EEJ 6 (1) (2016)

English Education Journal

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej

SOCIOCULTURAL RELATIONS AMONG PARTICIPANTS IN ARTICLES

ON TEACHER AS RESEARCHER AND TEACHER AS EDUCATOR

Ika MirantiJanuarius Mujiyanto

English Language Education Postgraduate Program Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.

Article Info

________________
Received April 2016

Accepted May2016

Published June 2016

________________
Keywords:

argumentative texts, critical

discourse analysis,

sociocultural relations,

teacher as educator, teacher

as researcher

____________________

Abstract

___________________________________________________________________
This thesis is about sociocultural relations among participants in articles on teacher as researcher

and teacher as educator. The aim of this research is explaining the sociocultural power in the

opposing texts which are realized in the linguistic choices used by both authors. I choose this study

because there is different role of teacher in two texts that brings out contrasting opinions about the

importance of teachers becoming researchers. In this study, I used critical discourse analysis

proposed by Fairclough (2001) both as research methodology and framework of the study. The

findings show that sociocultural relations are realized in the lexical, grammatical and textual

structures relations. From the lexical relation, both authors have different choice of words for

assigning participants in the texts as well as their choices in rewording, formality, euphemism and

the negative and positive evaluation. Next, from the grammatical relation, it can be seen from the

tenses, the use of process types, ideological pronoun and the logical connectors. From the textual

structures relation, both texts are argumentative ones and the authors use elements to persuade the

readers to agree or disagree to the idea of teacher as researcher. Last, the sociocultural relation

among the participants can be seen from the comparison of the types of process and participants

used in both texts which show authors‟ different sociocultural backgrounds that influence their

standpoints. It can be concluded that linguistic choices are indeed influenced by the sociocultural

backgrounds of both authors. The text on teacher as researcher was written by an Indonesian

lecturer who believes that a good quality teacher is a teacher who conducts research and publishes

papers in order to develop their global competence. On the other hand, the text on teacher as

educator was written by an American graduate of Harvard who believes that a good quality teacher

is a teacher whose first concern is on students learning, not on research. Thus, different

sociocultural backgrounds of both authors resulted in the opposing ideologies and those ideologies

are realized in the linguistic choices throughout the texts.

Correspondence:

E-mail: ikamiranti@gmail.com

Kampus UNNES Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233

p-ISSN 2087-0108

e-ISSN 2502-4566

INTRODUCTION

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

In expressing opinions, people can have

different views towards the same matter. For

example, different views on the dual roles of a

teacher. Before conducting this study, I was not

really aware about the dual roles of a teacher. I

thought teachers are merely teachers. The reality

is nowadays teachers in Indonesia are expected

to be researchers as well to develop their global

competence. However, there might be people

who do not agree to the dual roles of a teacher.

These people prefer teachers as merely educators

who focus on students learning rather than

conducting research. These contrasting opinions

on the dual roles of a teacher can be caused by

different social and cultural backgrounds.

One of the pros and one of the cons can

be seen from two opposing articles which are

used as objects of this study. The first one is pro

to the idea of teacher as researcher and the

second one is con to the idea of teacher as

researcher. The second article also emphasizes

the role of teacher as educator who imparts

knowledge to students and focuses on giving the

lessons according to the time schedule as well as

pays attention and builds

communication/interaction with the students. In

this study, I used Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA) that suggests three stages of analysis

(Fairclough, 2001). Three stages are description,

interpretation, and explanation of the text.

Description is the stage which is concerned with

formal properties of the text. Interpretation is

concerned with the relationship between text

and interaction. Whereas explanation of the text

is concerned with the relationship between

interaction and social context.

I also had a thought on whether a teacher

should be a researcher so that they can develop

their global competence or merely an educator

whose first concern is on students learning. The

topic of the study is the use of education articles

on a newspaper to exercise power in social

discourse. I chose the articles on teacher as

researcher and teacher as educator because I

want to see the relation between sociocultural

backgrounds and the linguistic choices used in

the opposing articles about the dual roles of a

teacher. It is hoped that the findings in both

articles using critical discourse analysis will be

able to prove that linguistic choices produced by

the writers of the articles realize their

sociocultural backgrounds which influence the

opposing ideologies in both texts.

Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA is a theory and method of analyzing

the way that individuals and institutions use

language. It focuses on relations between

discourse, power, dominance and social

inequality and how discourse (re)produces and

maintains these relations of dominance and

inequality (van Dijk, 1993:249). Hence, CDA

does not only focus on linguistic aspects of the

text but also focuses more on social issues which

construct the text.

Fairclough asserts the relationship

between language and power. Power and

dominance can be seen in the area of media,

where there always exists the dominant or ruling

groups. From Fairclough‟s perspective, language

serves to construct particular positions, which

entail unequal relations of power. In other

words, it can be said that language has function

in the construction of power and ideology.

Sociocultural Relation

According to van Dijk (1996), social

relation is defined as social power between

groups or institutions, involving the control by a

(more) powerful group or institution (and its

members) of the actions and the minds of a less

powerful group (and its members). Such power

generally presupposes privileged access to

socially valued resources, such as force, wealth,

income, knowledge, or status. Social relation

means that there is social power exercised by

groups of people or institutions regarding social

factors such as educational, political, familial,

religious, and economic factors. Whereas for the

cultural relation, it means that there is cultural

power exercised by groups of people or

institutions regarding cultural factors such as

values, attitudes, norms, beliefs which are shared

by those groups of people. Socially and

culturally there are unequal relations which are

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

caused by common sense, or in other word,

ideology. Fairclough (2001) states that ideology

sustains power inequalities. That means there

are inequalities in sociocultural relations due to

the different ideologies of the authors. Therefore,

a CDA proposed by Fairclough is the most

appropriate tool to explain these inequalities in

sociocultural relations. One of Fairclough‟s tools

in CDA is the system of transitivity to show the

hidden inequalities in sociocultural relations.

Transitivity

Transitivity is a system which realizes the

ideational meanings. Here, the clause as

representation is talked about. There are three

semantic categories which explain how

phenomena of the real world are represented as

linguistic structures. They are „processes‟ which

are verbs, „participants‟ which are nouns and

„circumstances‟ which are prepositional phrase.

According to Mayr (2008:18-20), the reason in

conducting the analysis of transitivity is to

explore what social, cultural, ideological factors

determine what process type (verb) is chosen in

a particular type of discourse. Relations of

power may implicitly exist in the relationship

between actor and goal. Processes can be active,

for example: „Police (actor) shot demonstrators

(goal)‟, or passive, for example: „Demonstrators

(goal) were shot by police (actor)‟.

From the examples above, in media

reports, agency and responsibility can be made

clear or left vague. Such as, in news report of

riot, if the agency is omitted, it means that

responsibility of police may be systematically

omitted. Thus makes news not a mere reflection

of reality, but a product shaped by political,

economic and cultural forces.

In this system of transitivity identified by

Halliday in Gerot and Wignell‟s Making Sense of

Functional Grammar (1994), there are seven types

of process, which are divided into non-relational

processes and relational processes. Non-

relational processes are ones of doing. They are

material, mental, behavioural, and verbal

processes. Whereas relational processes are ones

of being and having. They are relational,

existential, and meteorological processes.

METHODOLOGY

The data are qualitative because they are

displayed in the form of strings of words. It

depends on how I analyze the data. I chose

CDA because this is the most appropriate design

to explain the relation between linguistic choice

and ideology. CDA addresses social and cultural

contexts that influence ideology behind the text.

Therefore, it does not only focus on the

linguistic aspects of the text but also focuses

more on the social and cultural issues which

construct the text. This study is aimed at

explaining the sociocultural relations among the

participants in two opposing articles in The

Jakarta Post regarding teacher as researcher and

teacher as educator. Fairclough‟s framework for

CDA was used in this study.

The object of the study is two opposing

articles on The Jakarta Post. The first article is

“Professionalizing Teachers in Face of Global

Competitiveness” written by Setiono Sugiharto

and published on November 25, 2015. This first

article concerns about teacher as researcher.

Whereas the second one is “Professionalization

of the Teaching Profession” written by Rebekah

Nivala and published on December 9, 2015.

This second article concerns about teacher as

educator.

The unit of analysis is what I analyzed for

this study. In this research, the unit of analysis is

clauses in the opposing articles in The Jakarta

Post in which the participants exist. To

determine the participants, I used Halliday‟s

theory on transitivity (in Gerot and Wignell,

1994) which is the realization of ideational

meaning. Whereas for the analysis of relation

(power), in which those participants construct

sociocultural relations, I used the CDA

framework proposed by Fairclough (2001).

The steps used in collecting the data of the

study are as follows. First, I searched for articles

regarding issues in education in Indonesia, then

I chose a topic where there are pros and cons

about whether a teacher should also be a

researcher. Next, I chose opposing articles on

teacher as researcher and teacher as educator

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

and reading both opposing articles which have

been chosen thoroughly. Last, I conducted

transitivity analysis to identify the participants in

both articles.

After the data were collected, they were

analyzed. The steps used in analyzing the data

are as follows: First, I classified the linguistic

data which are of lexical (rhetoric), grammatical,

and textual structures relations based on

Fairclough‟s first stage in CDA which is the

description of the text (Fairclough, 2001). Next,

I reduced the linguistic data as needed in order

to have representative data which were used in

the second and third stage of CDA. Then, I

interpreted the clauses based on Fairclough‟s

second stage in CDA which is the interpretation

of the text (Fairclough, 2001). In this stage, I did

the interpretation on lexical, grammatical and

textual structures relations. The next step is

investigating the sociocultural relations based on

Fairclough‟s third stage in CDA (Fairclough,

2001). In this stage, I did the explanation on

sociocultural context on why the texts are made

that way by the authors. The last step is I drew

an inference.

In this study, I used the triangulation of

theory/perspective. In this type of triangulation,

I used some theoretical perspectives to examine

and interpret the data and I referred back to the

theories of conducting CDA. Those theoretical

perspectives are: critical discourse analysis by

Fairclough (2001), systemic functional

linguistics, especially the system of transitivity

by Halliday in Gerot and Wignell (1994), a

genre description of the argumentative text by

Hyland (1990) and the theory on the influence of

ideology on interpersonal meaning by Haig

(2011). Therefore, corroborating the findings in

this study with their perspectives and theories

ensured that an account is rich and

comprehensive.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

I found that the contrasting ideologies of

both authors regarding the idea of teacher as

researcher influence their linguistic choice

throughout the texts. There are four relations

realized in the linguistic choice that show

authors‟ ideologies. First, rhetoric (lexical)

relations among the participants in the opposing

articles can be seen from the vocabulary or

lexical choices used by the authors. Second, the

grammatical relations among the participants in

the opposing articles can be seen from the

grammatical features used by the authors. Third,

the textual structures relations among the

participants in the opposing articles can be seen

from the elements that exist in the genre of both

texts. Both texts are argumentative ones because

they are made to persuade the readers to agree

or disagree to the idea of teacher as researcher.

Last, the sociocultural relations among

the participants in the opposing articles can be

seen from the comparison of the types of process

and participants used in both texts which show

authors‟ different social and cultural background

that influence their standpoint of supporting or

being against the idea of teacher as researcher.

Lexical Relation

The lexical relation refers to the power

seen from the vocabulary or lexical choice.

According to Fairclough (2001),

vocabulary/words have three values. They are

experiential, relational and expressive values. In

experiential values, the power in lexical choice

can be seen from the classification scheme

drawn upon through the vocabulary. In both

texts, there are word choices which are found to

be ideological and those experiential values can

also be seen in rewording.

For the rewording, the text on teacher as

researcher (TAR) is much preoccupied with

teachers‟ global competence, and this is evident

in the vocabulary or lexical choice for this

meaning, such as: performance, competence,

research, teachers, development, and

professional. Whereas for the text on teacher as

educator (TAE), it is much preoccupied with

education problems in Indonesia, and this is

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

evident in the vocabulary or lexical choice for

this meaning, such as: Indonesia, education,

students, and solution. As in TAR, some

participants which bring out the ideological

standpoint of the author are for example: the

idea of teacher-researchers, global

competitiveness and job markets, the rapidly

changing information and contexts of pedagogy,

teachers‟ professional development and

competence, theory-practice gap, an ever-

changing and increasingly competitive

environment. On the other hand, in TAE, some

participants which bring out the ideological

standpoint of the author are for example: the

idea of being a teacher, support systems for

teachers, the long-term investment, the primary

function of K-12 education, and response to this

dismal situation.

The author of TAR gives his evaluation

more by using positive lexical choice to persuade

the readers to take a stand to his point of view,

which is the idea of teacher as researcher.

Whereas the author of TAE gives her evaluation

more by using negative lexical choice to

persuade the readers to take a stand to her point

of view, which is against the idea of teacher as

researcher due to many problems found in the

education system in Indonesia.

Grammatical Relation

The grammatical relation refers to the

power seen from the grammatical features.

According to Fairclough (2001), grammatical

features also have three values. They are

experiential, relational and expressive values. In

experiential values, the power can be seen from

types of process and participant that

predominate. For the types of process

dominating the text, it can be seen from the

participant list in TAR that the most processes

are Material processes. Whereas in TAE, the

processes mostly are Relational processes.

In relational values, it is seen from the

modes of sentence which are used, whether they

are declarative, grammatical question, or

imperative. There are also important features of

modality and the use of pronouns. Both texts

mostly use declarative modes. From the point of

modality, the author of TAR expresses his

judgment through his text. He ideologically

conveys his message that teachers are expected

for many aspects and that they need to develop

their performance so that they can compete

globally. That can only be done by persuading

teachers to become researchers as well. From

this explanation, it shows that the modality

indicates the speaker‟s judgment of the

probabilities or the obligations involved in what

he or she is saying (Gerot & Wignell, 1994).

On the contrary, the author of TAE

ideologically conveys her message that

Indonesian government should provide good

support systems for teachers to produce good

quality student learning. The author of TAE

implicitly persuades readers to not easily agree

on the idea of teacher as researcher by looking at

problems in Indonesian education system and

how to solve them. From this explanation, it is

obvious that modality shows relational values

and as Fairclough (2001:127) states it, implicit

power relations make relational modality as

matter of ideological interest.

In TAR, the pronoun „they‟ and „their‟ are

used to refer to refer to teachers. Whereas in

TAE there are three pronouns which are used.

They are „I‟, „their‟, and „you‟. „I‟ is used when

stating opposing opinion regarding the idea of

teacher as researcher; „you‟ is used when asking

a question to the readers, and „their‟ is used to

refer to teachers.

From the use of logical connectors, the

author of TAR places equal emphasis on every

point made by using coordination. This makes

the idea of teacher as researcher clear and

consistent. Whereas by using subordination, the

author of TAR ideologically divides information

into relatively prominent and relatively

backgrounded (in other words, relatively

important and relatively unimportant) parts.

Fairclough also states that in some cases, the

content of subordinate clauses is presupposed.

Therefore, it can be said that the subordinate

clauses in TAR may be the author‟s

presupposition. For example, pedagogical

competence is the content in the main clause,

which is followed by author‟s presupposition in

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

the subordinate clause telling the readers that

this competence is something that a teacher

must possess.

In TAE, the author also places equal

emphasis on every point made when using

coordination. On the other hand, by using

subordination, it shows author‟s presupposition

and she ideologically conveys her opinion

against the idea of teacher as research through

the use of subordination. For example, a

teaching position is the content in the main

clause, which is followed by author‟s

presupposition in the subordinate clause telling

the readers that this position is something that is

often met with contempt in the society.

Textual Structures Relation

Textual structures relation refers to textual

structures power or in Fairclough‟s term, it is the

power seen from the textual structures.

According to Fairclough (2001), it can be seen

from the larger-scale structures that the text has.

Both texts are argumentative texts because they

have purpose to persuade the readers of the

correctness of central statement (Hyland, 1990).

Sample 75 (TAR, Sentence 6):

Stage Move

Thesis Evaluation:

Motivated by this global competence, one thing

is pretty obvious: the pendulum seems to have swung

away from an emphasis on teaching to that of

research.

Sample 76 (TAE, Sentence 7):

Stage Move

Thesis Evaluation:

In general, teachers are not expected to research

and publish as part of their occupation.

TAR clearly states the emphasis on

research rather than teaching, whereas TAE

argues that teachers are not expected to research

and publish. Such elements in the structure of

both argumentative texts show the relation or

ideological common sense exercised by the

authors of the texts through their language in

persuading the readers. It is expected of them to

take a stand after reading the texts, whether they

will agree on the idea of teacher as researcher or

will be against it. As Fairclough (2001:138)

states it, such structures can impose higher levels

of routine on social practice in a way which

ideologically sets and closes agendas.

Sociocultural Relation

Social and cultural relations are relations

of power and they have an ineluctably

ideological dimension (Haig, 2011). The

sociocultural relation can be seen from the

comparison of the use of process types which

involve the participants in the texts. This

comparison shows the difference of social and

cultural background that influences both authors

in writing their texts.

From the comparison of the material

process used, both authors convey their message

differently to the readers. The author of TAR

tells readers what teachers are expected to do to

develop their global competence. By becoming

researchers, they can help schools solve

problems in teaching and learning and bridge the

theory-practice gap. On the other hand, the

author of TAE tells readers what Indonesia

should do in order to solve problems in

education system in Indonesia. Indonesia is

assigned as Actor which exercises its power to

solve problems by providing adequate support

systems for teachers so that they can teach well.

From the comparison of the mental

process used, both authors convey their message

differently to the readers. For TAR, the

Phenomenon in the examples are: global

competence and teachers. They have the power

to impinge on the consciousness of another

participant. This ideologically tells the readers

about how important the global competence and

teachers are expected to be researcher as well.

On the other hand, the author of TAE use the

word suffering to express her opinion regarding

the problems in the profession of teaching which

should be taken care by the government.

From the comparison of the behavioural

process used, the author of TAR tells readers

that by doing research, efficient pedagogical

practices will happen. On the other hand, the

author of TAE asks the readers to realize the

Phenomenon, which is the fact that research is

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

actually lacking in Indonesia because of

inadequate support systems for teachers.

In verbal process, the assignment of

teachers as Sayer in the example of TAR puts

teachers in a powerful position because Sayer

exercises their power to act semiotically (Haig,

2011). Ideologically, this power can be achieved

when teachers do research and publish papers.

This persuades readers to agree to the idea of

teacher as researcher. On the other hand, the

verbal process used in TAE puts students

learning as the Sayer. This means that students

learning exercise power to act semiotically. In

this case, students learning should inform what

and how teachers teach. Ideologically, this

persuades readers to agree with the idea of

teacher as educator.

The relational process in TAR is used to

assign what teachers should possess for global

competence and research is something to do to

achieve such global competence. This persuades

readers to support the idea of teacher as

researcher. On the other hand, TAE assigns

teaching industry branding in Indonesia as

ineffective. This relational process is used to tell

about the problems in education system in

Indonesia. In addition, the assignment of

student learning as the end goal of all

institutions of education identifies the

importance of successful student learning.

Ideologically, this persuades readers to support

the idea of teacher as educator.

From the comparison of the existential

process used, both authors convey their message

differently to the readers. In TAR, the existence

of increasing demands for global competence is

asserted. There is no power assigned to it but it

can be used to tell readers that there is existence

of some entity and that readers need to realize

that. Ideologically, this persuades readers to

support the idea of teacher as researcher. On the

other hand, TAE tells the readers the existence

of several claims in TAR regarding the idea of

teacher as researcher which may mislead or

confuse. Ideologically, this persuades readers to

support the idea of teacher as educator.

The sociocultural background of both

authors is different. This leads to the differences

in the way they convey their message to the

readers through their texts. The author of TAR

is Setiono Sugiharto, an Indonesian lecturer and

researcher. He believes that conducting research

and publishing papers are what teachers in

Indonesia should do to develop their

competence. He believes that in order to

produce successful learning and teaching

process, teachers need to be classroom

researchers as well. By also publishing papers,

he believes that it will develop teachers‟

performance in global competence because

teachers can then communicate across cultures

and languages through their researches and

papers. Setiono‟s sociocultural background

influences his language in the text which

persuades the idea of teacher as researcher.

The author of TAE is Rebekah Nivala, an

American graduate of the Harvard Graduate

School of Education. She believes that adequate

support system is what is needed by the teachers

in Indonesia in order to produce successful

students learning. Her sociocultural background

influences her language in the text which is

against the idea of teacher as researcher. She

believes that teachers should be good educators

who concern more on students learning.

CONCLUSION

The comparative critical discourse

analysis of TAR and TAE clearly shows the

opposing ideology of the authors which is

realized in the lexical relation, grammatical

relation, textual structures relation, and

sociocultural relation.

First, the lexical relations among the

participants in the opposing articles can be seen

from the vocabulary or lexical choices used by

the authors. They are: the choice of words for

assigning participants in the texts, rewording,

euphemism, formality, and the negative and

positive evaluation of the authors which are

expressed in their lexical choices.

Second, the grammatical relations among

the participants in the opposing articles can be

seen from the grammatical features used by the

authors. They are: the dominating process types

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

used in the opposing texts, modes of sentence,

the use of modal verbs, pronouns such as „I‟,

„they‟ or „you‟, types of tenses used, and the

logical connectors which are realized in

coordination and subordination.

Third, the textual structures relations

among the participants in the opposing articles

can be seen from the elements that exist in the

genre of both texts. Both texts are argumentative

ones because they are made to persuade the

readers to agree or disagree to the idea of teacher

as researcher.

Last, the sociocultural relations among

the participants in the opposing articles can be

seen from the comparison of the types of process

and participants used in both texts which show

authors‟ different social and cultural

backgrounds that influence their standpoint of

supporting or being against the idea of teacher as

researcher.

Fairclough‟s CDA framework is a useful

tool for identifying the sociocultural differences

of both texts studied in this thesis. The two

representations of teacher are shown differently

and completely opposed to each other. TAR

persuades the readers to agree to the idea of

teacher as researcher in order to develop their

performance in global competence. On the other

hand, TAE is opposed to TAR, by being against

the idea of teacher as researcher. It persuades the

readers to disagree to that idea by arguing

against points made in TAR.

These differences in representation of

teacher are the products of contrasting ideologies

of both authors: teacher as researcher versus

teacher as educator. Furthermore, the ideologies

are the products of sociocultural differences of

both authors. This leads to the differences in the

way they convey their message to the readers

through their texts.

The author of TAR is Setiono Sugiharto.

His sociocultural background as a lecturer and

researcher influences his language in the text

which persuades the idea of teacher as

researcher as a way to develop performance in

global competence. Whereas the author of TAE

is Rebekah Nivala. Her sociocultural

background in civil rights, social action, human

rights, and education influences her language in

the text which is against the idea of teacher as

researcher. She believes that teachers should be

provided with adequate support system and to

be good educators who concern more on

students learning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks

to PPS Unnes. Thank you for all lecturers of the

English Language Education at the Master‟s

Degree Program for the constant guidance given

to me. I would also like to thank

BeasiswaUnggulan program from The Ministry

of Education for the financial help.

REFERENCES

Al-Faki, I. M. 2014.Political Speeches of Some

African Leaders from Linguistic

Perspective.International Journal of

Humanities and Social Science, 4 (3), 180-

198.

Almeciga, E. 2013. Identity-Forming Discourse:

A Critical Discourse Analysis on Policy

Making Processes Concerning English

Language Teaching in Colombia.

PROFILE, 15 (1), 45-60.

Anwar M., Ullah R., Ahmad N., Ali M. 2015.

Critical Discourse Analysis of Quaid-e-

Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Speech in

the First Constituent Assembly of

Pakistan.Asian Studies: A Research Journal

of South Asian Studies, 30 (1), 159-173.

Appel, J. 1995.Diary of a Language Teacher.

Oxford: Heinemann English Language

Teaching.

Bayram, F. 2010. Ideology and Political

Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis

of Erdogan‟s Political Speech. ARECLS 7,

23-40.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. 1999. The

Teacher ResearchMovement: A Decade

Later. Educational Researcher, 28 (7), 15-

25.

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

Coulthard, M., Moon, R., Johnson, A., Caldas-

Coulthard, C. M. & Holland, B.

2000.Written Discourse. Birmingham: The

University of Birmingham.

Del Vecchio, M. 2015. A Study in Critical

Discourse Analysis: The Prince and “the

missus”. Studies in International Relations,

36 (1), 53-65.

DeNeen, J. 2013. 25 Things Successful

Educators Do Differently. Retrieved from

http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/fe

atures/25-things-successful-educators-do-

differently.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A

Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fairclough, N. 1995a.Critical Discourse Analysis:

The Critical Study of Language. New York:

Longman.

Fairclough, N. 1995b.Media Discourse. London:

Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N &Wodak, R. 1997.Critical

Discourse Analysis. In T.A. van Dijk

(ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction.

London: Sage.

Fairclough, N. 2001.Language and Power.

London: Longman.

Gee, J. P. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse

Analysis: Theory and Method (2nded.). New

York: Routledge.

Gerot, L &Wignell, P. 1994. Making Sense of

Functional Grammar. Sydney:

GerdStabler.

Gill, S. K., Keong, Y.C., Bolte, S., Ramiah, S.

2012. Ideological Features of Vocabulary

in News Reports of Malaysia's Medium

of Instruction Change.GEMA Online

Journal of Language Studies, 12 (3), 765-

787.

Haig, E. 2010.The Influence of Ideology on

Aspects of Interpersonal Meaning in a

Radio News Bulletin about Youth Crime.

名古屋大学大学院国際言語文化研究科2,

61-86.

Haig, E. 2011.A Critical Discourse Analysis and

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Approach to Measuring Participant

Power in a Radio News Bulletin about

Youth Crime.Studies in Media and Society

4, 45-73.

Haig, E. 2013.Ideological Aspects of Cohesive

Conjunction in a Radio News Bulletin

about Youth Crime.名古屋大学大学院国

際言語文化研究科 5, 69-87.

Halliday, M. A. K &Hasan, R. 1976.Cohesion in

English. New York: Longman.

Hoey, M. 2001.Textual Interaction - An

Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis.

New York: Routledge

Horvath, J. 2009. Critical Discourse Analysis of

Obama's Political Discourse. In M.

Ferencik and J. Horvath (ed.). Language,

Literature and Culture in a Changing

Transatlantic World, International Conference

Proceedings.Presov: University of Presov,

45-56.

Huckin, T. N. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis.

In T. Miller (ed.). Functional Approaches to

Written Text: Classroom Applications.

Washington D. C.: United States

Information Agency, 78-92.

Hyland, K. 1990. A Genre Description of the

Argumentative Essay.RELC Journal, 21

(1), 66-78.

Javed, S &Mahmood, R. 2011.A Critical

Discourse Analysis of the News

Headlines of Budget of

Pakistan.Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research in Business, 3 (5),

120-129.

Jie, Z. 2006. Construction of China's National

Identity in an Australian Travel Brochure:

A Critical Discourse Analysis

Perspective. Canadian Social Science, 2 (1),

47-53.

Loughran, J., Mitchell, I., Mitchell, J. 2002.

Learning from Teacher Research. New South

Wales: Allen &Unwin.

Mayr, A. 2008.Language and Power: An

Introduction to Institutional Discourse.

London: Continuum International

Publishing Group.

Mercer, N. 2004. Sociocultural Discourse

Analysis: Analysing Classroom Talk as a

Social Mode of Thinking. Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 137-168.

Ika Miranti/English Education Journal 6(1) (2016)

Merriam, S. B. 2002. Qualitative Research and

Case Study Application in Education. San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mocini, R. 2005. The Verbal Discouse of

Tourist Brochures.AnnalSS 5, 153-164.

Nawaz, S., Bilal, H. A., Kalsoom, M., Fayyaz,

Z., Nayyar, H. 2013.Media Discourse

and Their Implicit Ideologies.Asian

Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2

(2), 328-337.

Ng‟ambi, D. 2008. A Critical Discourse

Analysis of Students' Anonymous Online

Postings.International Journal of Information

and Communication Technology Education, 4

(3). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI

Publishing.

O‟Keeffe, A. 2006.Investigating Media Discourse.

London: Routledge.

Olowe, J. 1993. Language and Ideology in Nigerian

Newspapers in the English Medium.An

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,

ObafemiAwolowo University Ile-Ife.

Perveen, A. 2015.Critical Discourse Analysis of

Moderated Discussion Board of Virtual

University of Pakistan.Open Praxis, 7 (3),

243-262.

Phakdeephasook, S. 2009. Discourse of

Femininity in Advertisements in Thai

Health and Beauty

Magazines.MANUSYA: Journal of

Humanities Regular, 12 (2), 63-89.

Polito, R. 2011. Language and Power in

Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis.

International Conference on Humanities,

Society and Culture IPEDR 20. Singapore:

IACSIT Press.

Qiu, J. 2013. A Critical Study of English Eco-

hotel Profiles. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 3 (10), 1879-1886.

Richardson, J. E. 2007. Analysing Newspapers: An

Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum

Research and Development. London:

Heinemann.

Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The

Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.

Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

Tahir, M. 2013. A Critical Discourse Analysis of

Religious Othering of Muslims in the

Washington Post.Middle-East Journal of

Scientific Research, 14 (6), 744-753.

Tahmasbi, S &Kalkhajeh, S. G. 2013. Critical

Discourse Analysis: Iranian Banks

Advertisements. Asian Economic and

Financial Review, 3 (1), 124-145.

Vahid, H. 2012. Advertisement Discourse in

Focus.International Journal of Linguistics, 4

(4), 36-51.

vanDijk, T.A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism.

London: Sage.

vanDijk, T.A. 1995. Discourse, Power and

Access. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard& M.

Coulthard (ed.). Texts and Practices:

Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis.

London: Routledge.

vanDijk, T.A. 1996. Power and the News

Media. In D.L. Paletz (ed.). Political

Communication in Action: States, Institutions,

Movements, Audiences. New York:

Hampton Press.

vanDijk, T.A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary

Approach. London: Sage.

Wenden, A. 2005. The Politics of

Representation: A Critical Discourse

Analysis of an Aljazeera Special Report.

International Journal of Peace Studies, 10 (2),

89-112.

White, P. 1997. Death, Disruption and the

Moral Order: the Narrative Impulse in

Mass-Media “Hard News” Reporting. In

F. Christie & J.R. Martin (ed.). Genre and

Institutions.London:Cassell.

Wodak, R. 1999. The Discursive Construction of

National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. 2001.Methods of Critical

Discourse Analysis. London: Sage

Publications.