Discourse Analysis, Its characteristics, Types, and Beyond

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Alek
[email protected]

Abstract
This literature review article provides an overview of discourse analysis as a qualitative
research method, highlighting its fundamental characteristics, various types, and its broader
implications. Discourse analysis is a methodological approach that delves into the study of
language and communication to uncover underlying social, cultural, and power dynamics. It
treats language as a social construct that reflects and shapes reality, emphasizing the importance
of context and power relationships. The nvestigation further explores different types of
discourse analysis, including critical discourse analysis, conversation analysis, and feminist
discourse analysis, each with its own focus and techniques. Beyond its applications, discourse
analysis offers insights into language's role in constructing identities, ideologies, and societal
norms. This investigation serves as a brief introduction to the multifaceted nature of discourse
analysis, showcasing its capacity to unveil the complexities of communication and
representation in various contexts.

The Nature of Discourse and Discourse Analysis

What is a discourse
A discourse refers to a specific way of speaking, writing, or communicating that is
guided by certain rules, conventions, and shared meanings within a particular context or
community (Jen Renkema, 2009; Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). It encompasses not only the
words themselves but also the broader socio-cultural and historical context in which
communication occurs. Discourse involves the use of language to convey information, express
ideas, construct identities, and negotiate power dynamics.
The term "discourse" is derived from the Latin word "discursus," which means
"conversation" or "speech." (Fairclough, 2020; Fraser, 2021; Wennerstrom, 2016) However, in
contemporary academic and linguistic contexts, the concept of discourse has evolved to
encompass a broader understanding of language use and communication. It's not limited to
individual conversations or speeches but includes any form of communication that contributes
to the creation of meaning and understanding within a given context.
Discourses are shaped by various factors, including social norms, cultural values,
historical influences, power dynamics, and specific communicative goals. They can be formal
or informal, written or spoken, and they play a crucial role in shaping how we perceive and
understand the world around us (Wang, 2021). For example, political discourses construct
narratives about policies, ideologies, and leadership, while scientific discourses establish
shared understandings within the scientific community (Widdowson, 2008; Wodak & Meyer,
2001).
In essence, discourse is the vehicle through which language operates within specific
contexts to shape meanings, convey ideas, and contribute to the construction of social realities
(Hewings, 2001; Moshinsky, 1959a; Richard J. Watts, 2003; Singh & Richards, 2006). It's a
complex interplay of linguistic elements, cultural influences, and social dynamics that reflects
and influences the way we communicate and interact in our daily lives (Tan & Marissa, 2022;
Tenbrink, 2020).

Discourse Analysis
 Discourse analysis stands as a methodological cornerstone within the realm of
qualitative research, with its lens sharply focused on the intricate interplay between language,
communication, and the multifaceted tapestry of societal dynamics (Fairclough, 2020; Mooney
Simmie & Edling, 2019; Wennerstrom, 2016). Rooted in the conviction that language is more
than a mere vehicle of communication, this approach endeavors to unearth the latent
complexities that underlie the expression of human thought, from the spoken word to the
written script (Alek & Nguyen, 2023; Energy et al., 1997; Wuryaningrum, 2023). Through a
systematic exploration of these linguistic nuances, discourse analysis serves as a powerful tool
for unearthing the often subtle yet profound connections between language and the broader
social, cultural, and power structures (G. Allen, 2000; McIntyre, 2008; Watanabe, 2016).
Central to discourse analysis is the recognition that language serves as a vehicle through
which individuals both reflect and construct their understanding of the world (Simmons &
Hawkins, 2014). Language, in this view, is not merely a neutral medium but a dynamic
construct that shapes and is shaped by societal norms, values, and ideologies (Tahir et al., 2021;
Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). It is within this intricate dance between language and context that
discourse analysts navigate, seeking to peel back the layers of meaning that lie beneath the
surface of words (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002; Price, 1998).
The systematic nature of discourse analysis underscores its commitment to unraveling
the fabric of language and communication. Researchers meticulously examine spoken
conversations, written texts, or visual media, analyzing linguistic features that extend beyond
the literal meaning of words (Higgs et al., 2011; Kusumaningputri, 2019; Reaves, 2023). Tone,
emphasis, pauses, and even the choice of particular words or phrases are dissected to unveil
the hidden dimensions that give shape to the message being conveyed (G. Allen, 2021;
Guanabara et al., 2000; Matei, 2007).
Beyond deciphering literal meanings, discourse analysis shines a spotlight on the
complex relationship between language and identity (Azmi, 2020; Hassani, 2020;
Yumarnamto, 2020). This approach delves into how language is used to construct and negotiate
individual and collective identities, whether they pertain to gender, ethnicity, social class, or
more (Ahmed & Morgan, 2021; Motschenbacher, 2019). By scrutinizing the way language is
employed in different contexts, researchers can unravel the subtle ways in which linguistic
choices contribute to the formation and expression of one's identity (Achugar & Carpenter,
2014; Caroline Tagg, 2020; Darics, 2015).
However, discourse analysis doesn't solely focus on the micro-level intricacies of
language. Rather, it extends its gaze to the broader macro-level implications (Munalim, 2020).
It acknowledges that language, being a social practice, is embedded within larger structures of
power and hierarchies (Kubanyiova, 2020; Kumaravadivelu, 1999). Through this lens,
discourse analysts dissect how language can reinforce or challenge existing power dynamics,
often revealing the unspoken assumptions and biases that permeate societal discourse
(Fairclough, 2020; Graaf, 2001; Reaves, 2023; Waring, 2018).
As discourse analysis matures, it has branched into various types, each with its own
lens and methodology. Critical discourse analysis, for instance, delves deep into the power
dynamics and ideologies that language both reflects and shapes (Fairclough, 2020;
Wennerstrom, 2016). Conversation analysis, on the other hand, is dedicated to understanding
the structure and patterns of spoken interaction. Feminist discourse analysis places a gendered
lens on language, unveiling how gender identities and relations are negotiated through
communication (Berg, 2009; Canagarajah & Nunan, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Price,
1998; Wang, 2021).
Beyond its immediate application in research, discourse analysis carries broader
implications for understanding the role of language in shaping perceptions, beliefs, and
behaviors. By uncovering the underlying dynamics of communication, this approach can offer
insights into how social change, cultural shifts, and ideological transformations unfold (Digital
& Heritage, 2007; Fairclough, 2013; N. X. Liu et al., 2021; Moshinsky, 1959a; Wang, 2021).
Through its rigorous exploration of language, discourse analysis transcends the boundaries of
words and syntax, revealing the intricate dance between language and society, thought and
expression.

The Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis, as a qualitative research methodology, is characterized by several distinct
features that guide its systematic examination of language and communication within social
contexts (Badarneh, 2020; Barton & Tusting, 2005; Cook, 2011; Fairclough, 2020; Moon &
Murphy, 1999). These characteristics provide a foundation for understanding the complexity
and depth that discourse analysis brings to the exploration of underlying social, cultural, and
power dynamics present in linguistic expressions (Bondarouk & Rüel, 2004; Case & Science,
2018; Thomas A. Sebeok, General Editor, 2010):

Several key characteristics define discourse analysis as a powerful tool for exploring the
complexities of communication and representation
1. Contextual Sensitivity: Discourse analysis is inherently attuned to the context in which
language is used. It acknowledges that meanings are constructed within specific cultural,
historical, and social settings, emphasizing the importance of examining the broader
environment in which communication takes place (González-Fernández, 2022; Griffiths
& Cansiz, 2015).

2. Language as Constructive: This approach views language as an active, constructive

process that shapes and is shaped by human experiences (Price, 1998). Discourse analysts
recognize that language doesn't merely convey information, but actively constructs and
reflects social realities, identities, and ideologies.

3. Power and Ideology: A central tenet of discourse analysis is its recognition of power
dynamics and ideologies embedded within language (Hashemian & Farhang-Ju, 2022;
Mair & Fairclough, 1997; Wiggins, 2019). Researchers delve into how language reinforces
or challenges existing power structures, uncovering implicit biases, and revealing
dominant discourses.

4. Interpretive Stance: Discourse analysis is interpretive in nature. Researchers engage in a

process of interpretation to unveil deeper layers of meaning, exploring how language
choices create nuanced expressions and insights that extend beyond the surface (Digby et
al., 2010; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020).

5. Variety of Data Sources: It encompasses a wide range of data sources, including written
texts, spoken conversations, visual media, and more. This diversity allows researchers to
explore how language operates in different forms of communication (Ayuningsih et al.,
2020; Dadze-Arthur, 2012; Nash, n.d.; O’Cathain, 2019; Reaves, 2023; Simmons &
Hawkins, 2014).

6. Micro-Level Analysis: Discourse analysis pays meticulous attention to linguistic elements,

going beyond the literal meaning of words. Researchers scrutinize intonations, pauses,
metaphors, and other subtle nuances that contribute to the overall meaning of the message
(Jwa, 2020; Kayzouri et al., 2020; Mair & Fairclough, 1997; Tseng et al., 2019; Wooffitt,
2011).
7. Identity and Subjectivity: The approach emphasizes how language constructs and
negotiates individual and collective identities. It investigates how language contributes to
the formation and expression of identities, including gender, ethnicity, and social class
(D’Cruz, 2008; García Ochoa et al., 2016; Moshinsky, 2022; Roman & Roman, 2014).

8. Power of Representation: Discourse analysis underscores the role of language in

representation. It examines how language constructs social realities, shapes public opinion,
and influences perceptions by highlighting certain aspects and marginalizing others
(Apsari et al., 2022; Fairclough, 2020; Gollobin, 2020; Truan & Oldani, 2021).

9. Flexibility: Researchers have the flexibility to adapt discourse analysis to various research
questions and contexts. This adaptability allows for the application of the methodology
across diverse fields and topics (L. K. Allen et al., 2019; Hidayat et al., 2021; Shabat et al.,
2021; Zhai, 2021).

10. Critical Reflexivity: Discourse analysts acknowledge their own subjectivity and position
within the research process. They critically reflect on their role, biases, and potential
impacts on data interpretation and analysis (Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Moss, 2006; Rogers
et al., 2016; Wang, 2021).

11. Multidisciplinary Nature: Discourse analysis transcends disciplinary boundaries, finding

applications in fields such as linguistics, sociology, anthropology, media studies, and more
(Van Dijk, 2016).

12. Understanding Communication Practices: It seeks to understand not only the content of
communication but also the practices that shape it, including turn-taking, pauses, and
interruptions in spoken interactions (R. H. Jones et al., 2015; Price, 1998).

13. Multiplicity of Meanings: Discourse analysis recognizes that a single utterance or text can
carry multiple layers of meaning. Researchers explore how different interpretations
emerge based on the context and perspectives of participants (Clerke & Hopwood, 2014;
Kumaravadivelu, 1999).

14. Social Construction of Reality: It aligns with the idea that language contributes to the
construction of reality. Discourse analysts study how language creates shared
understandings and contributes to the framing of social events and phenomena (Gollobin,
2020; Molzahn et al., 2020; Sara rachel Chant et al., 2014; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020;
Strongman, 2013).

15. Language as Action: Discourse analysis treats language as a form of social action. It
investigates how language doesn't just convey information but can also perform actions,
such as making requests, offering opinions, or asserting power (Fişekcioğlu, 2022; Sharma
& Sievers, 2022, 2022).

16. Global and Local Perspectives: Discourse analysis can examine both macro-level
discourses, such as political rhetoric, and micro-level interactions, like everyday
conversations. This duality allows researchers to grasp how language operates at different
scales (Lillis & Curry, 2013; N. X. Liu et al., 2021; Munalim, 2020; Wang, 2021).
17. Shifts and Transformations: Discourse analysis is attentive to shifts and transformations in
language use over time. Researchers may trace changes in discourse patterns to understand
how social, political, or cultural contexts evolve (Fairclough, 2013; McCarthy, 1992).

18. Qualitative and Inductive: The approach is inherently qualitative, focusing on

understanding the depth and nuances of language rather than quantifiable measurements.
It follows an inductive reasoning process, allowing insights to emerge from the data
(Barkhuizen, 2019; Maxwell & Reybold, 2015; Miles et al., n.d.; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020).

19. Dialogical Nature: Discourse analysis recognizes the dialogical nature of communication.
It investigates how interactions between participants shape the meanings that emerge,
leading to the co-construction of understanding (Fairclough, 2013; Goodyear et al., 2014;
Higgs et al., 2011).

20. Critical Examination: While not limited to critical perspectives, discourse analysis often
engages with critical theory to examine power dynamics, social inequalities, and dominant
ideologies that influence language use (Carter Andrews et al., 2019; Hernández, 2022;
Margolis, 2007; Smith, 2021).

21. Emphasis on the Unsaid: Discourse analysis is not only concerned with what is said but
also with what is left unsaid. Researchers explore silences, omissions, and gaps in
communication that may carry significant meaning (Mair & Fairclough, 1997; Rogers et
al., 2016; Wang, 2021).

22. Integration of Theory and Data: Researchers often integrate theoretical frameworks into
their analysis to guide their exploration of specific discursive patterns or phenomena,
providing a structured lens through which to view the data (Kayi-aydar, 2015; Levitt, 2020;
Usanova & Schnoor, 2021).

Incorporating these additional characteristics alongside the previously mentioned ones

deepens our understanding of the comprehensive and multifaceted nature of discourse analysis.
It underscores the approach's ability to illuminate the intricate connections between language,
society, and cognition, enriching our grasp of human communication and its far-reaching
implications.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis encompasses a diverse array of types or approaches, each offering
a unique lens through which to examine language, communication, and their interplay with
broader social dynamics (Fairclough, 2020; Gollobin, 2020; Li, 2009; Putra et al., 2021;
Rahardi, 2022; Siddiq et al., 2021; Van Bergen & Hogeweg, 2021). These types of discourse
analysis provide specialized methodologies and foci that cater to different research questions
and contexts:
1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): This type of analysis delves into the power dynamics,
ideologies, and social inequalities embedded in language (Nasution et al., 2021; Van Dijk,
1993; Widdowson, 2008). CDA seeks to unveil how language can maintain or challenge
dominant narratives and power structures. It often focuses on uncovering hidden agendas,
biases, and the ways in which language contributes to maintaining social hierarchies.
2. Feminist Discourse Analysis: Centered on gender and sexuality, this approach investigates
how language constructs and perpetuates gender roles, stereotypes, and power imbalances
(Criado et al., 2016; McIntyre, 2008; Wooffitt, 2011). It examines how gender identities
are negotiated through communication and how language can reinforce or challenge
patriarchal norms.

3. Conversation Analysis: Concentrating on spoken interactions, conversation analysis

examines the structure and organization of conversations (Fairclough, 2020; Steensig,
2004). It explores turn-taking, interruptions, pauses, and other conversational features to
understand how participants collaboratively construct meaning in real-time interactions.

4. Narrative Discourse Analysis: Focused on storytelling, this approach examines the

narratives people construct to make sense of their experiences. It explores the structure,
themes, and discursive strategies within narratives to reveal how individuals create and
communicate their personal and collective stories (R. Jones, 2012; R. H. Jones et al., 2015;
Moshinsky, 1959b; Saracho, 2020; Sindoni, 2019).

5. Social Discourse Analysis: This type zooms out to examine broader social discourses that
shape our understanding of specific topics. It delves into how language is used in media,
public discourse, and institutional contexts to construct particular narratives and influence
public opinion (Arvaja & Sarja, 2020; Badarneh, 2020; Galloway et al., 2020; Khodke et
al., 2021; Rahardi, 2022).

6. Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Expanding beyond written or spoken language,

multimodal analysis includes visual, auditory, and textual elements. It examines how
different modes of communication interact to create meaning in various contexts, such as
advertisements, films, or online platforms (Insights & Directions, 2019; kay I O’Halloran,
2020; Marefat & Marzban, 2014; Smith, 2021).

7. Ethnographic Discourse Analysis: Rooted in ethnography, this approach examines

language within its cultural context. Researchers immerse themselves in a community or
setting to understand how language is used to negotiate identity, social norms, and power
relationships (Mokoginta & Arafah, 2022; Tang et al., 2021; Wang, 2021).

8. Historical Discourse Analysis: Focusing on historical texts, this type examines how
language reflects and shapes cultural, political, and social shifts over time. It traces
changes in discursive patterns and ideologies to illuminate historical transformations (Y.
Liu et al., 2022; Moshinsky, 2022; Vittorio Tantucci, 2021; Waring, 2018).

9. Comparative Discourse Analysis: This approach involves comparing discourses across

different contexts, cultures, or languages to uncover similarities, differences, and
underlying themes. It highlights how language responds to varying cultural or contextual
influences (Esau, 2021; Mair & Fairclough, 1997; McCarthy, 1992).

10. Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis: Aligned with poststructuralist philosophy, this type
emphasizes how language constructs knowledge and identities. It explores how language
destabilizes fixed meanings and reveals the fluid nature of language in shaping reality
(Rogers et al., 2016; Thurlow & Mroczek, 2012; Wang, 2021).
11. Mediated Discourse Analysis: Focused on media and communication technologies, this
approach examines how language is used in digital spaces, social media, and online
platforms. It delves into how these platforms influence public discourse and shape
communication practices (Fairclough, 2020; Moshinsky, 1959a; Salomaa & Lehtinen,
2018).

12. Cognitive Discourse Analysis: This type focuses on understanding how language reflects
and shapes cognitive processes, including thought patterns, mental representations, and
reasoning strategies. It examines how language use mirrors underlying cognitive structures
(McCarthy, 1992; Reaves, 2023; Roman & Roman, 2014).

13. Institutional Discourse Analysis: Centered on institutions such as education, healthcare, or

law, this approach investigates how language is used within specific institutional contexts.
It explores how language both reflects and reinforces institutional practices, power
dynamics, and professional identities (Fairclough, 2020; Guo & Ren, 2022; Hamid et al.,
2021; Kanno, 2021; Rogers et al., 2016; Salama et al., 2022).

14. Rhetorical Discourse Analysis: Rooted in rhetoric, this type examines how language is
used persuasively to influence audiences. It explores rhetorical devices, persuasive
strategies, and the ways in which language constructs arguments and appeals (Christison
& Murray, 2021; Hart, 2008; Moshinsky, 2022; Murodi et al., 2021; Wang, 2021; Wooffitt,
2011; Xiong & Qian, 2012).

15. Symbolic Discourse Analysis: This approach focuses on the symbolic meanings and
representations embedded in language. It examines how symbols, metaphors, and semiotic
elements contribute to the creation of shared cultural meanings and values (Al Smadi et
al., 2022; Moshinsky, 2022; Wang, 2021).

16. Postcolonial Discourse Analysis: Grounded in postcolonial theory, this type investigates
how language has been historically and currently used to perpetuate or challenge colonial
power dynamics, cultural hegemony, and subaltern voices (Alexander et al., 2007;
Kumaravadivelu, 1999).

17. Environmental Discourse Analysis: Centered on environmental issues, this approach

explores how language shapes public perceptions, policies, and attitudes towards the
environment. It examines how discourses influence environmental consciousness and
behavior (Graaf, 2001; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020; Susanti et al., 2019; Wodak & Meyer, 2001).

18. Discursive Psychology: This type focuses on the role of language in constructing
psychological processes. It investigates how language constructs emotions, identities, and
cognitive experiences, shedding light on the interplay between language and psychology
(Ariana, 2016; Levitt, 2020; Waring, 2018; Wooffitt, 2011).

19. Political Discourse Analysis: This approach examines how language is employed in
political contexts to shape public opinion, frame issues, and influence political agendas. It
delves into the strategies politicians use to communicate and persuade (Akdemir, 2018;
Alek et al., 2020; Connolly, 1974; Fairclough, 2013, 2020; Hart, 2008; Moshinsky, 1959a).

20. Global Discourse Analysis: Expanding beyond localized contexts, this type explores how
language operates in a globalized world. It investigates how discourses traverse
 geographical and cultural boundaries, shaping transnational identities and discursive
networks (Moreno-Almeida, 2021; Moshinsky, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2021; Rossette-
Crake, 2022; Smith, 2021).

21. Religious Discourse Analysis: Centered on religious texts, practices, and discourses, this
approach examines how language constructs and conveys religious meanings, beliefs, and
ideologies. It delves into the ways in which faith is communicated and interpreted (Ehret,
2021; Y. Liu et al., 2022; Wooffitt, 2011).

22. Legal Discourse Analysis: Focused on legal texts and practices, this type investigates how
language constructs legal concepts, norms, and power structures. It examines the ways in
which legal discourse shapes legal reasoning and decision-making (N. X. Liu et al., 2021;
Wooffitt, 2011).

23. Media Discourse Analysis: This approach focuses on how language is used in media,
including news, advertisements, and entertainment. It explores how media constructs
narratives, shapes public opinion, and influences social perceptions (Moreno-Almeida,
2021; Nasution et al., 2021; Siddiq et al., 2021; Widdowson, 2008; Wodak & Meyer,
2001).

24. Health Discourse Analysis: Centered on healthcare contexts, this type examines how
language is used in medical settings, patient-doctor interactions, and health-related
communications. It delves into how language shapes health beliefs, practices, and patient
experiences (Badarneh, 2020; Insights & Directions, 2019; Moshinsky, 2022; Wang,
2021).

25. Educational Discourse Analysis: This type explores how language is used in educational
settings, including classroom interactions, textbooks, and educational policies. It
investigates how language contributes to the construction of educational knowledge and
identities (Fan & Chen, 2021; Mason, 2019; D Puspitasari, 2021; Dewi Puspitasari et al.,
2021; Shrestha, 2020; Toti & Hamid, 2022).

26. Consumer Discourse Analysis: Focused on consumer behavior and marketing, this
approach examines how language is used to persuade and influence consumers. It explores
how advertisements, reviews, and product descriptions shape consumer perceptions and
choices (Fairclough, 2020; R. H. Jones et al., 2015; Rossette-Crake, 2022).

27. Urban Discourse Analysis: Centered on urban environments, this type investigates how
language is used in city planning, public spaces, and urban development. It explores how
language contributes to the construction of urban identities and narratives.

28. Aesthetic Discourse Analysis: This approach explores how language is used in art,
literature, and creative expressions. It examines how language contributes to aesthetic
experiences, interpretations, and the creation of artistic meaning (Hamid et al., 2021;
Hazaea et al., 2014; Huang, 2017; Widdowson, 2008).

29. Tourism Discourse Analysis: Focusing on travel and tourism contexts, this type examines
how language constructs tourist experiences, destination images, and narratives of place.
It explores how language shapes the tourism industry and traveler perspectives (Ananda
et al., 2019; Darics, 2015; N. X. Liu et al., 2021).
30. Science Discourse Analysis: Centered on scientific communication, this approach
investigates how language is used in scientific publications, research articles, and
academic discourse. It explores how language constructs scientific knowledge and
credibility (Blomquist et al., 2021; Fairclough, 2020; Nyangiwe & Tappe, 2021; Rahardi,
2022).

31. Linguistic Landscape Analysis: This type focuses on the visible language in public spaces,
including signs, billboards, and advertisements. It examines how the language in the
environment reflects sociopolitical dynamics, language policies, and cultural identities
(Tenbrink, 2020; Wang, 2021; Winter, 1992).

32. Organizational Discourse Analysis: This approach explores how language operates within
organizations, including corporate communication, mission statements, and workplace
interactions. It investigates how language constructs organizational culture and identity
(Fahriany et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2021; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020; Wang, 2021).

33. Emotional Discourse Analysis: Centered on emotions, this type examines how language is
used to express and communicate emotions. It explores how linguistic features convey
affective meanings and contribute to emotional experiences (Salama et al., 2022; Valentina
& Elena, 2020; Valero Haro et al., 2022).

34. Linguistic Ethnography: Rooted in ethnography, this approach examines language within
its social and cultural context. It involves immersive fieldwork to understand how
language is used, negotiated, and transformed within a specific community or setting
(Heller, 1995; McCarthy, 1992; Rossette-Crake, 2022; Wang, 2021; Wardhaugh & Fuller,
2015; Widdowson, 2004).

35. Digital Discourse Analysis: This approach focuses on language and communication within
digital spaces, such as social media, online forums, and digital platforms. It examines how
language operates in these virtual environments, shaping interactions, identity
performances, and digital cultures (Darics, 2015; Gee, 2014; Harman, 2018; Insights &
Directions, 2019; R. H. Jones et al., 2015; Moshinsky, 2022; Rossette-Crake, 2022;
Thurlow & Mroczek, 2012; “Volume 21,” 2002). Digital discourse analysis explores how
communication patterns, linguistic features, and visual elements contribute to the
construction of online communities, opinions, and digital identities. It also considers the
impact of technology on language use, including the emergence of new linguistic norms,
abbreviations, and online expressions (Raman & Komarraju, 2018; Wuryaningrum, 2023,
2023). This type sheds light on how digital communication reflects, challenges, and
intersects with traditional discourses in an increasingly interconnected and technologically
mediated world (Hamid et al., 2021; Lillis & Curry, 2013; Matei, 2007; Moshinsky, 2022;
Salomaa & Lehtinen, 2018).
Each of these types offers a specialized lens through which to explore the complexities
of language, communication, and their interactions with various aspects of society and culture.
Researchers can select the most appropriate type based on their research objectives and the
specific context they wish to investigate.
Sample of a research question for each type of discourse analysis

1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): How does media coverage of immigration policies
reinforce or challenge prevailing stereotypes and power dynamics in shaping public
perceptions?

2. Feminist Discourse Analysis: How do beauty advertisements construct and perpetuate

gender norms and ideologies of beauty, and how do consumers negotiate or resist these
representations?

3. Conversation Analysis: How do participants in family dinner conversations

collaboratively establish topics, manage turn-taking, and negotiate roles to create
shared meaning?

4. Narrative Discourse Analysis: How do personal narratives of individuals who have

experienced homelessness construct their identities and negotiate their experiences
within broader societal narratives?

5. Social Discourse Analysis: How does language in political campaign speeches

construct notions of national identity and shape public opinions on immigration policy?

6. Multimodal Discourse Analysis: How do visuals, captions, and emojis interact to shape
the meaning and emotional tone of Instagram posts related to mental health awareness?

7. Ethnographic Discourse Analysis: How does language use within a particular religious
community reflect its core beliefs, values, and social interactions?

8. Historical Discourse Analysis: How did language in colonial-era documents contribute

to the construction of racial hierarchies and ideologies that persist in contemporary
society?

9. Comparative Discourse Analysis: How do news discourses around climate change vary
between Western and Eastern media outlets, and what cultural factors influence these
differences?

10. Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis: How does language construct and deconstruct the
concept of "normalcy" in discussions of mental health on online support forums?

11. Mediated Discourse Analysis: How does the language used in social media posts related
to environmental activism shape public perceptions of sustainability and influence
online engagement?

12. Cognitive Discourse Analysis: How does the language used in political speeches
activate cognitive frames that influence audience perceptions of economic policies?

13. Institutional Discourse Analysis: How does language in medical textbooks construct
the authority and power dynamics between healthcare professionals and patients?

14. Rhetorical Discourse Analysis: How do political leaders employ persuasive language
techniques in their speeches to sway public opinion on controversial policies?
15. Symbolic Discourse Analysis: How do metaphors and symbols in political speeches
construct and reinforce nationalist narratives?

16. Postcolonial Discourse Analysis: How does language in colonial-era literature

perpetuate or challenge colonial power dynamics and representations of indigenous
cultures?

17. Environmental Discourse Analysis: How does language in environmental campaigns

communicate urgency and mobilize public action in addressing climate change?

18. Discursive Psychology: How do individuals construct and negotiate their online
identities through language use in social media interactions?

19. Political Discourse Analysis: How do language and rhetorical strategies used in
campaign debates influence voters' perceptions of candidates' trustworthiness?

20. Global Discourse Analysis: How does language on international news websites reflect
different cultural perspectives on global conflicts and events?

21. Religious Discourse Analysis: How does language in sermons shape the congregation's
understanding of moral values and ethical principles within a specific religious
community?

22. Legal Discourse Analysis: How does language in legal documents reflect the authority
of legal professionals and construct interpretations of legal concepts?

23. Media Discourse Analysis: How does language in news articles about technology
innovation influence public perceptions of its potential benefits and drawbacks?

24. Health Discourse Analysis: How do healthcare providers use language in patient
consultations to foster trust, ensure patient understanding, and uphold medical
authority?

25. Educational Discourse Analysis: How does language in educational policies construct
ideals of inclusion and equity in diverse classroom settings?

26. Consumer Discourse Analysis: How does language in online product reviews construct
and influence consumers' expectations and purchasing decisions?

27. Urban Discourse Analysis: How does language in urban planning documents reflect
cultural identities and social aspirations within rapidly changing urban environments?

28. Aesthetic Discourse Analysis: How does language in art critiques contribute to the
construction of meaning and interpretation in contemporary art exhibitions?

29. Tourism Discourse Analysis: How does language in travel blogs construct and influence
tourists' perceptions of authenticity and cultural experiences in a specific destination?
 30. Science Discourse Analysis: How does language in scientific articles about climate
change communicate the urgency of environmental issues to the general public?

31. Linguistic Landscape Analysis: How does the presence and choice of language in
public signage reflect the linguistic diversity and power dynamics in a multicultural
urban space?

32. Organizational Discourse Analysis: How does language in corporate mission

statements reflect and shape the organizational culture and values of a multinational
corporation?

33. Emotional Discourse Analysis: How do individuals express and negotiate grief and loss
through language in online grief support forums?

34. Linguistic Ethnography: How do language practices within a multicultural school

setting contribute to the negotiation of cultural identities and social hierarchies among
students?

35. Digital Discourse Analysis: How do linguistic features, visual elements, and interaction
patterns in online political discussions on social media platforms contribute to the
polarization of political opinions?

These research questions provide a glimpse into the diverse range of inquiries that different
types of discourse analysis can address. They highlight the specific contexts, themes, and
dimensions that researchers can explore through the lens of language and communication
(Badarneh, 2020; Nevins, 2010; Siddiq et al., 2021).

Conclusion
The exploration of discourse analysis unveils a rich tapestry of insights into the intricate
relationship between language, communication, and the multifaceted layers of society
(Suparno et al., 2023, 2023). Armed with a keen awareness of the contextual nuances, discourse
analysis serves as a methodological compass guiding researchers through the dynamic terrain
of language use. Its characteristics, ranging from contextual sensitivity and power dynamics to
interpretive stance and identity negotiation, underpin a framework that delves far beyond the
surface of words (Gollobin, 2020; Oruç Ertürk & Mumford, 2017; Simpson, 1993). The myriad
types of discourse analysis extend the reach of this methodology, offering specialized lenses
through which language can be dissected within diverse contexts. From critical discourse
analysis's scrutiny of power dynamics to narrative discourse analysis's exploration of personal
narratives, each type adds a distinct dimension to our understanding of how language operates
as a vehicle for meaning, influence, and representation (Ariana, 2016; Fairclough, 2013; Jen
Renkema, 2009; Xiong & Qian, 2012).
However, discourse analysis is more than a mere academic pursuit. It holds the key to
unraveling the intricacies of societal narratives, the shaping of identities, and the construction
of reality itself. In today's increasingly digital landscape, digital discourse analysis uncovers
the evolving nature of language in online spaces, while in the past and present, historical and
postcolonial discourse analysis unveil layers of ideologies and legacies imprinted in language
(Bergman et al., 2022; Esau, 2021; R. H. Jones et al., 2015; Moreno-Almeida, 2021;
Moshinsky, 2022; Susilo & Sugihartati, 2019).
Beyond its immediate applications, discourse analysis transcends boundaries. It
underscores the power of language to influence perceptions, construct realities, and challenge
the status quo. By delving into the interplay of words, silences, and visual cues, discourse
analysis has the potential to illuminate the hidden forces at play in shaping cultural norms,
public opinions, and even individual thought processes (Arief et al., 2020; Lee, 2018; Munalim,
2020; Stubbs, 2017).
In a world where communication forms the cornerstone of human interactions,
discourse analysis serves as a gateway to understanding the mechanisms that underpin
language's role as a social construct (Andrew, 2017; Bloome et al., 2004; Gollobin, 2020). Its
journey into the heart of meaning-making, the negotiation of identities, and the navigation of
power dynamics enables us to navigate the complexities of language with heightened
sensitivity and a critical lens. Ultimately, discourse analysis reminds us that words carry
immense weight, and their implications extend far beyond syntax and semantics – they shape
the narratives that define our lives (Fasold Deborah, 1989; Leymarie & Makoni, 2017; N. X.
Liu et al., 2021; McKeown et al., 2018; Mirian Urgelles-Coll, 2010; Munn & Smith, 2013;
Robin Cooper, 2016).

References
Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. D. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in
multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.002
Ahmed, A., & Morgan, B. (2021). Postmemory and multilingual identities in English language
teaching: a duoethnography. Language Learning Journal, 49(4), 483–498.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1906301
Akdemir, N. (2018). Deconstruction of Gender Stereotypes Through Fashion. European
Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 5(2), 185.
https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v5i2.p185-190
Al Smadi, O. A., Rashid, R. A., Yassin, B., & Saad, H. (2022). A Linguistic ethnography of
discursive identities of an english for medical purposes (emp) teacher. International
Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.1515a
Alek, A., Marzuki, A. G., Hidayat, D. N., Islamiati, F. A., & Raharjo, A. R. (2020). ‘“Why She
Disappeared”’ (A Study of Illeism in Poetic Discourse). Ethical Lingua: Journal of
Language Teaching and Literature, 7(2), 447–453.
https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.205
Alek, & Nguyen, V. T. (2023). Verbal Phatic Expressions in EFL Student Teachers’ Classroom
Interactions. The Journal of Language Learning and Assessment, 1(1), 44–56.
Alexander, C., Beale, N., Kesby, M., Kindon, S., McMillan, J., Pain, R., & Ziegler, F. (2007).
Participatory diagramming: A critical view from North East England. In Participatory
Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671-26
Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality. In Intertextuality. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131039
Allen, G. (2021). INTERTEXTUALITY Third edition.
Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2019). Writing flexibility in argumentative
essays: a multidimensional analysis. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1607–1634.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9921-y
Ananda, R., Fitriani, S. S., Samad, I. A., & Patak, A. A. (2019). Cigarette advertisements : A
systemic functional grammar and multimodal analysis. 8(3), 616–626.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15261
Andrew, M. B. (2017). Using innovation and action research to build tesol teacher capacity in
Vietnam. International Journal of Language Education, 1(2), 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v1i2.4311
Apsari, A. A. N., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Alek, A. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis
 on “Bright: An English” Textbook: Gender Equity in a Popular EFL School Textbook in
Indonesia. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(2), 188–196.
https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i2.9549
Ariana, R. (2016). What is Discourse Analysis?
Arief, A., Alek, A., Raya, A. T., Baker, S., & Camden-anders, S. (2020). American Educators
and Democratic Educational Principles and Practices. 24(07), 8014–8025.
Arvaja, M., & Sarja, A. (2020). Dialogic Tensions in Pre-Service Subject Teachers ’ Identity
Negotiations Dialogic Tensions in Pre-Service Subject Teachers ’ Identity. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 0(0), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705895
Ayuningsih, A., Ali, S. W., & Malabar, F. (2020). Faulty parallel structure in students’
argumentative writing. TRANS-KATA: Journal of Language, Literature, Culture and
Education, 1(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.54923/transkata.v1i1.5
Azmi, M. N. L. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of islamic self-identity formation through
language learning among students in selected religious secondary schools. International
Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 8(1), 82–91.
https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85085019063
Badarneh, M. A. (2020). Formulaic expressions of politeness in Jordanian arabic social
interactions. Formulaic Language and New Data: Theoretical and Methodological
Implications, 3, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110669824-007
Barkhuizen, G. (2019). INTRODUCTION: Qualitative Research Topics in Language Teacher
Education. In Qualitative Research Topics in Language Teacher Education.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429461347-1
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and
social context. In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554
Berg, L. D. (2009). Discourse Analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00420-X
Bergman, K., Nowicka, P., Eli, K., & Lövestam, E. (2022). “Writing nutritionistically”: A
critical discourse analysis of lay people’s digital correspondence with the Swedish Food
Agency. Health (United Kingdom), 26(5), 554–570.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593211038533
Blomquist, C., Newman, R. S., Huang, Y. T., & Edwards, J. (2021). Children with cochlear
implants use semantic prediction to facilitate spoken word recognition. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 64(5), 1636–1649.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00319
Bloome, D., Power Carter, S., Morton Christian, B., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004).
Discourse analysis & the study of classroom language & literacy events-a
microethnographic perspective. In Discourse Analysis & The Study of Classroom
Language & Literacy Events-A Microethnographic Perspective.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611215
Bondarouk, T., & Rüel, H. (2004). Discourse analysis: making complex methodology simple.
ECIS 2004 Proceedings, 266–279. http://doc.utwente.nl/47407
Canagarajah, A. S., & Nunan, D. (1997). Introducing Discourse Analysis. In The Modern
Language Journal (Vol. 81, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.2307/329338
Caroline Tagg. (2020). The discourse of text messaging: analysis of text message
communication. http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203
Carter Andrews, D. J., Brown, T., Castro, E., & Id-Deen, E. (2019). The Impossibility of Being
“Perfect and White”: Black Girls’ Racialized and Gendered Schooling Experiences.
American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2531–2572.
 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219849392
Case, S., & Science, C. (2018). Single Case Research Methodology. In Single Case Research
Methodology. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666
Christison, M., & Murray, D. E. (2021). What English Language Teachers Need to Know
Volume III: Designing Curriculum. In What English Language Teachers Need to Know
Volume III: Designing Curriculum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275746
Clerke, T., & Hopwood, N. (2014). Doing Ethnography in Teams: A Case Study of
Asymmetries in Collaborative Research.
Connolly, W. E. (1974). Terms of Political Discourse.
Cook, G. (2011). Discourse analysis. In The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203835654
Criado, N., Rashid, A., & Leite, L. (2016). Flash mobs, Arab Spring and protest movements:
Can we analyse group identities in online conversations? Expert Systems with
Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.023
D’Cruz, C. (2008). Identity Politics in Deconstruction: Calculating with the Incalculable. In
Identity Politics in Deconstruction: Calculating with the Incalculable.
Dadze-Arthur, A. (2012). Reflective teaching in further and adult education. In Educational
Research and Evaluation (Vol. 18, Issue 8).
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.718504
Darics, E. (2015). Digital business discourse. In Digital Business Discourse.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137405579
Digby, A. D., Alexander, G., Basile, C. G., Cloninger, K., Connelly, F. M., DeCuir-Gunby, J.
T., Gaa, J. P., Ginsburg, H. P., Haynes, A. M., & He, M. F. (2010). Cultivating curious
and creative minds: The role of teachers and teacher educators.
Digital, T., & Heritage, C. (2007). Theorizing digital cultural heritage: a critical discourse. In
Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 45, Issue 03). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-1536
Ehret, K. (2021). An information-theoretic view on language complexity and register variation:
Compressing naturalistic corpus data. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(2),
383–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0033
Energy, P., Systems, D., & Engineering, S. (1997). < Previous Page Page_I Next Page > (Vol.
20).
Esau, K. (2021). Impoliteness (Hate Speech/Incivility). DOCA - Database of Variables for
Content Analysis, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.34778/5b
Fahriany, F., Alek, A., & Wekke, I. S. (2019). Gender Representation in English Textbooks
for Islamic Junior High School Students. Kafa`ah: Journal of Gender Studies, 8(2), 149.
https://doi.org/10.15548/jk.v8i2.221
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis the critical study of language, second edition.
In Critical Discourse Analysis The Critical Study of Language, Second Edition.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368
Fairclough, N. (2020). Analysisng Discourse: Textual analysis for social research (Vol. 21,
Issue 1). http://journal.um-surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203
Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1–2), 159–183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685
Fasold Deborah, R. W. & S. (1989). Languague Change and Variation. 4(1), 1–23.
Fişekcioğlu, A. (2022). Language Worldview and Action-Oriented National Folklore Elements
Approach for Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language. Educational Policy Analysis and
Strategic Research, 17(1), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.248.16
Fraser, B. (2021). An introduction to discourse markers. In New Directions in Second
Language Pragmatics (pp. 314–335). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110721775-021
Galloway, E. P., Uccelli, P., & Barr, C. D. (2020). Exploring the Cross-Linguistic Contribution
of Spanish and English Academic Language Skills to English Text Comprehension for
Middle-Grade Dual Language Learners. 6(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419892575
García Ochoa, G., McDonald, S., & Monk, N. (2016). Embedding Cultural Literacy in Higher
Education: a new approach*. Intercultural Education, 27(6), 546–559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1241551
Gee, J. P. (2014). Unified Discourse Analysis. In Unified Discourse Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315774459
Gollobin, S. (2020). Writing and identity. In Writing and Pedagogy (Vol. 11, Issue 3).
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.35316
González-Fernández, B. (2022). Conceptualizing L2 Vocabulary Knowledge. Second
Language Acquisition, 44(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000930
Goodyear, L., Jewiss, J., Usinger, J., & Barela, E. (2014). Qualitative Inquiry in evaluation (L.
Goodyear, J. Jewiss, J. Usinger, & E. Barela (Eds.); 1st Edtion). Jose-Bass.
Graaf, G. De. (2001). Discourse Theory and Business Ethics. The Case of Bankers’
Conceptualizations of Customers. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4), 299–319.
Griffiths, C., & Cansiz, G. (2015). Language learning strategies: An holistic view. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 473–493.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.3.7
Guanabara, E., Ltda, K., Guanabara, E., & Ltda, K. (2000). Culturally Speaking: Culture,
Communication and Politeness Theory (Helen Spencer-Oatey (Ed.); 2nd Editio).
Guo, Y., & Ren, W. (2022). Book review. Journal of Pragmatics, 200(September), 191–193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.09.002
Hamid, M. A., Basid, A., & Aulia, I. N. (2021). The reconstruction of Arab women role in
media: a critical discourse analysis. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 11(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00809-0
Harman, R. (2018). Bilingual learners and social equity. In Springer. doi (Vol. 33).
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-60953-
9%0Ahttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-60953-9.pdf
Hart, C. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: toward a theoretical framework.
Critical Discourse Studies, 5(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2022). A CDA and CIA of ideology and power relations
in the English textbook Got It 1. Journal of New Advances in English Language Teaching
and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.22034/jeltal.2021.4.1.1
Hassani, V. (2020). Contributions of Kumaravadivelu’s language teacher education modular
model (KARDS) to Iranian EFL language institute teachers’ professional identity. Applied
Research on English Language, 9(1), 75–102.
https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2019.117913.1470
Hazaea, A., Ibrahim, N., & Nor, N. F. M. (2014). Dissemination of Human Values: Discourse
Analysis of Global Educational Media Texts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.022
Heller, M. (1995). Language choice, social institutions, and symbolic domination. Language
in Society, 24(3), 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018807
Hernández, A. M. (2022). Enacting Asset-Based Approaches for Critically Conscious Dual
Language Teachers: The Administrator’s Role in a Professional Learning Community.
Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 7(1), 22–35.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v7i1.2471
Hewings, M. (Ed.). (2001). Academic Writing in Context: Implication and Application.
University of Birmingham Press.
Hidayat, D. N., Kultsum, U., Alek, Sufyan, A., & Defianty, M. (2021). The Aftermath of
COVID-19 Education Disruption: Readiness of Pre-Service English Teachers for Blended
Learning. 2021 9th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management,
CITSM 2021, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM52892.2021.9589009
Higgs, J., Titchen, A., Horsfall, D., & Bridges, D. (2011). Creative Spaces for Qualitative
Researching: Living Research. In Practice, Education, Work and Society Volume 5.
Huang, S. Y. (2017). Critical multimodal literacy with moving-image texts. English Teaching,
16(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-02-2017-0018
Insights, N., & Directions, F. (2019). Analyzing Digital Discourse. In Analyzing Digital
Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6
Jen Renkema. (2009). Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies /. In
John Benjamins B.V.
Jones, R. (2012). Discourse Analysis: A Resource Book For Students. 229.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hWXLbwAACAAJ&pgis=1
Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (2015). Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing
discourse analysis in the digital age. In Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing discourse
analysis in the digital age. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726465
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Marianne W Jorgensen, Dr Louise J Phillips-Discourse
Analysis as Theory and Method-Sage Publications Ltd (2002). 223.
Jwa, S. (2020). Korean EFL students’ argumentative writing in L1 and L2: A comparative
move analysis study. English Teaching, 19(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-
01-2019-0010
Kanno, Y. (2021). English Learners’ Access to Postsecondary Education: Neither College nor
Career Ready.
kay I O’Halloran. (2020). Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic-Functional Perspectives
(R. Fawcett (Ed.); Vol. 21, Issue 1). http://journal.um-
surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203
Kayi-aydar, H. (2015). Teacher agency , positioning , and English language learners : Voices
of pre-service classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.009
Kayzouri, A. H., Mohebiamin, A., Saberi, R., & Bagheri-Nia, H. (2020). English language
professors’ experiences in using social media network Telegram in their classes: a critical
hermeneutic study in the context of Iran. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(2), 124–134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-02-2020-0008
Khodke, A., Watabe, A., & Mehdi, N. (2021). Implementation of Accelerated Policy-Driven
Sustainability Transitions : Case of Bharat Stage 4 to 6 Leapfrogs in India. 1–25.
Kubanyiova, M. (2020). Language teacher education in the age of ambiguity: Educating
responsive meaning makers in the world. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777533
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),
453. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587674
Kusumaningputri, R. (2019). Responding to Islamic religious conducts: Situating morality
through critical reading literacy task on cartoons for Indonesian EFL muslim learners.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 210–218.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i1.11381
Lee, C. (2018). Researching and teaching second language speech acts in the Chinese context.
In Researching and Teaching Second Language Speech Acts in the Chinese Context.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8980-0
Levitt, H. M. (2020). Reporting qualitative research in psychology: How to meet APA Style
Journal Article Reporting Standards (Revised Edition). In Reporting qualitative research
 in psychology: How to meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (Revised
Edition). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000179-000
Leymarie, C. D., & Makoni, S. B. (2017). Curriculum Vitae of Alan Davies. Language and
Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.01.002
Li, J. (2009). Intertextuality and national identity: Discourse of national conflicts in daily
newspapers in the United States and China. Discourse and Society, 20(1), 85–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508097096
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2013). Academic Writing in a Global Context. Academic Writing in
a Global Context. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852583
Liu, N. X., Veecock, C., & Zhang, S. I. (2021). Chinese News Discourse: From Perspectives
of Communication, Linguistics and Pedagogy. Chinese News Discourse: From
Perspectives of Communication, Linguistics and Pedagogy, 1–190.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003032984
Liu, Y., Zhang, L. J., & Yang, L. (2022). A Corpus Linguistics Approach to the Representation
of Western Religious Beliefs in Ten Series of Chinese University English Language
Teaching Textbooks. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(January), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.789660
Mair, C., & Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Analysis of
Language. In Language (Vol. 73, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.2307/416612
Marefat, F., & Marzban, S. (2014). Multimodal Analysis of Gender Representation in ELT
Textbooks: Reader’s Perceptions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.521
Margolis, J. (2007). Protagoras and the Challenge.
Mason, J. (2019). Intertextuality in practice. Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 33, 1–201.
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85077200306&doi=10.1075%2Flal.33&partnerID=40&md5=1dedba24cd57171260c96
0d2f29e8029
Matei, G. (2007). Classroom Management in Language Education. ELT Journal, 61(3), 279–
281. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm038
Maxwell, J. A., & Reybold, L. E. (2015). Qualitative Research. In International Encyclopedia
of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
097086-8.10558-6
McCarthy, M. (1992). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Child Language Teaching
and Therapy, 8(1), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909200800108
McIntyre, A. (2008). Qaultiative Research Methods Serie 52. SAGE Publications.
McKeown, M. G., Crosson, A. C., Moore, D. W., & Beck, I. L. (2018). Word Knowledge and
Comprehension Effects of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Middle School
Students. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 572–616.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217744181
Miles, M. H., Hubberman, A. M., & Johnny Saldana. (n.d.). Qualitative Dtaa Analysis: A
Methodd Sourebook (H. Salmon (Ed.); 3rd Editio). Sage Publication, Inc.
Mirian Urgelles-Coll. (2010). The syntax and semantics of discourse markers. Continuum
International Publishing Group. www.continuumbooks.com
Mokoginta, K., & Arafah, B. (2022). Negotiation in Indonesian Culture: A Cultural Linguistic
Analysis of Bahasa Indonesia Textbooks. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
12(4), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1204.09
Molzahn, A. E., Sheilds, L., Bruce, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., Antonio, M., & Clark, A. M.
(2020). Life and priorities before death: A narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life
in people with heart failure and their family members. European Journal of
Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515120918355
Moon, B., & Murphy, P. (Eds.). (1999). Learners, Learning and Assessmet. Paul Chapman
Publishing in association with The Open University.
Mooney Simmie, G., & Edling, S. (2019). Teachers’ democratic assignment: a critical
discourse analysis of teacher education policies in Ireland and Sweden. Discourse, 40(6),
832–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1449733
Moreno-Almeida, C. (2021). Memes as snapshots of participation: The role of digital amateur
activists in authoritarian regimes. New Media and Society, 23(6), 1545–1566.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820912722
Moshinsky, M. (1959a). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research Norman. In
Nucl. Phys. (Vol. 13, Issue 1).
Moshinsky, M. (1959b). Multirnodal Discourse Analysis Systemic-Functional Perspectives. In
Nucl. Phys. (Vol. 13, Issue 1).
Moshinsky, M. (2022). Research Method for Digital Discourse Analysis. In Bloomsbury
Academic.
Moss, G. (2006). Critical Literacy Critical Teaching: Tools for Preparing Responsive Teachers.
In Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education (Vol. 108, Issue 8).
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800846
Motschenbacher, H. (2019). Non-nativeness as a dimension of inclusion: A multimodal
representational analysis of EFL textbooks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
(United Kingdom), 29(3), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12237
Munalim, L. O. (2020). Micro and Macro Practices of Multicultural Education in a Philippine
University: Is It Global Integration Ready? Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(5),
441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00497-7
Munn, K., & Smith, B. (2013). Applied ontology: An introduction. In Applied Ontology: An
Introduction. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110324860
Murodi, A., Hidayat, D. N., & Alek, A. (2021). An Investigation of Lexical Cohesion on
Indonesian Singer Song. Jurnal Onoma: Pendidikan, Bahasa, Dan Sastra, 7(1), 15–23.
https://doi.org/10.30605/onoma.v7i1.448
Nash, S. (n.d.). Consultant :
Nasution, P. T., Hidayat, D. N., & Alek, A. (2021). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Jakarta
Massive Flood News in Kompas.Com. Al-Lisan, 6(1), 22–35.
https://doi.org/10.30603/al.v6i1.1887
Nevins, M. E. (2010). Intertextuality and misunderstanding. Language and Communication,
30(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.001
Nguyen, T. T. M., Marlina, R., & Cao, T. H. P. (2021). How well do ELT textbooks prepare
students to use English in global contexts? An evaluation of the Vietnamese English
textbooks from an English as an international language (EIL) perspective. Asian
Englishes, 23(2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794
Nyangiwe, B., & Tappe, H. (2021). Politeness constructions in written business
communication: A plea for African politeness strategies. South African Journal of African
Languages, 41(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2021.1902133
O’Cathain, A. (2019). Mixed methods research. Qualitative Research in Health Care, 169–
180. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch12
Oruç Ertürk, N., & Mumford, S. E. (2017). Understanding test-takers’ perceptions of difficulty
in EAP vocabulary tests: The role of experiential factors. Language Testing, 34(3), 413–
433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216673399
Price, S. (1998). Critical Discourse Analysis: Discourse Acquisition and Discourse Practices
SOCIAL DETERMINISM AND INDIVIDUAL AGENCY IN LANGUAGE USE. 581–595.
Puspitasari, D. (2021). How do primary school English textbooks teach moral values? A critical
discourse analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70.
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101044
Puspitasari, Dewi, Widodo, H. P., Widyaningrum, L., Allamnakhrah, A., & Lestariyana, R. P.
D. (2021). How do primary school English textbooks teach moral values? A critical
discourse analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70(July), 101044.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101044
Putra, J. W. G., Teufel, S., & Tokunaga, T. (2021). Annotating argumentative structure in
English-as-a-Foreign-Language learner essays. Natural Language Engineering, C, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324921000218
Rahardi, R. K. (2022). Triadicities of Indonesian Phatic Functions. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 12(12), 2641–2650. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1212.22
Raman, U., & Komarraju, S. A. (2018). Policing responses to crime against women: unpacking
the logic of Cyberabad’s “SHE Teams.” Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 718–733.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447420
Reaves, A. (2023). Discourse Markers in Second Language French. In Discourse Markers in
Second Language French. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003323754
Richard J. Watts. (2003). Politeness: Key Topic in Lingusitics. Cambridge University Press.
Robin Cooper. (2016). From Perception to Communication: A Theory of Types for Action and
Meaning. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, R., Schaenen, I., Schott, C., O’Brien, K., Trigos-Carrillo, L., Starkey, K., & Chasteen,
C. C. (2016). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature, 2004
to 2012. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1192–1226.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628993
Roman, A. F., & Roman, R. M. (2014). The Relation Discourse–Text and Textuality. Pro-
pragmatic Self-reference on Speech. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.309
Rossette-Crake, F. (2022). Digital Oratory as Discursive Practice From the Podium to the
Screen.
Salama, I., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., & Alek, A. (2022). Arabic identity in English foreign
language classroom conversation: Language selection, patterns, and functions. Leksika:
Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra Dan Pengajarannya, 16(2), 1.
https://doi.org/10.30595/lks.v16i2.13513
Salomaa, E., & Lehtinen, E. (2018). “Congratulations, you’re on TV!”: Middle-space
performances of live tweeters during the FIFA World Cup. Discourse, Context and Media,
25, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.04.008
Sara rachel Chant, Frank Hindriks, A., & Gerhard Preyer. (2014). From Individual to
Collective Intentionality. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952.,
2013–2015.
Saracho, O. N. (2020). The social practice of parents’ storybook reading: a critical discourse
analysis. Early Child Development and Care, 190(6), 855–876.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1498091
Sarah J. Tracy. (2020). Qualitative Research Method: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis,
Cmmunicating Impact (Second Edi, Issue 1). Wiley Blackwell.
Shabat, M., Shafir, R., & Sheppes, G. (2021). Flexible emotion regulatory selection when
coping with COVID-19-related threats during quarantine. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00716-6
Sharma, B. K., & Sievers, M. (2022). Developing teacher awareness and action plans for
teaching English as an international language. Language Awareness, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2033757
Shrestha, P. N. (2020). Shrestha, P. N. (2020). Higher Education, Academic Writing
Assessment and Formative Feedback. In Dynamic Assessment of Students’ Academic
 Writing (pp. 1-33). Springer, Cham. In Dynamic Assessment of Students’ Academic
Writing.
Siddiq, A. A., Hidayat, D. N., Alek, & Adrefiza. (2021). A text analysis on Joko Widodo’s
speech text on Indonesia Independence Day. Linguistic, English Education and Art
(LEEA) Journal2, 4(2), 270–284.
Simmons, C., & Hawkins, C. (2014). Teaching ICT. In Teaching ICT.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288979
Simpson, P. (1993). (Interface) Paul Simpson-Language, Ideology and Point of View -
Routledge (1993).pdf.
https://www.academia.edu/32333981/_Paul_Simpson_Language_Ideology_and_Point_o
f_Vie_BookFi_org_pdf
Sindoni, M. G. (2019). ‘# YouCanTalk ’: A multimodal discourse analysis of suicide prevention
and peer support in the Australian BeyondBlue platform.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481319890386
Singh, G., & Richards, J. C. (2006). Teaching and Learning in the Language Teacher Education
Course Room:: A Critical Sociocultural Perspective. RELC Journal, 37(2), 149–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206067426
Smith, C. (2021). Deconstructing innercirclism: a critical exploration of multimodal discourse
in an English as a foreign language textbook. Discourse, 0(0), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1963212
Steensig, J. (2004). Conversation Analysis and the Study of Bilingual Interaction. Nordlyd,
31(5), 796–818. https://doi.org/10.7557/12.39
Strongman, L. (2013). Academic Writing: концепция и практика академического письма
на английском языке. In Высшее Образование В России (Issue 7).
Structure in Academic Writing. (n.d.).
Stubbs, M. (2017). Language and the Mediation of Experience: Linguistic Representation and
Cognitive Orientation. In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166256.ch22
Suparno, D., Fitriana, I., Nadra, N., & Gunawan, F. (2023). Cogent Arts & Humanities
Redefining politeness : Power and status in the digital age LINGUISTICS | REVIEW
ARTICLE Redefining politeness : Power and status in the digital age. Cogent Arts &
Humanities, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2218195
Susanti, R., Sumarlam, Djatmika, & Rohmadi, M. (2019). The speech act of rebuke in
Indonesian students’ interaction. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(11),
2330–2338. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071110
Susilo, D., & Sugihartati, R. (2019). Being power and powerless: Dynamics on Indonesian
women’s minister. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, 7(5), 551–555.
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7564
Tahir, A., Mahmood, R., & Afzal ul Haque. (2021). Portrayal of Islamic Ideology: Modality
analysis of PTB English language textbooks. International Journal of Linguistics and
Culture, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.52700/ijlc.v2i1.26
Tan, S., & Marissa. (2022). Discourses, modes, media and meaning in an era of pandemic. In
Discourses, Modes, Media and Meaning in an Era of Pandemic.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003168195-2
Tang, K. S., Tan, A. L., & Mortimer, E. F. (2021). The Multi-timescale, Multi-modal and
Multi-perspectival Aspects of Classroom Discourse Analysis in Science Education.
Research in Science Education, 51(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09983-
1
Tenbrink, T. (2020). Cognitive Discourse Analysis. In Cognitive Discourse Analysis (Issue
2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525176
Thomas A. Sebeok, General Editor. (2010).
Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (2012). Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Digital
Discourse: Language in the New Media, 1–408.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.001.0001
Toti, U. S., & Hamid, S. A. (2022). An Exploratory Study of Culturally Familiar or Unfamiliar
Texts Contributing to Reading Comprehension in EFL Context. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 13(5), 981–989. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1305.10
Truan, N., & Oldani, M. (2021). The view from within: Gendered language ideologies of
multilingual speakers in contemporary Berlin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 25(3), 374–
397. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12471
Tseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., & Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact
TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach.
Computers and Education, 128, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022
Usanova, I., & Schnoor, B. (2021). Exploring multiliteracies in multilingual students: Profiles
of multilingual writing skills. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(1), 56–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1890649
Valentina, C., & Elena, I. (2020). Classroom communities, language choices and accessibility
to discourse: the case of a multi-ethnic/multilingual class of a private school in Cyprus.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(1), 58–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1644092
Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2022). Argumentation Competence:
Students’ Argumentation Knowledge, Behavior and Attitude and their Relationships with
Domain-Specific Knowledge Acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(1),
123–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995
Van Bergen, G., & Hogeweg, L. (2021). Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: A
comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch. Linguistics, 59(2), 333–
360. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0020
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Critical discourse analysis. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190500001975
Vittorio Tantucci. (2021). Language and Social Minds: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Intersubjectivity,. In Braz Dent J. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Volume 21. (2002). In African and Asian Studies (Vol. 35, Issue 4).
https://doi.org/10.1163/156852100512400
Wang, W. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond. In
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (Vol. 39, Issue 3).
https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1950555
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics / (7 Edition). Wiley
Blackwell.
Waring, H. Z. (2018). Discourse Analysis: The Questions Discourse Analysts Ask and How
They Answer Them (Vol. 15, Issue 2).
Watanabe, A. (2016). Reflective practice as professional development: Experiences of
Teachers of English in Japan. In Reflective Practice as Professional Development:
Experiences of Teachers of English in Japan.
Wennerstrom, A. (2016). Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. Discourse Analysis
in the Language Classroom, 639–640. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8751
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Contexy, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. In
 Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427
Wiggins, B. E. (2019). The Discursive Power of Memes in Digital Culture. In The Discursive
Power of Memes in Digital Culture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429492303-2
Winter, W. (1992). Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 57 Indo-European
Numerals.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (eds. . (2001). Method of critical discourse analysis‫( ا‬R. Wodak &
M. (eds. . Meyer (Eds.)). SAGE Publication Lt.
Wooffitt, R. (2011). Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Conversation Analysis and
Discourse Analysis, 137–157. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208765.n8
Wuryaningrum, R. (2023). Phatic Communication and Its Implications for Online Learning
Motivation. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2679(January).
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0111632
Xiong, T., & Qian, Y. (2012). Ideologies of English in a Chinese high school EFL textbook: A
critical discourse analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.655239
Yumarnamto, M. (2020). Identity and imagined communities in English textbooks
illustrations. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network,
13(2), 354–368. https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85091219684
Zhai, C. (2021). Practical research on college English vocabulary teaching with mobile
technology. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720920985057