Discourse Analysis, Its characteristics, Types, and Beyond.pdf

Discourse Analysis, Its characteristics, Types, and Beyond UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Alek [email protected] Abstract This literature...

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