Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 595 Download : 368

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

A text deserves comprehensive analyses on its textual structure as well as socio-cultural context to meet readers’ comprehension. This paper aims at (1) finding out linguistic styles of the texts and (2) identifying power struggle behind an argumentative text entitled Computer for Children: Advantages or Drawbacks? used to the third students of Informatics Engineering Department at a private university in South Tangerang, Indonesia as a material in learning argumentative text. This is a critical discourse analysis by using Fairclough’s model which consists of description, interpretation, and explanation. In analyzing the text, systemic functional linguistics is used to find out the texts’ power as well as to determine whether the texts are adoptable for the students to learn argumentative texts. The analysis concludes that (1) formal, complex, verbal, repetitive, multi-perspective, evident-based, metaphorical, and over-wording dictions underpinned in an institutionalized social activity and unspecialized semantic domain dominate the texts which conclude that (2) its power to the readers is all equal that the author provoked rather than provided, evident-based and analytical arguments of the issue.

Keywords

Argumentative Text Critical Discourse Analysis English for Specific Purpose

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Author Biography

Sukma Septian Nasution, Universitas Pamulang

English Literature De[artment, Faculty of Letter

How to Cite
Sukmawati, N. N., & Nasution, S. S. (2019). ARGUMENTATIVE POWER: A Critical Discourse Analysis to Selected Texts for Academic Purpose. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development , 3(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.31605/eduvelop.v3i1.399

References

  1. Bloor, Thomas & Bloor, Meriel. (2004). The Functional Analysis of English. London: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bukhari, Nasir H.S. & Xiaoyang, Wang. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis and Educational Research. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 3 (1), 9-17.
  3. Fairclough, Norman. (1989). Language and Power. New York: Longman.
  4. Fairclough, Norman. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.
  5. Flowerdew, John. (2013). Discourse in English Language Education. London: Routledge.
  6. Halliday. M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Prspective. Viktoria: Deakin University Press.
  7. Hidayati, Nani. (2017). Appraisal Analysis in Freedom Writers Movie. EDULITE Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture. 2 (1). 317 – 333.
  8. Jiao, Jian & Zhou, Yanquan. (2011). Sentiment Polarity Analysis Based Multi-Dictionary. Retrieved on June 4th, 2019 from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257706726-Sentiment-Polarity_Analysis_Based_Multi-Dictionary
  9. Knapp, Peter & Watkins, Megan. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. New South Wales: UNSW Press.
  10. Kristina, Diah. (2011). Discourse Analysis. Surakarta: UNS Press.
  11. Leech, G. (2000). Grammars of Spoken English: New Outcomes of Corpus-Oriented Research. Language and Learning, 8 (3), 675-728.
  12. Locke, Terry. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
  13. Lukin, Annabelle. (2017). Idelogy and the text-in-context relation. Journal of Functional Linguistics 4 (16), 1-17.
  14. McCarty, M. & Carter, R. (2001). Ten Criteria for Spoken Grammar. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classroom, 2 (3), 51-75.
  15. Miasari, Suci., Arsyad, Safnil, & Arono. (2018). Indonesian authors’ stances in citing English research article introductions literature in sciences. EDULITE Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture. 3 (2) . 173 – 187.
  16. Nasution, Sukma Septian. (2018). The Mass Media’s Language Styles : Its Power and Appropriateness from the.Perspectives of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics 4. (1), 124–134.
  17. Priatmoko, Nova Anggit. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono Speech. (Unpublished Thesis). Universitas Dian Nuswantoro: Semarang.
  18. Rambe, Patient. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook posting. Australation Journal of Educational Technology. 28 (2), 295-314.
  19. Rahmah. (2011). Systemic Functional Grammar. Medan: Unimed Press.
  20. Santosa, Ryadi. (2011). Logika Wacana. Surakarta: UNS Press.
  21. Saragih, Amrin. (2011). Semiotik Bahasa: Tanda, Penanda, dan Petanda Dalam Bahasa. Medan: Unimed Press.
  22. Syarifah, Eva Fitriani & Gunawan, Wawan. (2015). Scaffolding in the Teaching of Writing Discussion Text Based on SFL-Genre Based Approach. English Review: Journal of English Education. 4 (1). 39 – 53.
  23. Van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Warburton, Trevor. (2016). Turning the Lens: Reflexivity in Research & Teaching with Critical Discourse Analysis. Journal of Critical Questions in Education, 7 (3), 249-267.
  25. Thomson, Stefan. (2007). Differing Opinions: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Two Articles. (Unpublihed Dissertation). University of Birmingham: Birmingham.
  26. Trabelsi, Amine, & Zaiane, Osmar R. (2014). Finding Arguing Expressions of Divergent Viewpoints in Online Debates. Retrieved on June 4th, 2019 from https://www.aclweb/anthology/papers/W/W14/W14-1305/