Discourse markers in diplomatic setting: Ministerial dialogue between Australia and Indonesia

Rosaria Mita Amalia, Elvi Citraresmana, Nurul Hikmayaty Saefullah

Abstract


This descriptive research discusses the use of discourse markers in a diplomatic setting between the governments of Indonesia and Australia during a Joint Press Conference between Indonesia-Australia Foreign and Defence Ministers. The particular aims of this research are to identify and analyze forms of discourse markers employed by the representatives of each government and describe the most frequent discourse markers used by these representatives. The data were collected from the transcript of the Joint Press Conference between Indonesia and Australia Foreign and Defence Ministers (2+2) Dialogue. The data are classified based on the typology of discourse markers and analyzed to identify their function within the diplomatic discourse. The data are input into the AntConc corpus analysis toolkit for analysis. The results show that the Foreign and Defence Ministers of Indonesia employed three forms of discourse markers, namely textual discourse marker, interpersonal discourse marker, and cognitive discourse marker, whereas the Foreign and Defence Ministers of Australia only applied textual discourse marker and cognitive discourse marker. Both representatives employed textual discourse markers more frequently than other forms of discourse markers. Discourse markers partially control how meaning is constructed by showing turns between speakers, joining concepts, displaying attitude, and finally, controlling communication. By understanding the discourse markers in ministerial dialogues, spectators can learn to find clues in the change of direction in their talks to better understand the conversation that affects the policies and citizens of both countries involved.


Keywords


discourse markers; discourse analysis; bilateral negotiations; diplomacy; Indonesia-Australia partnership

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adjei, S. B. (2013). Discourse analysis: Examining language use in context. The Qualitative Report, 18(25), 1-10.

Amalia, R. M. (2017). Use of implicit performative utterances at University of Padjadjaran and at University of Pennsylvania. Studies in English Language and Education, 4(1), 66-75.

Ament, J., & Parés, J. B. (2018). The acquisition of discourse markers in the English-medium instruction context. In C. P. Vidal, S. López-Serrano, J. Ament & D. J. Thomas-Wilhelm (Eds.), Learning context effects: Study abroad, formal instruction and international immersion classrooms (EuroSLA Studies 1) (pp. 43-74. Language Science Press.

Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc Corpus Analysis Toolkit (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/

Banguis-Bantawig, R. (2019). The role of discourse markers in the speeches of selected Asian presidents. Heliyon, 5(3), 1-57.

Bates, E., Thal, D., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). A functionalist approach to language and its implications for assessment and intervention. In T. M. Gallagher (Ed.), Pragmatics of language: Clinical practice issues (pp. 133-161). Chapman & Hall.

Berridge, G. R. (2010). Diplomacy: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. The University of Chicago Press.

Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11 (1), 57-77.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.

Gollin-Kies, S., Hall, D. R., & Moore, S. H. (2015). Language for specific purposes. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gralla, L., Tenbrink, T., Siebers, M. & Schmid, U. (2012). Analogical problem solving: Insights from verbal reports. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 396-401). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/55j4q6k3

Halliday, M., A., K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M., A., K. & Hasan, R. (2006). Cohesion in English. Pearson Education

Kohler, J. E., Kluge, R., & Gurevych, I. (2015). On the role of discourse markers for discriminating claims and premises in argumentative discourse. In L. Màrquez, C. Callison-Burch & J. Su (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2236-2242). The Association of Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1267

Markó, A., & Dér, C. I. (2013). Age-specific features of the use of discourse markers in Hungarian. Język Komunikacja Informacja, 7, 61-78.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum.

Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. John Benjamins.

Maschler, Y. (2017). The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno MASC/FEM’) from interaction: Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In C. Fedriani & A. Sansó (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp. 37-69). John Benjamin Publishing.

Maschler, Y. & D. Schiffrin (2015). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-221). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Meerts, P. (2015). Diplomatic negotiation: Essence and evolution. Clingendael Institute.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

Minister of Foreign Affairs. (2015, December, 20). Australia-Indonesia 2+2 press conference, Sidney [Joint transcript]. https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/julie-bishop/transcript/australia-indonesia-22-press-conference-sydney

Paltridge, B. (2007). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Continuum.

Pesto, H. (2010). The role of diplomacy in the fight against terrorism. Connections, 10(1), 64-81.

Prayitno, H. J., Ngalim, A., Sutopo, A., Pangestu, D. W., Jamaluddin, N., & Ali, A.H. (2019). Directive politeness act strategy in the discourse of education column in national newspaper as the formation of students’ character in Indonesia. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 349-362.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.

Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139–72.

Risdaneva. (2018). A critical discourse analysis of women’s portrayal in news reporting of sexual violence. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 126-136.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Sanders, T., Spooren, W., & Noordman, L. (1992). Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1-35.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Blackwell Publishers.

Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 54-74). Blackwell Publishers.

Sharif, T. I. S. T., Noor, M. Y. M., & Omar, S. R. (2019). Politeness in online communication: Retailer-client interaction. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 233-239.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. The University of Chicago Press.

Tenbrink, T. (2015). Cognitive Discourse Analysis: accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Language and Cognition, 7(1), 98-137.

Tenbrink, T. & Wiener, J. (2009). The verbalization of multiple strategies in a variant of the traveling salesperson problem. Cognitive Processing, 10(2), 143-161.

Wang, Y., & Guo, M. (2014). A short analysis of discourse coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 460-465.

Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (Eds.) (2017). The Routledge handbook of language and politics. Routledge.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.18350

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.