SEEING WHAT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IS? Widya Department of English Education Universitas Lancang Kuning

Abstract The goal of this research is to look what is dicourse analyis. The study its origins, to the academic for student, how it encloses phenomena with unlike theoritical backgrounds and methodological approaches.

Key words : critical discourse analysis; Foucault; Habermas; Systemic Functional Grammar; Linguistic Criticism; cognition; corpus linguistics

1. Introduction In this research describes about heterogeneity of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), its control to entice and irritate, and its most thrilling characters and weaknesses, which have produced discussion and disagreement. More than two periods have approved from the study of extracts to the education of big corpora, from supposedly absorbed assortment to chance group of data. Its community insinuations fortified its development. Leave-taking meager instinct sideways and exploring the suggestion of thought in writings other than literary ones donated to its scientificity and aided widen its scope. CDA as problem-oriented community research, founded in community history, semiotics and linguistics; to learned methods that are also careful critical; to the oppositions raised in contradiction of CDA; and to new tendencies trying to challenge its limitations. The question of what should be assumed by critical is also addressed, with the goal of deciding fallacies related with this label. It is similarly significant to elucidate usually used terms, including writing, discourse and context as well as others that have a central character in CDA itself, in particular, ideology, power, dominance, prejudice and representation. Further, because CDA has its roots in written and linguistic analysis, address the question of why one particular theory of language, Halliday’s (1985) “Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), has been widely adopted by CDA researchers.” Systemic Functional grammar is not only linguistic theory used and i remake on the linguistics methods that have been applied. But even the most important influence on the development CDA. Like give care to others from sociology, and social theory. “ This area of applied linguistics, which has variously been taken to be a paradigm, a method and an analytical technique, was originally known as Critical Language Studies”, (Billig 2003). It goes by various similar names. For instance, van Dijk (2009) selects the term Critical Discourse Studies, signifying that this may help see it as a combination of theory, application and analysis. The interest of this cross-discipline (van Dijk 1997) “dishonesties in attending to all types of semiotic artefacts, linguistic and non-linguistic.” A central goal in all the many methods is that critical analysis increases consciousness about the plans used in establishing, upholding and replicating (a)symmetrical relations of power as enacted by means of discourse. CD forecasters attention on those features causal to the cloth of discourse in which leading ideologies are accepted or challenged, and in which rival and contradictory beliefs coexist. 2. What discourse is? According to Bloor and Bloor (2007: 6-7), it is about phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, how to use of language, usually written to be spoken, for example speech, human interaction for verbal and non-verbal, mentions to the communication predictable in one condition context, alongside one arena and register, such as the discourse of law or medicine, and is verbal communication only. Here, “it refers to the speech patterns and how language, dialects, and acceptable statements are used in a particular community. Discourse as a subject of study looks at discourse among people who share the same speech conventions. Moreover, discourse refers to the linguistics of language use a way of understanding interaction in a social context, specifically the analysis of occuring connected speech or written discourse, , Dakowsks (2001) in Hamuddin (2012)” Wodak and Meyer (2009) “ associate this diversity with three different trends: The German and Central European tradition, in which the term discourse draws on text linguistics; the Anglo-American tradition, in which discourse refers to written and oral texts; and the Foucauldian tradition, in which discourse is an abstract form of knowledge, understood as cognition and emotions” (Jager and Maier 2009). van Dijk (1997) “ proposes linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural definitions. First he says that discourse is described at the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical levels. Secondly it needs to be understood in terms of the interlocutors’ processes of production, reception and understanding. And the last to the social dimension of discourse.” First he claims that is discourse is describe at the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical levels. Then he adds it needs be understood in terms of the interlocutors’ processes of manufacture, welcome and understanding. And, thirdly, he points to the social dimension of discourse, which he knows as a sequence of contextualised, controlled and purposeful acts accomplished in society From Widdowson’s view (2004), ”text can be written or spoken, and must be described in linguistic and other meaning in term.” CD analysts Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 276) “refer to "the following senses: Language use in speech and writing, meaning-making in the social process, and a form of social action that is “socially constitutive” and “socially shaped”.” Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 261) add that discourses “are partly realized in ways of using language, but partly in other ways”, for example visual semiosis. Texts are the indicate for the existence of discourses, one kind of reality of abstract forms of knowledge; at the same time.”

3. What makes DA critical? CDA is logically entrenched within Critical Theory, a model developed in the last three periods whose critical motivation creates in the Frankfurt School, especially Habermas. Wodak and Meyer (2009: 6) recall, in 1937 Horkheimer urged social theory to critique and change society, which to improve its understanding, how social phenomena are interconnected, to get the knowledge, and describe or explain by making structures of power and ideologies behind discourse, , that is, by creation noticeable reasons that are hidden. The choice of CDA is not only language-based. Its critical viewpoint appeals academics from many disciplines, as well as activists. Their concern lies with opening decorated mechanisms of the reproduction of power asymmetries. Anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and communication studies, among others, may share this inclination. From its inception, CDA was a discipline designed to question the status quo, by detecting, analysing, and also battling and countering enactments of power misuse as conveyed in secluded and public discourses. For some, to be critical might suggest to be judgemental. However, this is not the event here, because, as Jager and Maier (2009: 36) state, this kind of critique “does not make claims to absolute truth”. CDA is unspoken to be critical in a number of different ways: its explict and unapologetic attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned (van Leeuwen 2006) ; its commitment to the analysis of social wrongs such as prejudice, or unequal access to power, privileges, and material and symbolic resources (Fairclough 2009); its interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social practices have caused such social wrongs, and in developing methods that can be applied to their study (Bloor and Bloor 2007). All this brands CDA an sample of study pointing for social intervention. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) add that a critical reading goes beyond hermeneutics. In their view, CDA purposes at clarifying writings formed ideologically by relatives of power; it attentions on the impervious association between discourse and societal structure; and it does so through open clarification and explanation, by trusting on systematic technical procedures, that is, by attaining distance from the statistics and location them in context. Self-reflection about the study process is a must. In sum, CDA pursues to depiction the scheming countryside of broad practices, and improve communication and well-being by eliminating the fences of expected principles legitimised.

4. The origins of CDA The philosophical and linguistic foundations on which CDA is beached are sure branches of social theory and previous discourse analysis, text linguistics and interactional sociolinguistics. Certain advocates of CDA are prejudiced by Marx’s critique of the entrepreneurial misuse of the employed class, his historical dialectical method, his meaning of ideology as the building of civilisation (Marx and Engels 1845/2001), and his notion of language as “product, producer, and reproducer of social consciousness” (Fairclough and Graham 2002: 201). Certain also attraction on Althusser’s (1969/1971) conception of interpellation, which defines the way an individual can be conscious of themselves as a built subject inside discourse on their flattering part of someone’s utterances. Likewise, Gramscian hegemony (1971) effects a amount of CDA scholars. It expresses the idea that control can be trained and power attained not only finished oppressive coercion, oppression and exploitation, but also through the convincing possible of discourse, which clues to agreement and complicity. Harbemas (1981) is frequently citied by CDA writers. His main influence in the theory of communicative act is the idea of validity claims, which, rendering to him, are generally assumed in all discourse. He additional upholds that language can be used whichever deliberately or in a way concerned with to understanding. In the latter, cogency rights can be dared and fortified in a communication condition that is allowed from coercion, is only founded on lucid argument, and licenses admission to all who are pretentious by the discourse. These characteristics are inattentive from the planned use of language; it is to challenging the strategic use of language that CDA pays attention. Foucault (1972), in contrast to Marx and Habermas, thinks that awareness determines the social production process. Despite disputing the being of an independent subject, he trusts in the person’s involvement in the applied realisation of power relations. Discourses are shaped by all individuals, then, specially those who have the correct to use all resources (Jager and Maier 2009). In the late 1970’s, the University of East Anglia nursed a new trend of analysis, as linguists and literary theorists were interested in linguistic choice in literature (see Fowler 1986). Later on, they would emphasis on additional texts of significance in the public sphere, specially the form media. This did not nasty only a terminological change (i.e. from linguistic criticism to critical linguistics). The new label, which is occasionally occupied as synonymous with CDA, indirect a new boldness in academe: The academic’s commitment against social injustice. The East Anglia School planned Hallidayian linguistics for the study of news texts (Hodge and Kress 1993). Language as social semiotic, the three metafunctions, and transitivity and modality became staples in this new discipline. Chomsky’s grammar (1957) was also took meanwhile one of its key anxieties is telling the insinuations of syntatic transformations: Passivisation and nominalisation have been the principal opinion of many a CDA work. 5. Examination of approaches to CDA Nevertheless clear similarities, specially as respects program and scope, advocates of schools of CDA vary rendering to theoretic basics or methodology. Some incline to inference and others continue inductively. The previous dishonorable their clarifications on a few examples; the last scrutinise a superior group of data; without doubt, this can be more laborius but unconditionally dependable and unbiased. All in all, they all usually join to groups such as tense, deixis, metaphor, attributes or quarrelsome topoi. Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Method to CDA is an fundamentally Marxist framework, anchored in his (1989, 1995) research on language, ideology and power, where we discovery a very powerful terminology, counting dominance, resistance, hybridisation of broad practies, technologism technologisation of discourse and conversation of public discourse. As Wodak and Meyer (2009) explain, Fairclough highlights the semiotic likeness of communal battle in discourses, which interprets into his attention in social processes (i.e. social structures, practices and events). A pragmatic lateral of this method is his provision for dangerous language awareness, which to him is essential in language teaching (Fairclough 2007). Fairclough defines the next procedure: The scholar looks at one social problem with a potential semiotic dimension. This dimension is analysed by classifying its panaches (or semiotic habits of being), types (or semiotic habits of temporary and interacting) and discourses (or semiotic habits of interpreting the world). Later, the changes amid styles, types and discourses are identified. Next, the researcher educations the procedures by incomes of which the colonisation of leading styles, types and discourses is resisted. The emphasis then changes to the physical examination of the context, and the examination of agents, tense, transitivity, modality, visual images or body language. Eventually, interdiscursivity is distributed with. Irrespective of the seeming gracefulness of this methodology, Fairclough (2009) repudiates there is one single method of analysing any problem. Interestingly, he trusts that, afterward choosing one investigation topic, the academic concepts their thing of investigation by theorising it. Its transdisciplinarity is one of the unresolved fortes of one method where investigators may favor (detailed but not always too rigorous) examination of few data, selected, sometimes, by using somewhat indistinct repetition and, to some extent, impervious chic hopeful fewer critical thinking than one might imagine. Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Discourse Analysis is an method characterised by the communication between cognition, discourse and society. It began in official text linguistics and then combined rudiments of the normal mental perfect of memory, composed with the idea offrame occupied from cognitive science. A big part of van Dijk’s practical investigation deals with stereotypes, the imitation of cultural prejudice, and control misuse by bests and confronation by conquered groups. Van Dijk too emphasises the switch of discourse dimensions as a incomes to improvement admission to power. A additional component in his explanation of discourse manufacture and understanding is the K-device, which is shorthand for personal, interpersonal, group, institutional, national and cultural knowledge (van Dijk 2005). Cognition, realised in shared cerebral replicas as a consequence of consensus, is the border between societal and discourse structures (van Dijk 2009). While social constructions effect broad interaction, in the last the previous are said to be “enacted, instituted, legitimated, confirmed or challenged by text and talk” (Fairclough and Wodak 1997: 266). Van Dijk (2009) believes CDA wants a model of context such as Moscovici’s (2000) social representation theory: One person’s thought is knowledgeable by lively concepts recognized as social representations, that is, the ideas, standards, standards and imageries communal in a communal collection, and triggered and upheld in discourse. He supporters the examination of semantic macrostructures, local senses, official constructions, worldwide and local discourse forms, exact linguistic realisations and context. The features he emphases on are consistency, lexical and theme assortment, oratorical statistics, language acts, propositional structures, implications, hesitation and turn-taking switch. Notwithstanding its control, in this method, it is my confidence that intersubjective contract between academics is not fully certain by a somewhat lacking clarification of how to smear some of the rubrics recognized by van Dijk in discourse practice; therefore, technique and deductions are exposed to manifold clarification. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) (Wodak and colleagues) efforts, inter alia, to label those bags where language and other semiotic does are used by those in power to uphold power (Reisigl and Wodak 2009). Originally, DHA was worried with biased words in anti-Semitic discourse. New growths comprise the broad building of nationwide monotony and the communal barring of out-groups finished the discourses of change, and the rebuilding of the historical finished sanitised narratives. The overall method reproduces sociolinguistics and ethnography; it also stretches an important home to Habermas’s notion of the community sphere and to strategic outgoing act as opposed to ideal communication concerned with to sympathetic. Its dominant principle is the rank of transporting composed the written and background heights of study. The model of context used in DHA appeals past information unspoken in terms of four coatings: (a) the linguistic co-text, (b) the intertextual and interdiscursive level, (c) the extralinguistic level, and (d) the sociopolitical and historical level (Wodak and Meyer 2009). The interconnection between many texts and discourses clues straight to the ideas of de- contextualization and recontextualisation, procedures in which rudiments characteristic of a specific setting can be occupied out of it and introduced into a new context with which it has not been conservatively related. DHA has additional shaped a sequence of logical and evocative tools, sketch on linguistic models and argumentation theory. In specific, DHA slants six plans for classifying ideological positioning (i.e. nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivisation, intensification and mitigation) which are analysed as part of a superior procedure that comprises also the characterisation of the contents of a discourse, linguistic incomes of look and context- reliant on linguistic realisations of stereotypes. One of the fortes of DHA is the stress on the mixture of remark, philosophy and technique, and the range between request and theoretic models. The Duisburg School is deeply prejudiced by Foucault’s work. A chiefly robust fundamental belief is that it is discourse that brands topics (Jager and Meier 2009). In other words, an person’s intelligence of who they are rises from their imbrication in schemes of factually depending senses connected by institutionalised designs of acting, rational and language. This kind of framework, occasionally mentioned to as Dispositive Analysis, also attractions on social constructivism (Laclau 1980) and action philosophy (Leont’ev 1978), and rights that communal personalities are established in a semiotic net that comprises not only linguistic arbitration of many kinds but also architectural preparations, lawful does, taxes, rites styles of ethical supposed, communal organizations and so forth. Their notion of discourse is constructed upon “an institutionalized way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby exerts power” (Link 1983: 60). Though Foucault’s method is comparatively unclear as respects discourse in its linguistic appearance, the Duisburg method wages care to metaphors, orientations, chic, indirect sense, argumentation plans, the bases of information, and agentive constructions and ciphers. Like DHA, the Duisburg method supporters an logical process. After assortment of a specific topic matter, study is focussed on one domain, such as the media. This is shadowed by the physical study of one discourse element (“what is supposed and sayable at a specific point in time”, Jager and Maier 2009: 46) and of characteristic discourse wreckages, that is, the dissimilar themes each text contracts with. Linguistic-discursive does are traveled finished the study of texts; non-linguistic discursive practices, through ethnographical methods; and materialisations, through multimodal study and artefact study. The attention of an method like this, worried, inter alia, with everyday racism, patriarchy in migration discourse or the discourse of the correct, may be weak, though, behindhand the inequity between its multifaceted theoretic device and what might appear to appearance as only content-based study. There is a protuberant element of CDA that supporters the usage of Halliday’s SFG. This is the outline of linguistic report used by Fairclough, as it was also by Fowler et al. (1979) and Hodge and Kress (1988). In those educations that brand usage of SFG, different linguistic images of the same piece of realism are demanded to stand for different buildings of that realism. Therefore one and the similar factually happening occasion can be labeled as a riot, a demonstration or a protest; and social actors can be obtainable as go-betweens or fatalities by assortment of grammatical coding. More usually in this method, text kinds signify social practices (i.e. controlled habits of doing things), which include members, movements, presentation styles, performance panaches, eras and sites, capitals and suitability conditions. Theo van Leeuwen (2009) has industrialized SFG’s formal framework for the organization of the semiotic scheme of social performer kinds and for the organization of the dissimilar habits in which communal performers can be linguistically signified. Rendering to this writer, deletion, substitution, rearrangement and addition are the alterations that rudiments of a communal repetition experience finished discourse. Recontextualisations enhance the what for and the why (or why not) of a social repetition. In discourse, van Leeuwen hypothesises, communal performers can be comprised or excepted; movements can be signified animatedly or not, as if there were no humanoid go-betweens or the conflicting; can generalise them, or brand them attitude for exact orientations, concepts, ciphers; as for does or their rudiments, these can be usual in a setting, orreallocated. By creation clear the varieties of habits in which texts signify communal performers, their movements and drives, van Leeuwen pursues to analyse how exact discourses legitimise some of these performers and practices and meanings rather than others. His apprehension with an general complete study of multifaceted semiotic phenomena (the language of imageries comprised), which is not yet whole, by way of connecting many punishments may be both one of its fortes and one of its disadvantages at the same time. 6. Critiques of CDA The merits and demerits of CDA study have been the thing of a sure quantity of critique. The glitches that have been chosen up concern context, thought, partiality and the linguistic model employed. Most critics do not call into question the existence or epistemological significance of CDA, maybe with the exclusion of Widdowson and Chilton, but are conscious of its inadequacies: its theoritic basics are quite twisted in many cases, and the usage of ideas and groups may appear to be unpredictable, which does not inspire the manufacture of a methodical philosophy. Eclecticism, if missing in defense, can be a basis of illogicality. Though Widdowson (2004) does not oppose CDA’s cause, he companies misgivings on its styles of study. He cannot decide with the method CDA uses SFG, where sense is unspoken as a disorder of texts, occupied from them, not put into them. He points out that there is a gap between addresser sense and recipient clarification of this sense, on the estates that the perlocutionary result is not a feature of texts but a purpose of discourse, in which the recipient’s molds are formed by their information and politics. Hallidayan grammar offers stimulating plans for the account of semantic sense (or signification); though, to Widdowson’s eye, this is faulty because it doses on remote verdicts in its place of words. He enhances that, in this framework, the idea of setting is as vital as it is unknown. If senses are unspoken as possessions of the communication between words and contexts, interpretation is an vague procedure. In a husk, Widdowson respects some CDA methods as instances of the functional fallacy, by which he incomes the idea that pragmatic sense (or significance) may be shaped straight by meaning. He upholds that conceptualizing sentences from their contexts and selecting examples pertinent to the continuing study does not principal CD analysts to crop study in the severe intelligence of the term: Excuses effect how to method texts and the kind of discourses resulting from them. To him, CDA is a biased, unprincipled, conservative, decontextualised cherry- picking of linguistic features, earlier to ill-defined comment, which ropes clarification and harvests naive answers. Widdowson contends that CDA is critical in the intelligence that it has ethical plea, sociopolitical defense and generous ideological putting. And he receives that the CD analyst detects subjects that are pertinent in parts other than the learned biosphere and speeches how switch is trained though language. However, he powerfully needs that CDA should accept a critical attitude to its own resolutions, approaches and practices, be clear in procedural events, which must be replicable, and smear reliable values and methodical linguistic theory. In all, CDA should include methodical study of whole texts, co-texts and contextual relatives. Though Chilton has donated many documents on discourse that have a social-critical intention, his (2005) paper is critical of CDA, upholding that what CDA absences is a reasoning theory of language that could demonstration how discourse touches social cognition and vice versa. Cognitive edge theory, theoretical metaphor philosophy and amalgamation philosophy can clarify better than traditional CDA methods (including SFG) why phenomena such as discrimination and biased supposed can happen. In addition, Chilton suggestions that the effort by critical analysts is founded on no specific technical programme and may just reproduce a worldwide aptitude in nonexpert cheating- detection, going so far as to propose that, taking into explanation its spectators and scope, CDA may be of incomplete communal introduction. Billig (2003) reasons that CDA has the vital physiognomies of a critical method: The right to be critical of the present communal instruction and of the methods which do not critique the present communal instruction’s power designs. 7. New directions in CDA New arrangements and resources complicated in message have fortified new streets of CDA research, study of the multimodal possessions of texts being one important novelty. Other trends include emerging the joining between CDA and cognitive linguistics, analysing gender semiosis, and transporting corpus linguistics into CDA. In new periods, care has been haggard to just one outgoing mode, verbal language. However, music and pictures are the foundation for the meaning-making procedure in the audio and visual styles; the size, colour and edge of a newscast bang are significant to leader the recipient’s appointment with the text; the delivery of imageries and the judgment of newscast are important in TV and the media; body carriage, signs and the usage of terrestrial assistance concept our text and talk (Hodge and Kress 1988; Kress and van Leeuwen 2006). Radical Critical Discourse Analysis goals to analyse the association between sex and linguistic, which mostly incomes examining enactments of power by men and women in the public domain (see papers in Lazar 2005). Sexism, victimisation liberation and the construction of individuality are important subjects in query. Radical research has been productive in examining the part of sex in government, the media, the office and the schoolroom setting. The development from the shortfall, change and supremacy methods to a change to discourse (see Litosseliti 2006) has been vital. In present research, care is not absorbed to whether men and women speak otherwise, or whether the language of females is a nonconformity from the male standard (traditionally, the reason to clarify male superiority at some levels), but to understand sex as a lively concept (Cameron and Kulick 2003; Sunderland 2004). Finally, it has been contended that the usage of quantity linguistics methods in CDA may assistance to evade or decrease academic bias. Measurable computer-aided quantity methods can speech big data circles, and the emphasis of study can take into explanation juxtapositions, keyness, semantic favorite and semantic prosody. What seems to be clear and is taken-for-granted are check in contradiction of the data at the same time that unforeseen answers rise in the events of account and study (Mautner 2009). Designs of favored and dispreferred lexis and constructions (Baker 2006) ease noticing of the ideologies of hegemonic discourses associated with specific texts. 8. conclusion CDA is an infant discipline slowly growing. Inquisitively, several of its fortes can be occupied concurrently as the basis of its faintness. Some of the advocates of the critical example may themselves be missing in a self-deprecating boldness since CDA has become an established discipline (Billig 2003). However, its overall critical viewpoint has fortified the growth of new methods, in an exertion to response new study questions, and allay misgivings about its technique and theoretic grounds. Its inter- and transdisciplinary nature still wants to be approved onward before it yields fruit. The drive that CDA can assistance increase consciousness about the unsatisfactory communal circumstances of sections brands it a well-intentioned initiative. Nevertheless, both advocates and spectators are often acquainted with this asymmetry and usually hold similar views: CDA is mostly spent by CDA scholars not by the regular woman or man in the road. Also, despite CDA doctors’ advanced location, their new attainments only diversity from vicissitudes in the insight of a specific unfair national of businesses to beautifying vicissitudes in publicity, newscast intelligences or political speeches. Drawbacks notwithstanding, the escapade of CDA is to appearance into how discourses concept participants in message as persons with loyalties to the shared, and to board on the study of the broad incomes by which the biosphere originates into being. If this lastly may bring augmented sympathetic of communal procedures and constructions, and eventually maybe, augmented sympathetic of belongings on communal performers’ opinions and movements, CDA must have a part in the communal disciplines. References Baker, Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. Billig, Michael. 2003. “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Rhetoric of Critique.” Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak, eds. Critical Discourse Analysis. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 35-46. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Bloor, Meriel and Thomas Bloor. 2007 The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold. Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. . and Don Kulick. 2003. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: CUP. Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. Routledge: London and N.Y. 2005. “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct.” Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, eds. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 19-51. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. 2000. New Labour, New Language? London and N.Y.: Routledge. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Transdisciplinary Research.” Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, eds. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hamuddin, B. (2012). A comparative study of politeness strategies in economic journals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya).

Hamuddin, B., & Noor, F. N. M. (2015, August). A Closer Look on Politeness Strategies in Malaysian Economic Journal. In 2nd INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON LINGUISTICS (p. 52).

Hamuddin, B. (2015). DISCOURSE ON MEDIA: Bringing Hot News into ELT's Classroom Discussion. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 3, 87-95.