FINAL EXAM OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

(ARAFATUL ULFA – I2J022003)

QUESTIONS:

1. How people take turns in the conversation:

a. How people open and close conversations.
b. How people launch new topics, close old ones, and shift topics.
2. How identities are enacted
3. How power is exercised.
4. How solidarity is constructed.

ANSWER:
1. Take turns in the conversation:

a. How people open and close conversations.

The person who opened the conversation in the video is the Director Manager,

Rita, where her position is the highest among the others in the room. She opened

by thanking to the people because they were able to attend the meeting, in here

she said “Thanks for coming to today’s monthly meeting”. After that, she ordered

the people there to introduce themselves to the new member in the room by saying

“shall we all introduce ourselves and what we get up to” which in here,

according to Brown (2000), manager to members of his staff and can be labeled

‘directives’, or ‘control acts’, speech acts intended to get someone to do

something. So, after the manager asked them to do the introduction, each

participant of the meeting had an opportunity to speak. From this, we can

conclude that the conversation opening which led by Rita run smoothly and

warmly. This is in line with Arum (2015), in order the conversations run

successfully, there are several rules that need to be considered, namely, the
 speakers should not use their turn to speak for too long and their utterances can be

completed without interruption. At the end of a speaking turn, the other speakers

must take the speaking turn, so that there is no prolonged pause or silence.

To close the conversation, Rita said “I think that’s about all for this

meeting” and she drew a conclusion of the meeting that they had done, then she

said that there will be a next meeting by saying “and as far as those issues are

concerned, you must make sure they’re scheduled for the next meeting” to

Julian. And also, to close the conversation, Rita changed the meeting to be more

informal with asking “alright, everyone happy?”. This is in line with Boden

(1994), Closing a meeting and possibly moving to informal “post-meeting talk” is

similarly a coordinated activity.

b. How people launch new topics, close old ones, and shift topics.

From the meeting, people launch new topics preceded by the Director

Manager, Rita, by saying “oh and before I forget uh Frank Lyons is running a

bit late” then continued by the others to also told the employees who were unable

to attend the meeting. Here, Rita’s utterance called Transition Relevant Place or

TRP. TRPs can be exploited by the speaker who hold the floor. Floor is defined as

the right to speak. So, the people who have a floor, have a control of conversation.

The others can’t start the new topic before the settlement from Rita because in

here, Rita has the highest position among the others. This is in line with

Wardhaugh & Fuller (2015), the control over who speaks in a conversation is

called floor management.

So, to close the one topic, Rita said “and I’m delighted to announce we have a

new team member”. Actually, from that utterance, Rita slightly rising her pitch in
 the word “and” in order to stop Jason (the bald guy) for continue talking and shift

it into the other topics.

2. How identities are enacted

The concept of identity is interesting to applied linguistics for many reasons.

Identity is hence, as Anna de Fina (2006: 263) describes it’s crucially, about

conveying to one another what kind of people we are; which geographical, ethnic,

social communities we belong to; where we stand in relation to ethical and moral

questions; or where our loyalties are in political terms. The identities from the

meeting can be seen from how Rita fully held the meeting from the very beginning

until the meeting is over, how she always started launch and close the topics, gave

some commands, and how she ordered others to do or not to do something. For

example, when she said to Jason and Sue “oh please would you both put your

phones away, it’s very distracting”, and it can be seen from how both of them

immediately obey Rita’s order. It can be concluded that Rita’s social background is

higher than them.

Another social background that can be seen is how Sue and Jason are often

seen playing cellphones when the others were talking and how they were look

unserious and often giggling or even yawning every time they hear opinions from

others, making both of them have a low social background because of what they do

show impoliteness in the workplace.

3. How power is exercised

The concept of power evolved from different approaches in the 20th century.

One of the most influential theorists of this century is Michel Foucault, who wrote

extensively on power. In Foucault’s (1980) view, power is interwoven with

knowledge, located in the networks of social relationships, and omnipresent in human

interactions. We can see from the conversation in the meeting when Julian said “can
 we please get back to the agenda item? I do have another meeting to go to...” then

Rita interrupted by continue discuss about topic which are not related to the agenda

and nobody listens to Julian. While when Rita said “Please can we get back?” and

everyone is obeyed shows that Julian don’t have any power to command in the

meeting because the power is only on Rita.

4. How solidarity is constructed

Solidarity here can be identified when the speaker speaks politely and uses

humor. This is in line with Holmes (2015), jocular abuse was frequent and the

boundaries between power and solidarity were very fluid, with humor an interesting

indication of this. It was to lighten the atmosphere and re-establish group harmony.

The example of humor is when Jason said “and maybe we should have sent

Frank got an effective communication skills course yeah HAHAHAHA” because

Frank is not fluent in explaining something. So, Jason making a joke in order to

lighten the atmosphere so that the meeting is not too serious.

Another one which construct the solidarity in the workplace is when Frank

said “Sorry I... I... got held up in a previous meeting” then Rita replied “okay it’s

okay we’re just discussing car parking issues” shows that the chair, Rita, spoke

politely to Frank who had just joined the meeting instead of scold him for being late.

This aims to make the meeting atmosphere warmer and comfortable.

The last one that shows solidarity is small talk. Therefore, small talk is usually

dispersed across the boundaries of workplace interactions. Clearly perform discourse

functions that mark the boundaries and transitions of interactions in the workplace. It

also serves important social functions by building, expressing, maintaining and

enhancing interpersonal relationships between people in workplace.

Frank: I ride a bike

 Rita: Yes, I do too

Jason: You ride a bike?

Frank: Yes

Jason: Oh really? And does it have a bell on it?

Frank: Actually, yes it does

In the example above, both Jason and Frank indicate mutual good intentions as

they repair or extend their collegial relationship.

 REFERENCES

Arum, Dewi Puspa. (2015). “Struktur Konversasi Wacana Debat Dalam Indonesia

Lawyers Club.” Jurnal Pena Indonesia 1(2):188. doi: 10.26740/jpi. v1n2.p196-224.

Brown, P. (2000). Might be worth getting it done then: realisations of directives in a

New Zealand factory. MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk. Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK:

Polity

de Fina, A. (2006). Discourse and identity, in A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin and M.

Holmes, J. and S. Schnurr 2005. Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace:

negotiating norms and identifying contestation, Journal of Politeness Research 1, 1:

121–49.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

Wardhaugh, R. & Fuller, Janet M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics. 7 th Ed.

UK: Wiley Blackwell.