourse or Spoken Discourse

It is a discourse which used the spoken text, such as conversation. By oral discourse, we mean discourse which text is constructed in the real time. It means oral discourse is concerning some actual facts in the present time.

2) Written Discourse

It was formed by the written text (written language). By written discourse, we mean discourse which text is not constructed in the real time.

Briefly, these two types of discourse above can be distinguished according to the type of situation. Oral discourse is concerning face-to-face situation while a recorded transmission situation involves in the written discourse.

(14)

Can both the oral and written discourse be both interactive and non-interactive? It is undutiful that the majority of oral discourse is interactive, since this type of discourse is usually realized in face-to-face communicative situation which generally need the interactive participation of all present. In certain situation, however, the oral discourse can be in non-interactive form, for example the political speech or lecturer, who is clarifying the subject of the lesson, produces the whole discourse orally by him without any participation of the collegian.

On the other hand, a written discourse can also be interactive and continuity. For example: in the first letter, Bob writes to his uncle asking for help. In the second letter, Bob’s uncle replies the help will be given at the exact time he needs. In the third letter, Bob thanks his uncle for the favor that was offered, and mentions the time when he needs the help. These three kinds of letters are regarded as three ‘speaking turns’ which form the whole. This discourse is, therefore, interactively coherent.

2.1.4. Properties of Discourse

(15)

1. Structure

More recent approaches have based discourse grammars on transformational generative sentence grammar claims that texts can be treated as extensions of sentences and that a text grammar can be written in the same form as a generative sentence grammar. Within such a text grammar, the acceptability of a discourse would be determined by a set of rules acting as formal criteria for the interpretability of sentences within the text. Several studies take a more liberal approach to non-textual factors in their suggestion that discourse structure reflects the informational content and structure what is being talked about. They all view discourse as a structured composition of linguistic constituents (morphemes, clauses, sentences) within a monologue.

2. Meaning

Particular items such as pronouns, adverbs and conjunctions help create discourse not because of their rule-governed distribution, but because they indicate an interpretive link between two parts within the text. And although we can recognize a cohesive element by its surface appearance in a clause, what such an element actually display is a connection between the underlying propositional content of two clauses - the clause in which the element appears and a prior clause. In short, the cohesive link is established because interpretation of an element in one clause presupposes information from a prior clause.

(16)

not themselves create meaning; they are clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterances.

3. Actions

Structure and meaning are properties of discourse when discourse is considered as a linear sequence of smaller units, e.g. sentences, turns, propositions. Although action or more accurately the accomplishment of action is also a property of discourse, it is a property which emerges not so much from arrangements of underlying units, as from the organization of speaker goals and intentions which are taken up and acted upon by hearers, and from the ways in which language is used in service of such goals.

2.2 DISCOURSE MARKERS

2.2.1 Why Analyze Discourse Markers

The analysis of discourse markers is a part of more general analysis of discourse coherence-how speaker and hearer jointly integrate forms, meanings and actions to make overall sense out of what is said.

For example, the discourse (1) is a rhetorical argument through which a speaker (Tina) is defending a position-her belief in destiny-by presenting personal experience to serve as evidence, or support, for that position.

(1) a. I suppose we can’t deny that we all have our own time in this world. b I believe that … y’know its destiny.

c. it really is.

d. because my grandfather died of heart-attack.

(17)

f. and I really believe.

g. I don’t think that you can deny destiny. f. and I think a lot of people do.

g. I don’t think that you can deny destiny. h. and I think a lot of people do.

i. but I feel that we are brought to this world for many, years or whatever the case is

j. and that’s how it was and it will be.

k. because like when I was studying in Malaysia l. I supposed to study there for two years.

m. I got a letter saying that my immigration files got lost. n. and I had to go back to Indonesia.

o. And when I got back I got admitted in USU, Indonesia. p. while I was enjoying my stay in Malaysia.

q. and I just felt, this was better for me.

r. because if it isn’t, I would have not got into USU.

s. so eh y’know it seems it just seems that it’s meant to happen like that.

(18)

she states this in various ways in several locations; lines (a)-(c), (f)-(j) and (s), support for this position is given through brief description of two experiences in which coincident events had no rational explanation, and are thus interpreted as meant to be. This evidence is presented (in line d-e, k-r) between paraphrases of the position.

Several markers in (1) play a role in its formation as an argument. First, we find because preceding support in (d) and (k). Because often precedes not just evidence, but other casually related discourse material, e.g. background information in narratives.

We find and in (f); and precedes a self-interrupted restatement of the position. We will see that and often precedes material which continues an earlier part of discourse-especially material which is not subordinate to the overall structure of the discourse. In both (h) and (j), and links ideas which seems closely related to just prior ideas. In (h), the speaker is contrasting a feeling of her own (about denying destiny) with the actions of others. Thus, within the position, and seems to have a role in linking related ideas when the union of those ideas play a role in larger ideational structure of the argument.

In (i) but is an adversative conjunction suggests that what follows but is an idea which contrasts with what has preceded. Like and, then, it seems that but

could have a cohesive function within the position.

(19)

There is one other marker in (1) that is y’know. It is directed toward gaining hearer involvement in an interaction. In (b) and (s), y’know seems to be marking some kind of appeal from speaker to hearer for consensus, e.g. for understanding as to the meaning of destiny, or even for understanding as to the meaning of destiny, or even for agreement on the position being taken about destiny.

We will see that y’know is widely used throughout talk at locations in which discourse tasks hinge on special cooperative effort between speaker and hearer.

The observation about what markers add to discourse have based largely on their locations within discourse where markers occur, and with what markers co-occur. There are other issue: markers as coherence options, shows options for each other-as alternative ways of saying the same thing also rises the problem of whether elements as diverse as and, y’know can form one class of items in a discourse paradigms. In traditional linguistic analysis, items which occur in the same environment but do not produce a different meaning are in contrast, whereas items which occur in the same environment but do not produce a different in meaning are in free variation.

2.2.2 Kinds of Discourse Markers

(20)

1) Marker of Information Management

The first type of discourse markers is oh. The explanation of discourse markers oh is not clearly based on semantic meaning or grammatical status.

Oh is traditionally viewed as an exclamation of interjection. When it use alone, without the syntactic support of a sentence, oh is said to indicate strong emotional states, e.g. surprise, fear or pain. For examples:

(1) Andi : Was that interesting games? Budi : oh ! yes! It was

(2) Andi : Like I’d say, ‘What d’y’mean you don’t like rock music concert? Oh! I don’t like it. It’s too crowded

Oh can aslso initiate utterances, either followed by a brief pause; (3) Fay : oh, well I was here when I was a child

Or with no pause preceding the rest of tone unit:

(4) Adi : does he like classical music? Oh maybe he’s too young.

Regardless of its syntactic status on intentional contour, that oh occurs as speaker shift their orientation to information. Oh pulls the flow of information in discourse to the temporary focus of attention which is the target of self and or other management. Oh occurs in several different situations such as: oh in repair initiation, for example, Cathy is answering a question about whether she believes in extrasensory perception by describing her husband Jack’s abilities to predict future political events.

(5) I mean …he can almost foresee:…eh::for instance with

(21)

not be good for him, if he should be operated on. Oh maybe it’s just knowledge.

I don’t know if that’s E.S.P or not in that C-in this case.

Cathy recategorizes a particular description from an instance of E.S.P. to an instance of knowledge: this self-repair is initiated with oh.

Oh prefaces both self and other completion. For example, Lita self-initiates and self completes her replacement of yeh with no and Senior High School Plus and then further self-completes with oh that’s right.

From all the examples above, oh has a role in information status because

oh marks a focus of speaker’s attention which then also becomes a candidate for hearer’s attention. Oh has or is suggested to have a pragmatic effect-the creation of a joint focus. Oh can be focused on or situated in social interaction. First, oh

makes evident a very general and pervasive property of participant framework. Because oh displays one’s own on going management of information, its user is temporarily displayed as an individual active in the role of utterance reception.

(22)

2) Marker of Response

Like oh, the use of well is not based on semantic meaning or grammatical status. Although well sometimes is a noun, an adverb or degree word, its use in utterance initial position is difficult to characterize in terms based on any of these classes. We can see some placements of well.

It can occur in request-compliance pairs, for example: in (1) Irene issues a request for action to Henry and Zelda, who have been talking about topics other than those on conversational agenda.

(1) Irene : Let’s get back because she’ll never get home. Debby : Well, actually we don’t have that much more.

Well can occur in request for confirmation although it is a bit harder to identity. Such requests are often identifiable because of the information status assumed to hold at the time of speaking, that is, speaker or hearer knowledge and meta-knowledge. This is, if a speaker makes a statement about an event about which a hearer is expected to have knowledge as request for confirmation, then, are statements about the hearer’s past life, abilities, likes and dislikes, knowledge, and so on. For examples:

(2) Erwin : And my father has been working for the government company. Roni : So your father must like them as an employer then.

Erwin : Well my father likes his job, now.

(23)

from another: well locates a speaker as a respondent to one level of discourse and allows a temporary release from attention to others.

3) Markers of Connectives

Another different set of markers are and, but, and or. They are called discourse connective. The first item of this kind of marker is and. And is the most frequently used mode of connection at a local of idea structure, for examples:

(3) a. See this is what every student does. b. But we were serious

c. And we tried to answer d. And we tried to pass e. And we fail

Mathematic teacher is explaining that every student tried to do the sum in the exam (a,c,d); some students, however, failed the exam (b, e). The contrast between the efforts to pass and the unintended fail is marked, first with but (in b), and then with and (in e). And thus occurs in environment by but.

And also occurs in an environment shard by so. In (4) Nely prefaces and outcome of reason with and. She is explaining why she remembers a particular childhood game; note, again preface of the reason with because.

(4) a. That’s one game I remember b. Because we had a driveway c. And, like we would hide

d. And they would walk around the driveway? e. Y’know?

(24)

After explaining why she remembers the game (b-c), Nely again mentions that memory (f). Her paraphrase of the outcome is prefaced with and

rather so.

And is a structural coordinator of ideas as which has pragmatic effect as a marker of speaker continuation. But discovering which ideas are coordinated by

and, which action are continued, required looking into the content and structure which tell us what idea units, are being marked by and.

The second item of connective marker is but. Although but is a discourse coordinator (like and), it has a very pragmatic effect: but marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action, because this effect is based on its contrastive meaning, the range of ideational uses of but is considerably narrower that that of and, for examples:

(5) a. But, in my house, we were not taught liar. b. And he didn’t have a place to sleep.

c. Never did I ever say this girl is like this, that girl is like that.

d. It was prove for a fact that her uncle always did take care of his children.

e. She put her in her own house. f. So we were not liar.

This shows the contrast that becomes a new position, and evidence is presented to support his position. In (6), John shows or faced contrast with the tolerance provided the family.

(6) g. But, I went to my village.

(25)

This contrast explains the use of but in (g). The mentioning of hostility is also broader structural role in the argument: it provides an instance of support, and thus provides evidence for the main position of the argument. But marks both position and support in John’s argument. But it does so only when the content of those units contrast with prior ideas: but in (a) contrast the tolerance faced by one group with the tolerance provided by that group; but in (g) marks both of these contrasts. But marks idea units which are functionally related-support, position, their functional relationship is less important than their contrastive contents in explaining the use of but.

The third item of connective marker is or. Or is used as an option marker in discourse. It differs from and and but not only in meaning, because it is move hearer-directed: whereas and marks a speaker’s continuation, and but a speaker’s return to a point, or marks a speaker’s provision of options to hearer. Or offers accepting only one member of disjunc or both members of a disjunct. Or provides idea options in argument-a mode of discourse whose organization has also revealed the use of and and but. Or is used in arguments primarily to mark different pieces of support as multiple evidence for a position. In (7), for example, Jack is arguing Hongkong movies never present a realistic view of life. He presents two examples to support his generalization about the lack of realism.

(7) Jack : i. I’m-I’m speaking how kind everybody is on the movie. j. Or uh …how’s poor working girl is out looking for a job.

(26)

This would mean that or is inclusive; either one member or both members of the disjunct can hold.

Or is also used to offer inclusive options, as a response to questions, for examples:

Ita : a. I’d like t’live in Jakarta. Wina : b. Who wouldn’t

Ita : c. I was up there with my husband last two weeks. There are many beautiful places there.

Wina : d. There are really beautiful.

Ita : e. Or I have a sister that lives up in eh: Bandung. Do you know it?

Wina : f. No. I’ve never gone there.

Ita : f. So, they have nice places, really beautiful places

Or can also occur in a clarification. For examples: Edy : a. If I had a girl friend

b.I’d never let her go out to somewhere alone. Evi : c. Y’think it’s too uh…

Edy : d. I would never let her t- e. No no no. Its very good idea

f. But I or I would never let my sister to go out to somewhere alone either

(27)

Or is also used in offering inclusive options to hearer in disagreement. For example:

Diana : a. Yeh, but wait; it doesn’t mean because they’re got the same religion, they’re-they’re bad.

b. Or if they are of your religion that things are gonna work out well.

c. It’s the person… too. d. So it takes both.

Or is used as an option for a marker in discourse: it provides with a choice between accepting only one member of disjunct or both members of disjunct. Thus, or is fundamentally different from and and but because it is not a marker of a speaker’s action toward his own talk, but of a speaker’s desire for a hearer to take action.

More specifically, or represents a speaker’s effort to elicit from a hearer a stance toward an ideas unit, or to gain a response of some kind, or thus prompts the exchange the status quo, and but returns it to a prior state.

4) Markers of Cause and Result

Another different set of markers are so and because. They are called markers of cause and result. Like and, but, and or, so and because have grammatical properties which contribute to their discourse use. So and because

(28)

depend on both the functional and referential organization of talk. From a functional perspective, subordinate material is that which has a secondary role in relation to a more encompassing focus of joint attention and activity. From a referential perspective, subordinate material is that which is not as relevant in and of it, as it is to a more global topic of talk. For example, so and because may show a fairly clear differentiation of main by from subordinate material. In the following examples, Defy is explaining why she and Fajar are not going to see their daughter that evening.

Defy : a. Well, we were going up t’see uh…my- our daughter tonight. b. But we’re not

c. Cause the younger one’s gonna come for dinner. d. Cause he’s working in the neighborhood.

e. So that’s out.

The event being explained is in (b): we’re not. The first reason is in (c) and a reason for that reason is in (d). Thus, Defy uses cause to progressively embedded reason in her explanation.

Because and so have semantic meaning which are realized at both sentence and discourse levels: because conveys a meaning of ‘cause’ and so

conveys meaning a ‘result’. These meanings appear on three of planes of discourse: ideational structure, information state and actions.

Because and so can mark fact-based cause and result relations at both local and global levels of discourse. (1) Illustrates so at both levels.

(29)

The event in (a) resulted from the prior story events; thus, so functions globally over a wide range of talk.

Both because and so are use used to mark convergent portions of an explanation and an answer. For examples:

Ira : a. Susi goes with me a lot

b. Cause she has more patience…with my son I do c. So, sometimes we go shopping together with my son.

It is important to note down that so is used at potential transition locations in talk-when speakers offer hearer a turn at talk, a chance to complete an incomplete proposition by answering a question, an opportunity to change topic.

Because and so convey meanings of cause and result which may be realized as fact-based, knowledge-based and/or action based relations between units of talk. Like the other markers considered so far, so and because work at both local and global levels of talk. At local level, so and because allow two ordering options which are thematically constrained by surrounding discourse. Like and, but, and or, so and because are used in discourse in ways which reflect their linguistic properties.

5) Markers of Temporal: Now and Then

(30)

Now occurs in discourse in which the speaker progresses through a cumulative series of subordinate unit. The discourse in which now occurs need not be explicitly structured or identified as having two subordinate units. Now

occurs not only when the comparison is explicitly identified as having two clearly introduced subtopics, but also when the subtopics under comparison are only implicit. For example:

Tony: a. They aren’t brought up the same way. b.Now Italian people are very outgoing. c.They’re very generous.

d.When they put a meal on the table it’s a meal. e.Now, these boys were Irish.

f.They lived different.

Tony is comparing the childbearing practices of Italians and Irish. This comparison is explicitly introduced in (a). Following the introduction of the comparison, Tony uses now to introduce both subtopics: Italians (b) and Irish (e).

Now also occurs with an opinion about a disputable topic. It is displaying the speaker’s recognition of interpersonal differences about that topic. For example: Sally has asked Zelda how she feels about intermarriage.

a. Well …it is all depend on um..

b. Now my husband believes in eh marrying in his own religion. c. And he tried to stress it with the boys.

(31)

Now shows a speaker’s progression through the discourse time of a comparison a discourse which is comprised of a cumulative series of subtopic. In all the comparisons, however, now has the same function. It displays that what is coming next in the discourse is but a subpart of a larger cumulative structure, and thus has to be interpreted as a subordinate unit in relation to a progression of such units. In short, now marks the speaker’s orderly progression in discourse time through a sequence of subparts.

Then indicates temporal succession between prior and upcoming talk. For example: Sari is answering Tina’s question about where she has lived:

a. And…I lived there until I got married. b. And then, for about two years after then c. So: uh, and then we moved here.

d. We’ve been living here for about twelve years.

In (b), then indicates both coterminous and successive event time: initial

then marks the two years time period following Sari’s marriage (a) and final then marks the time period co-occurring with the time of the marriage.

Then marks successive subtopics in list. For example: Irene is answering Lely’s questions about her bowling team.

Lely : How many people are in the team? Irene : Four

Lely : So, it’s just the two of you and … Irene : The two couples, yeh…

(32)

The overall topic of Irene’s answer is the membership of the bowling teams. Her two subtopics are the members of each team: first, the two couples and second, the kids. Her answer lists the two teams.

Then indicates temporal succession between prior and upcoming talk.

Its main difference from now is the direction of the discourse which it marks: now

points forward in discourse time and then points backward. Another difference is that now focuses on how the speaker’s own discourse follows the speaker’s own prior talk; then, on the other hand, focuses on how the speaker’s discourse follows either party’s prior talk.

6) Markers of Information and Participation

The last markers whose literal meanings directly influence their discourse use are y’know and I mean. Y’know marks transition in information state are relevant for participant framework, and I mean marks speakers orientation toward own talk i.e. modification of idea and intention. Both markers also have the uses which are less directly related to their literal meanings: y’know gains attention from the hearer to open an interactive focus on speaker-provided information and I mean maintains attention on the speaker. These both markers are called information and participant.

(33)

For examples:

Mark : a. And when you’re resentful, you’re ang-

b. In other words…you are angry because you are resentful c. In other words you are like stupid person

d. Like this…y’know what stupid person is?

Defy : e. umhmmm

Mark : f. Stupid person is person can not do anything.

In (d) Mark tries to illustrate his point by mentioning a stupid person, but because he can not be sure that Defy knows about stupid person, he checks her knowledge with y’know what stupid person is? Since Defy knows about stupid person and that the relationship to her is being resentful, Mark tries to continue his description in (f). Thus, this illustrates the transition from situation (b), in which the speaker does not know that the hearer has knowledge to situation (a0, in which speaker/hearer shared knowledge is openly situated.

Y’know also occurs when a hearer is invited to share in the information transfer being accomplished through narrative discourse. The interaction effect of y’know in narratives differs however, because y’know enlists the hearer not just as an information recipient, but as a particular kind of participant to the story telling (an audience).

(34)

For examples:

Henry : a. And I was working very hard

b. And I told him, I said I must save money t’send my children t’college.

c. Y’know what he told me for an answer?

d. He says, “Henry, children find their own ways t’go t’college if they want to

e. He says, “They make better children!

By the example, Henry illustrates y’know with an internal evaluation. It is the end of retelling Henry’s conversation with a wealthy man. Henry has previously made the point that by giving the children too much money it is a kind of giving them poison, and the story reiterates that point. Y’know in (c) prefaces the reported speech in (d) and (e) which conveys the story’s point: children should not be spoiled.

Y’know helps creating a particular kind of exchange structure. Y’know

displays the speaker as one whose role as the information provider is contingent upon the hearer reception.

The second information and participant marker is I mean. I mean

functions within the participant framework of talk. I mean marks the speaker attention to two aspects of the meaning of talk: ideas and intentions. For examples:

(35)

d. I mean, when I was born in Indonesia, there were about 30 percent who demanded a more democratic country.

e. And today eh..uh..sixth percent, of the people are demanding a more democratic country.

Another sense of ‘mean’ is the speaker intention. Meaning and I mean

both preface explanation of intention, particularly when the intended force of an action is deemed to have been missed by a recipient, e.g. because it is too indirect for appropriate uptake. For examples:

Tina : a. But, the last time they were around she wasn’t there. b. And they were kidding him.

c. They said, “Where’s your wife? d. Meaning, is she running round now. e. Y’know sorta teasing him.

Tina uses meaning in (d) to preface an explanation of the quoted speaker’s indirectly conveyed intentions in (a). Compare with another example below that Tina is describing how Henry proposed marriage to her.

Tina : a. He says, “Oh, I wish you could come with me!” b. And I said-I was very pro-proper and prim! c. And I said, “Oh, I couldn’t go away with you.” d. And he says, “ I mean let’s get married!” e. And I said, Oh okay!

(36)

uses in two different expressions: both meaning and I mean preface explanation of the speaker intention.

The two examples above focus on only one aspect of speaker intention: intended action. Another aspect of speaker intention is the tone which a speaker intends an utterance to be interpreted.

There are some reasons for having considered y’know and I mean

together. First, the semantic meaning of y’know and I mean influence the discourse functions of both markers: y’know marks interactive transitions in shared knowledge, and I mean marks the speaker’s orientation toward the meaning of own talk.

Second, the functions of I mean and y’know are complementary; whereas I mean focuses on the speaker’s own adjustments in the production of his or her own talk, y’know proposes that a hearer adjusts his/her orientation toward the reception of another’s talk.

Third, whereas y’know works basically within the formation of state of talk, with secondary effects on the participant framework, the functioning of I mean may be the reserve.

Fourth, the reason to have being considered y’know and I mean together is that both are markers which are socially evaluated and negatively sanctioned.

(37)

Y’know can be interpreted as revealing a speaker’s dependence on other for his/her own talk, simultaneously forcing the hearer into a relationship of exchange and reciprocity. Second, we have seen that I mean focuses attention on the speaker’s own orientation to his/her own talk. I mean can be interpreted as displaying the speaker’s own involvement with his/her own talk.

In short, the use of both y’know and I mean could run counter to standard beliefs about the appropriate division of labor in conversation: use of

y’know can be interpreted as overdependence on the hearer, and use of I mean can be interpreted as over involvement with itself.

2.3 RELEVANCE STUDY

In completing the writing this thesis, the writer has consulted some thesis and previous research findings. Those thesis and research findings help the writer to complete this thesis.

(38)

Norrick Neal also has tried to analyze discourse markers which entitle

Discourse Markers in Oral Narrative. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that well and but function as a special sort of discourse markers in oral narrative and that their function within the oral narrative context follow neither from their usual meanings nor from their usual discourse markers functions in other context. The analysis of well and but in oral narrative shows that discourse markers enjoy specialized functions in this particular type of discourse due to its highly coded sequentially and storytelling conventions.

Besides Chaume and Norrick, another research is Taboada Maite who studies in Simon Fraser University, Department of Linguistics. Taboada also has analyzed discourse markers. Its title is Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations. This study uses two different corpus studies: a study of conversations and a study of newspaper articles. The conclusion in both studies is that a high number of relations (between 60 and 70% of the total, on average) are not signaled. A comparison between the two corpora suggests that genre-specific factors may affect which relations are signaled and which are not.

Atmaja (2005) in his thesis A Study on Discourse Markers Found in Friend Season 1 Episode 1: A TV Show analyzes the data by using quantitative method. The result of this thesis is marker of information management (oh) is the most dominant kinds of discourse markers found in Friends Season 1 Episode 1: A TV Show.

(39)

The first book as reference is Discourse Markers by Deborah Schriffin(1987). Schriffin tries to discuss about several properties of discourse: discourse form structure, convey meaning, and accomplishes actions. It will become obvious that these properties concern slightly different aspects of discourse. The first two properties are largely concerned with discourse as extended sequences of smaller units, e.g. sentence, propositions, utterance. The third property is more concern with language. It is used within a social interaction, included in speaker not only of extended sequences, but their use of a single unit (e.g. an utterance within the social interaction)

(40)

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

Nawawi states (1991: 61) states that method is a way which is conducted in order to reach the goal. In writing the thesis, the writer uses descriptive method. As what Saifuddin (1998:7) says “Penelitian deskriptif bertujuan menggambarkan secara sistematis and akurat fakta dan karakteristik mengenai populasi atua mengenai bidang tertentu.” (Descriptive research aims to describe systematically and accurate of fact and characteristic of concerning population or about the certain area). The writer describes the use of discourse marker in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

3.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

(41)

sampelnya. (Purposive sampling is technique of sampling that is used by researcher when researcher has consideration in taking the sample). They are:

1. Speech by H. E Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President of Republic Indonesia at the ASEAN Forum: Rethinking ASEAN toward the ASEAN Community.

2. Speech by President of The Republic of Indonesia DR. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the Society Petroleum Engineering Asia Pasific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition 2007 (APOGCE 2007) on “Resource, Professionalism, Technology: Time to Deliver”

3. Speech by President of Republic of Indonesia at the Opening Ceremony of the 1st International Junior Olympiade (IJSO)

4. The Challenge of Security for the World Economy Addressed by His Excellency DR. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President of Republic Indonesia at the APEC CEO-SUMMIT.

5. Opening Remarks by President of the Republic of Indonesia at a Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation: Community Building and Harmony.

3.3 METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA

1. The written texts of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches are collected.

2. Read the speeches comprehensively

(42)

3.4METHOD OF ANALYZING DATA 1. Collecting the data

2. Identifying discourse markers in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

(43)

IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S

SPEECHES

THE ANALYSIS OF DATA 1

SPEECH BY H. E SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO

PRESIDENT REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

AT THE ASEAN FORUM:

RETHINKING ASEAN TOWARDS THE ASEAN COMMUNITY.

[3] Let me therefore thank the ASEAN Foundation and the ASEAN

Secretariat for organizing this Forum, which has given me a unique opportunity

to share my thoughts with you on how ASEAN and its ongoing transformation.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinate in structure to some prior unit

And is a marker of current speaker’s continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as continuation of what had preceded.

[4] The theme “Rethinking ASEAN towards ASEAN Community 2015” is

(44)

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[7] The Cold War was then at its height and the world had been carved

into two hostile camps, with an “iron curtain” standing between them.

And groups specific events together in service of a more general point.

[11] SEATO was there, but it was just an anti-communist alliance that

included non-regional powers among its members.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[12] Founded in 1971, the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), which

would bring together the Malaysia and Thailand, died in its infancy.

[14] But it could not work either, since it was formed on the very eve of

konfrontasi.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[15] Moreover, an open dispute was about to break out between Malaysia

(45)

[18] The Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,

Thailand and Singapore had to go on retreat on a beach resort in Thailand to

carry out the seemingly impossible task: devising an organization that had any

chance of staying together in the midst of such turbulence.

[19] But they managed it.

[20] And forty years ago almost to the day, ASEAN was born by virtue of

the Bangkok Declaration.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[21] It was, of course, born for a purpose—and that was for the member

nations and their regional neighbours to survive in the harsh geopolitical and

(46)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[23] And they had to acquire collective regional resilience by cultivating

the habits of consultation, consensus and cooperation.

And groups specific events together in service of a more general point.

[24] Moreover they had to engage non-regional powers and other regions

in mutually beneficial cooperation.

[25] ASEAN pursued all of these activities with faith and determination in

all of four decades, during which Southeast Asia and the rest of the world

(47)

[26] ASEAN also changed but not in a passive way.

But prefaces a remark which disagrees with the prior remark.

[27] Through intensive internal cooperation and engagement with other

countries and regions, ASEAN changed its environment as much as it was

changed by that environment.

[28] Today the Cold War is but a fading memory.

[30] All the countries of Southeast Asia are at peace with one another and

with the world.

(48)

[31] Moreover, the ASEAN region is now a free trade area—where

intra-regional trade has been growing by leaps and bounds since AFTA was

established in 2002.

[32] As early as 1976, ASEAN adopted the Treaty of Amity and

Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia, which serves as a code of conduct

governing relations among ASEAN members and between ASEAN and external

powers.

[33] Most of ASEAN’s Dialogue Partners, countries with which it has

cooperative arrangements, have either acceded or decided to accede to the

Treaty.

Or marks a speaker’s provision of options to a hearer; or provides hearer a two-

(49)

[34] In 1994, we established the ASEAN Regional Forum for consultation

and dialogue on security matters, and for the promotion of confidence building

measures, preventive diplomacy and, eventually, conflict resolution.

[39] The East Asia Summit (EAS), launched in 2005, brings together 16

countries of an East Asia that has been redefined no longer as a strictly

geographic entity but as a group of countries on this side of the world, with

long-established habits of consultation and cooperation, and a sense of common

destiny.

[40] These three processes need ASEAN to be in the driver’s seat because,

in the first place, it is ASEAN that gives them political cohesion.

Because initiates the explanatory unit of reason.

[42] In the second place, ASEAN needs to be in the driver’s seat because

(50)

while ASEAN itself contributes to the eventual integration of East Asia and even

the Asia-Pacific region.

Because initiates the explanatory unit of reason.

[43] In 2003 ASEAN Leaders, at the ninth summit in Bali, adopted the

second Declaration of ASEAN Concord that mandated the establishment of an

ASEAN Community, which would rest on three pillars: an ASEAN Security

Community, an ASEAN Economic Community and an ASEAN Sociocultural

Community.

[45] The attainment of the envisioned ASEAN Community would constitute

the ultimate integration of ASEAN and the firmest guarantee that in a world of

deepening globalization, ASEAN would never be marginalized.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[46] ASEAN would be a more effective player and contribute more to the

cause of security, prosperity and social harmony at the regional and global levels.

(51)

[47] But such an intensive process of integration would be extremely

difficult and slow if ASEAN remained the loose and largely informal regional

organization that it is today.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[48] That is why at the ASEAN Summit of 2005 we decided to write and

adopt what will serve as a constitution—an ASEAN Charter.

[50] It will also imbue ASEAN with a new sense of purpose, reaffirm and

codify the key objectives and principles of ASEAN, strengthen its organization

and its institutions, and enable the less developed members to catch up with the

others.

(52)

[53] And indeed there has been a lot of rethinking in ASEAN since that

historic Ninth Summit in Bali.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[54] One way to rethink ASEAN is to consider that for most of the time

since ASEAN was founded forty years ago, the glue that held ASEAN together was

our economic cooperation, and to some degree, also our social and cultural

exchanges.

And groups specific events together in service of a more general point.

[57] The founding document itself repeatedly stressed economic and

social forms of cooperation and mentioned the promotion of regional peace and

stability only as something to be carried out “through abiding respect for justice

and the rule of law.”

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[58] And that was how it was for quite a few years, during which our

(53)

[60] When they were not grappling with the intricacies of economic

cooperation, they directed their attention to social welfare and cultural activities,

which, since 1987, they placed under the rubric “Functional Cooperation.”

[63] When an activity was described as “functional,” it was understood as

having nothing to do with politics or the military, and therefore no cause for

anxiety.

Or marks a speaker’s provision of options to a hearer; or provides hearer a two-

way choice between accepting only one members of disjunction or both members of a disjunction.

[64] And so by concentrating on economic cooperation and functional

cooperation, we achieved a certain degree of cohesion and nurtured a sense of

(54)

[66] And instead of striving for autarky, they were opening up their

economies to foreign investments.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[67] But they maintained their ideology.

[70] This might have been an appropriate state of affairs forty years ago,

but times have changed, and so have our regional and global environments.

But prefaces a remark which disagrees with the prior remark.

[74] But there are other pressures bearing upon us: all over the world

people want to take their destiny in their own hands, to take part in the making of

decisions that affect their lives—this is the pressure of democracy.

(55)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[79] But even the concept of security today has greatly broadened.

[82] This means that we have a common obligation to protect the physical

integrity and the dignity of the human being, whether alone or part of a group,

against all attackers—be they terrorists, common criminals, the Avian Flu virus

or a tsunami.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

Or marks a speaker’s provision of options to a hearer; or provides hearer a two-

way choice between accepting only one members of disjunction or both members of a disjunction.

[84] These are the new realities—the pressures and challenges of our

time.

Andgroups specific events together in service of a more general point.

[85] And if we are going to have an ASEAN that is a “community of

caring societies,” then it must care not only about the livelihood and the social

(56)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[91] And it should be an essential aspect of the ASEAN Charter, which is

now being formulated by a High-level Task Force, that it make that transition

feasible.

[93] Otherwise the ASEAN Charter cannot be regarded as the affirmation

of a vision and a set of values and ideals that are the hallmark of a caring

community.

[96] Therefore it should not be the relic of a time that is past, of the

realities and modes of thinking of four decades ago.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[97] It should be the reflection of our responses to the challenges and

opportunities today and in the perceivable future.

[100] Its drafting is about to be completed by thoughtful persons aware of

(57)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s

definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[101] And they have been given guidance by an Eminent Persons Group

that includes some of the finest and wisest statesmen the ASEAN region has

produced.

[102] I have faith in all of them and in their sense of what is important to

the ASEAN region.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition

[103] They know that social cohesiveness is important, because goodwill

and a feeling of belonging together, a consciousness of ourselves as history has

made us— is an indispensable prelude to effective regional cooperation.

Because is used to preface information when the status of the information as shared background knowledge is uncertain and when the information is important for understanding the adjacent talk

[107] But the human being does not live by bread alone.

(58)

THE ANALYSIS OF DATA 2

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA DR. SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO

AT THE SOCIETY PETROLEUM ENGINEERING ASIA PASIFIC OIL AND GAS CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION 2007 (APOGCE

2007)

ON “RESOURCE, PROFESSIONALISM, TECHNOLOGY: TIME TO DELIVER”

[2] It is my pleasure and honour to be here this morning to address the oil

and gas community at this important conference, the Society Petroleum

Engineering (SPE) Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition

(APOGCE).

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of upcoming unit which is coordinate in structure to some prior unit.

[5] The oil price is going to the roof again, reaching US $ 92 plus per

barrel today and this is higher than the last price-hike in early 2005.

And separates a general conclusion from a list of specific events which are

asyndetically connected.

[6] For many of you in this room who produce, process, and sell oil, this

might be good news.

(59)

[7] But to the world economy in general, it is certainly not.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[11] But whatever the prospects, it seems clear that the economies of the

world must brace themselves for tougher times, which have not been helped by

continuing geopolitical uncertainties.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[12] We all therefore face a common challenge, namely the challenge of

how to add to the world oil reserves, and also how to increase exploration and

production of oil and gas.

[13] The fact is, for all the talk about hydrogen cars, clean coal, solar

panels, wind turbines, and nuclear plants, fossil based fuel will likely continue to

be the highest source of energy worldwide for the short and medium terms.

[16] Resources are abundant, professionalism is plenty and technology is

there.

[17] Combine the three, add the necessary element of conducive

government policy, and we will see great delivery.

And separates a general conclusion from a list of specific events which are

asyndetically connected.

(60)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker identification of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[21] The Indonesian Government has developed a package of investment

incentives and established a prudent fiscal policy.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[22] We are finding ways to overcome tax problems in oil and gas

resources investment.

[23] We have made vigorous efforts to ensure legal certainty and effective

regulation.

[24] We have also reformed and restructured the regulatory framework

for the energy industry.

[25] We expect this regulatory framework to achieve many things,

including for the oil and gas sector.

(61)

[26] The framework seeks to promote a favourable business climate and

efficient oil and gas market, as well as equal opportunity for investment.

[27] The framework seeks to ensure that oil and gas resources are

managed properly for the benefit of the nation and investor.

[28] The framework seeks to promote safe, efficient, and environmentally

friendly operations as well as ensuring transparent business practices.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker identification of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[29] And it also seeks to provide access to energy for the poor.