AGREEMENT AND DISAGREMENT FUNCTION IN DISCOURSE MARKER WELL IN DEBATE NIGHT AMERICA PROGRAM: A PRAGMATICANALYSIS

Authors

  • Veronika Listi Ferdini Damopolii Universitas Negeri Manado

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22216/kata.v5i1.55

Keywords:

Discourse Marker, Well, Pragmatics, Interview

Abstract

The research entitled “Discourse Marker Well in Debate Night in America Interview Program.” The objectives of this research are to analyze and describe two types and two functions of discourse marker well which occur in Debate Night in America Program. This marker that frequently occurs in the program demonstrates a special sort of discourse marker well in particular news interviews. This study uses description method to analyze the research. Pragmatic is used to approach the analysis, which is mainly developed by Schiffrin (1987). He called discourse markers as linguistics expressions, which can be a word or phrase. The results of this study show ten discourse markers well that frequently occur in Debate Night in America Program. In term of functions, the frequently marker proposes various functions. The marker serves its own function in guiding the hearer and the audience to interpret the intended meaning of the speaker. In addition, the functions of discourse marker well provide particular purpose by the speaker in order to influence and attract the voters. The function analyzed in the use of discourse marker well is to show agreement and disagreement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistics Variation: A Relevance- Theoritic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Ariel, Mira. 1994. Pragmatic Operators. In R.E Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Lingustics. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and

Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brinton, L.1996. Pragmatic Markers in English Grammaticalization and Discourse

Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clayman, Steven, Heritage, John. 2002. The News Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1993a.Metode Linguistik: Ancangan Metode Penelitian

dan Kajian. Bandung: PT. Eresco.

Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14,

– 395. (accessed January 7, 2019)

Fraser, B. 1999. “What Are Discourse Markers?” Journal of Pragmatics,31, 931-952.

Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold Publication.

Hussein, Miri. 2002. Two Accounts of Discourse Markers in English.

UK: Percy Building

Lenk, Uta. 1998. Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Global Conversation.

Journal of Pragmatics 30, 245 – 257. (accessed January 7, 2019)

Norrick, Neal R. 2001. Discourse Marker in Oral Narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33

– 878

Macmillan. 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford:Macmillan/Bloomsbury

Miller, Jim and Weinert, Regina. 1995. “The Function of LIKE in Dialogue”. Journal of Pragmatics,23, 365-393.

Muhammad, M. Hum. 2011. Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.

Owen, Marion. 1981. Conversational units and the use of ‘well‘. in: P. Werth, ed., Conversation and discourse, 99-116. London: Croom Helm.

Redekker, Gisela. 1990. “Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP

Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation.

New York: Garland.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-31