CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background

Every human being is a social creature who needs communication to

interact with others. One way to communicate is by using language. This is why
language has a significant role to our lives. Chaer (2007:32) also says in his book
that language is the main object in linguistic study that has a function as
communication tools for human beings.

Canale states that communication is the exchange and negotiation of

information between at least two individuals through verbal and non-verbal
symbols, oral and written/visual modes, and production and comprehension
process (Richards, 1996:4). It means we need two or more participants to
communicate. In this case, the movie entitled Freedom Writers contains some
interactions that involves two participants, a teacher and the high school students.
As we know, teacher and pupils interaction are generally found in classroom
interaction which are a part of classroom discourse.

As stated by Sinclair and Coulthard, classroom interaction has a structure

of transaction – exchange – move – act (Kushartanti, 2005:95). Lesson in the
class is usually began with transaction process in the form of a teacher teaches the
students. It then continues to exchange process which is usually marked by a
discussion between them. Then, the next part can be move or act that is usually in

form of physical activities and done by them in the class. However, in this movie,
I found that the students show challenges of power towards their teacher (Mrs.
Erin Gruwell). It is in contrast with the proper structure of classroom interaction
as mentioned above.

The most obvious indicators might be the use of swearing words for
numerous times by the students, which is not supposed to be found in the middle
of interaction between a teacher and the students. There are other struggle points
that also show the deviation of proper classroom interaction, such as the way the
students address Mrs. Erin Gruwell by calling her, “Hey, girl”, the way the
students often give interruption to her while she has not finished her sentence, and
the way the students often show refusal attitude towards the order given by her in
the class, and so forth.
 Considering those phenomena above, I decided to analyze the power
relation between a teacher (Mrs. Erin Gruwell) and the students that is found in
the movie entitled Freedom Writers by using Critical Discourse Analysis as an
approach, instead of using Classroom Discourse Analysis. The employment of
Critical Discourse Analysis will more probably be able to reveal the cultural
aspects of the students’ rebellion by capturing the students’ actions and its cultural
and societal motivations using the explanation phase of analysis.

The movie entitled Freedom Writers tells us about a true story of Erin
Gruwell who is experiencing her first time teaching job as an English teacher in
Wilson High School. She already has to face the students in room 203 who live by

generations of strict moral codes of protecting their own group and most of them
are involved in gang violence. The class scenes between Mrs. Gruwell and the
students would be the main focus of the analysis of the research. Hence, the
research that is going to be conducted entitled An Analysis of Power Relation
between a Teacher and High School Students Interaction in the Movie Entitled
“Freedom Writers” (Based on Critical Discourse Analysis).

B. Problem Statement

The problems that were analyzed in this research are:

1. What are the indicators of power that can be found in the movie
entitled Freedom Writers?
2. What kind of relationship that was built between the teacher and the
high school students in the movie?
3. Which participant shows more power in each interaction? Why do
they act the way they do?

C. Objective of the study

The objectives of this research are:

1. To find the indicators of power that are found in interaction between

a teacher and the students in the movie entitled Freedom Writers.
2. To describe the relationship that is built between the teacher and the
high school students in the movie
 3. To figure out the participant who shows more power in each
interaction, and explain the participants’ actions and its cultural
and societal motivation
D. Benefit of the study

I hope this research would give contribution to progress in Critical

Discourse Analysis, especially since it is quite new in Departement English
of Education in Muhamadiyah University of Surakarta . The benefits of this
research are:

1. To give more understanding of applying Critical Discourse

Analysis as an approach in analyzing movie.
2. To give more understanding of the existence of power relation
in classroom discourse.
3. As an input for other researchers in analyzing power relation in
a movie, by using other points of view.
B. THEORETICAL FRAME WORK

This chapter concerns with some theories which are used as the bases to
the analysis of the research. These theories are needed to support the ideas, avoid
ambiguity, give limitation to the discussion, and solve the problems that are found
during analysis. Here I have pintpointed some theories that I used for the research
in this following order:

A. Critical Discourse Analysis

In our society, we can find many kind of social issues, such as politics,
culture, class, ethnic, racial gender, and so forth. A tool that can be used to link all
of these problems is through a communication. As I have explained earlier in
Chapter I, a proper communication needs a proper language use, because language
is the main instrument of communication. Then, one way to study about language
use is through Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA). CDA, which is one
of the approaches to discourse analysis, mainly discuss language uses and unequal
power relations. According to Dijk, CDA is a type of discourse analytical research
that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are
 enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political
context (2001:352). CDA is also considered as an approach to language analysis
which concern itself with issues of language, power, and ideology (Coffin, 2001
on Lawson, 2008). Therefore, based on these definitions, it can be said that CDA
deals with the relation between language , power , and discourse. CDA is
aimed to give an awareness of the exploitative social relations through the use of
language (CDA, on Kristina, 2013), and also has the potential to look beyond
superficial aspects of classroom language and to illuminate power in the
classroom (Boaler, 2003, on Thornton & Reynolds, 2006). Kristina (2013)
mentions that there are five mainstreams used in CDA approach. They are from
Norman Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk, Theo van Leewen, Ruth Wodak, and Sara
Mills‟s versions. As for this analysis, I used Fairclough‟s version of CDA, in
which I adopted his method in analyzing Tatcherism discourse as explained in his
book, Language and Power. The highlight point of CDA in Fairclough‟s version
is the way CDA sees discourse as social practice (1989:22). Compared to CDA in
Dijk‟s version which focuses on sociocognitive aspect of a text, or CDA in
Leewen‟s version which focuses on its social actors, Fairclough sees there is a
dialectical relationship between social reality and discourse (CDA, on Kristina,
2013). It is dialectical because it is a two-way relationship, which means a
discourse is shaped by social reality (including situations, institutions, and social
structures), but it also shapes them.
Therefore, CDA in Fairclough‟s version focuses on three points. First,
there are three functions of a text in discourse. They are representation, relation,
and identity. Second, discourse in practice includes the way in which the producer
of the text produces their text. Third, the socio-cultural practice that underlying
the production of the text mostly analyzes three things: economy, politics, and

practice contextually has three levels; they are situational, institutional, and social
levels. When the situational level deals with context of situation and production
process of the text, the institutional level is related to the way the institutions
influence both internally and externally. Meanwhile, the social level is concerned
with more macro situations, such as political, cultural, and economic systems.
Here are some other points that we need to understand in order to work on a
discourse by using Fairclough‟s version of CDA: Power Relation, Power in
Discourse and Power behind Discourse, The Three Stages of Critical Discourse
Analysis, and some Linguistics Evidences.
1. Power Relation
 The main topic of discussion that can be found in CDA is about
power relation. If we talk about power, it cannot be separated with one tries to
dominate or control others, and the other one struggles to maintain or lose their
position. Power relation can be between social groupings in institutions (for
example interviewer and interviewee, teacher and students, political leader and the
party members, and so forth), and between those which are not related to any
institution (for example, men and women, young and old, or between ethnic
groupings). Fairclough defines power relations as the process whereby social
groupings with different interests engage with one another, and they are always
relations of struggle (1989:34). As for this analysis, I discussed power relation
between social groupings in a school as its institution. I focused my analysis on
the power relation between a teacher and high school students that can be found in
some class scenes of a movie entitled Freedom Writers.

Then, we have to notice that, as also stated by Fairclough, language

is both a site of and a stake in class struggle, and those who exercise power
through language must constantly be involved in struggle with others to defend
(or lose) their position (1989:35). This applies to the text I used from this movie,
in which I found that power struggle is exercised through discussion and
argumention between both participants (in this case, the teacher and her students).
2. “Power in Discourse” and “Power behind Discourse”

This part focuses more on the relations of power and language.

According to Fairclough, there are two major aspects of power and language
relationship, they are power in discourse and power behind discourse (1989:43).
First, power in discourse sees discourse as the site of power struggles. It means
relations of power are actually exercised and enacted in discourse, with powerful
participants controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful
participants. Second, power behind discourse treats discourse as the stake in
power struggles. It means the orders of discourse, as dimensions of the social
orders of social institutions or societies are themselves shaped and constituted by
relations of power. In other words, the whole social order of discourse is put
together and held together as a hidden effect of power (Fairclough, 1989:55).
To simply differentiate these terms (power in and behind

discourse), we can use Fairclough‟s framework on this as represented in the Table

2.1 below:

Table 2.1 Constraints on discourse and structural effects

Constrainst Structural Effects

Contents Knowledge and Beliefs

Relations Social Relationships
Subjects Social Identities

As an explanation to this figure, I shall say that the left column represents power
in discourse, while the right column represents power behind discourse. First, it
can be said that power in discourse has to do with powerful participants
controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants
through these three types of constraints (Fairclough, 1989:46). Constraint on
contents is constraint on what is said or done. Then, constraint on relations is to
do with the social relations that people enter into in discourse. Lastly, constraint
on subjects deals with the „subject positions‟ that can be occupied by people.
Now, if those constraints serve as relatively immediate and
concrete terms in power in discourse, we will have to think of them as relatively
„structural‟ and long-term way which is a matter of the conventions of discourse
types constraining participants‟ contributions in power behind discourse.
Therefore, the terms contents, relations, and subjects are considered having long-
term structural effects of a more general sorts, as a contribution to the
reproduction of social structures, which are knowledge and beliefs, social
relationships, and social identities of an institution or society (Fairclough,
1989:74).

There is one more thing that is initiated by Fairclough regarding

the relationships between language and power. It is about three main types of
mechanism in society, in order to achieve coordination and commonality of
practice in respect of knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social
identities. First, a mechanism of universally following and necessarily accepting
 some practices and discourse types that have built into them coordinated
knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities, because there is
no conceivable alternative for them. Second, a mechanism of inculcation which
generally refers to a mechanism of power holders who wish to preserve their
power under conditions of class domination and division (as included in this
mechanism is power behind discourse). Third, a mechanism of communication,
which is the mechanism of emancipation and the struggle against domination
through a process of rational communication and debate (1989:75).
3. Three Stages of Critical Discourse Analysis

Three stages, or dimensions, of Critical Discourse Analysis are

proposed by Fairclough as the steps or procedure in working on discourse by
using CDA as an approach. The stages consist of description, interpretation, and
explanation which are related to each other. It is emerged as response to
Fairclough‟s argument about „discourse as social practice‟. Therefore, before I
discussed these stages, I would like to discuss the meaning behind „discourse as
social practice‟ first.
What Fairclough means by saying „discourse as social practice‟ is

that discourse views language as a form of social practice. This argument

precisely implies three meanings (1989:22). Firstly, the relationship between

language and society is not an external, but an internal and dialectical relationship.
All linguistic phenomena are considered as social phenomena, and on the other
hand, social phenomena (though, not all of them) are also linguistic phenomena. It
means the first implication of „discourse as social practice‟ is that language is a
part of society. The second implication is that language is a social process. This
refers to the processes that can be found in a text analysis. They are the process of
production, and the process of interpretation. Halliday uses the term text for both
written texts and „spoken texts‟ (on Fairclough, 1989:24). However, Fairclough
uses the term „spoken texts‟ to refer to the written transcription of what is said. If
a text is a product of the process of text production, then the term discourse refers
to the whole process of social interaction of which a text is a part of. The formal
properties of a text and a considerable range of „members‟ resources‟ (MR) which
people have in their heads and draw upon when they produce or interpret text
(including knowledge of language, representations of the natural and social
worlds they inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions, and so on), become an interplay
and play as an important property to the productive and interpretative processes.
However, the MR also has social origins in which people tend to socially use
those cognitive resources to interact and engage in their social practice of an
unequal society. It is not only the MR themselves that are socially determined, but
also the conditions of their use. This leads to the third implication that language is
socially conditioned by other, non-linguistic, parts of society (1989:24).

Therefore, people not only need to analyze texts, nor analyze the
processes of production and interpretation, but also need to analyze the
relationship between text, interactions (processes), and contexts (situational
context, institutional, and social structures) in discourse (Fairclough, 1989:26).
These three dimensions of discourse (text, interactions, and context) then lead
Fairclough to distinguish the three stages of CDA. They are description,
interpretation, and explanation. The first stage is description. This stage is
concerned with formal properties of the text where analysis is considered as a
matter of identifying and
„labeling‟ formal features of a text in terms of the categories of a descriptive
framework (Fairclough, 1989:26). This descriptive framework was proposed by
Fairclough after he distinguished three types of values that formal features of a
text may have, they are experiential, relational, and expressive values.
Experiential value deals with the trace of and a cue to the way in which the text
producer‟s experience of the natural or social world is represented, while
relational value has to do with the trace of and a cue to the social relationships
which are enacted via the text in the discourse, and then, expressive value is a
trace of and a cue to the producer‟s evaluation (in the widest sense) of the bit of
the reality it relates to (Fairclough, 1989:112). In its relation to the constraint and
structural effect as I have explained before, these three values can be shown in this
following table:

Table 2.2 Formal features: experiential, relational, expressive values

Dimensions of Meaning Values of Features Structural Effects

Contents Experiential Knowledge / Beliefs

Relations Relational Social Relations
Subjects Expressive Social Identities
 What we have to notice in this level is that when we are working on spoken
discourse, we need to transcribe speech in order to produce a text. It means the analyst‟s
„interpretation‟ in the broad sense can already be found in this stage. Therefore, in order
to make it easier to define what we have to do with a text in description stage, the
descriptive framework was organized by Fairclough in form of ten main questions
(along with some sub questions) that was made in introductory level . The questions
in this framework are divided into three categories that represent the formal features
of a text; they are vocabulary, grammar, and textual structures. Here is the full list of the
ten questions (and its sub questions) that can be asked to a text of the discourse:
A. Vocabulary

1. What experiential values do words have?

 What classification schemes are drawn upon?

 Are there words which are ideologically contested?

 Is there rewording or overwording?

 What ideologically significant meaning relations (synonymy,

antonymy, Hyponym) are there between words?
2. What relational values do words have?

 Are there euphemistic expressions?

 Are there markedly formal or informal words?

3. What expressive values do words have?

4. What metaphors are used?

B. Grammar

1. What experiential values do grammatical features have?

 What types of process and participant predominate?

 Is agency unclear?

 Are processes what they seem?

 Are nominalizations used?

  Are sentences active or passive?

 Are sentences positive or negative?

2. What relational values do grammatical features have?

 What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative)

are used?

 Are there important features of relational modality?

 Are the pronouns we and you used, and if so, how?

3. What expressive values do grammatical features have?

 Are there important features of expressive modality?

4. How are (simple) sentences linked together?

 What logical connectors are used?

 Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or

subordination?

• What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?

C. Textual Structures

1. What interactional conventions are used?

 Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of
others?

2. What larger-scale structures does the text have?

As a note to this descriptive framework, not all of the questions of

this list may find its answer in every text of discourse. Some may find some of
these questions are too detailed. The main function of these questions is to find
what is there on the text, while putting aside its background.
The second stage of CDA is interpretation. If description stage
deals with what is there in the text, interpretation is a combination of what is in
the text and what is „in‟ the interpreter (in terms of members‟ resources). In
relation to the three dimensions of discourse, this stage is concerned with the
relationship between text and interaction, by seeing the text as both the product of
a process of production and as a resource in the process of interpretation
(Fairclough, 1989:26). If Fairclough has made the descriptive framework to work
on description stage, he also has listed six major domains of interpretation stage
that are divided into two parts. The first part refers to the interpretation of context,
and the second part refers to the four levels of interpretation of text (1989:142).
This process of interpretation has been summed up by Fairclough by using this
following figure.

Interpretative Resources Interpreting

procedures (MR)

Social orders Situational context

Interactional history Intertextual context

Phonology, grammar,
vocabulary Surface of utterance

Semantics,
pragmatics Meaning of utterance

Cohesion, Local coherence

pragmatics

Schemata Text structure

and„point‟
The left-hand column of the diagram above represents some major elements of
MR which have a function of interpretative procedures, while the right-hand
column represents the level of interpretation from each element of MR on the
same line. The range of resources is identified in the central column of the
diagram.
As I said earlier, the four levels of interpretation that are on the
lower box of the diagram above are considered as the interpretation of a text. The

first level is surface of utterance. It deals with phonology, grammar, and

vocabulary aspects of a text, which is related to the process of marking some
recognizable words, phrases, and sentences. The second level which is meaning of
utterance, deals with the semantics and pragmatics aspect of a text. It is a matter
of assigning meanings to the utterances of the text, finding the representations of
the words used on it by combining word-meanings and grammatical information,
then figuring out their implicit meanings as a whole. As for the pragmatics aspect,
it has to do with what speech act(s) is used in the utterances.
The third level is local coherence. If we talk about coherence in
discourse, there are two types of connections that can be found in a text. They are
the connection between the sequential parts of a text and between (parts of) a text
and the world. Then, the local coherence here deals with the first type of
connections. It establishes meaning connection between utterances and makes
coherent interpretations of pairs and sequences of them.
The fourth level of interpretation deals with text structure and
‘point’. The interpretation of text structure and „point‟ is related with the aspect of
schemata of MR. Schemata is closely related to frames and scripts. The use of
these three terms constitute a family of types of mental representation of aspects
of the world, then share its property in general of being ideologically variable to
the text. A schema is a representation of a particular type of activity in terms of
predictable elements in a predictable sequence. A frame is a representation of
whatever can figure as a topic, or „subject matter‟, or „referent‟ within an activity.
Meanwhile, the scripts represent the subjects who are involved in the activities

represented by schemata, and their relationships (1989:158-159). So, the

interpretation level of text structure is done by working out on how a whole text
hangs together, or it is what I called earlier as the second type of connections, the
global coherence of the text. The „point‟ of a text itself is a summary of
interpretations in which the interpreters arrive at.
Then, the other part of interpretation procedures is the interpretation of
context. It consists of situational and intertextual contexts. As for the interpretations
of the intertextual context, it considers the background context of the text by
figuring out which historical series it belongs to and what is the common ground for
participants, or what can be its presuppositions. As a note to this, presuppositions
not only can be sincere or manipulative, but also can have ideological functions
(Fairclough, 1989:154).

Lastly, the third stage of CDA by Fairclough is called explanation.

Fairclough says that the objective of the stage of explanation is to portray a
discourse as part of a social process, as a social practice, showing how it is
determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects discourses can
cumulatively have on those structures, sustaining them or changing
them(1989:163) . The procedure of explanation stage can be shown in this
following figure.

Societal Societal

Institutional MR Discourse MR Institutional

Situational Situational
Determinants Effects
Based on the diagram, Fairclough (1989:166) stated that the explanation stage of CDA
can be done by answering these following questions on a text that is used for analyzing:
i. Social determinants: what power relations at situational,
institutional, and societal levels help shape this discourse?
ii. Ideologies: what elements of MR which are drawn upon have
an ideological character?
iii. Effects: how is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles
at the situational, institutional, and societal levels? Are these
struggles over or covert? Is the discourse normative with
respect to MR or creative? Does it contribute to sustaining
existing power relations, or transforming them?
4. Linguistic Evidences
As I have explained in terms of Power in Discourse, power are
actually exercised and enacted in discourse, with powerful participants controlling
and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants. Therefore, based
on this definition, I have listed these following power indicators that can be seen
while working on the formal features of the text in the description stage of
analysis. The power indicators are divided into two aspects; they are verbal and
non-verbal aspects.
a. Verbal Aspect
Formality. The first way to value one‟s authority is through the use
of formality. Fairclough says t hat formality is one property of
comm it to user
vocabulary that has to do with relational values. The use of
formality is to express politeness, concern from participants for
each other‟s „face‟, respect for status and position (1989:117-118).
For example, the uses of more formal word such as apologize rather
than sorry.
 Euphemism. Fairclough states in his book that euphemism is a word
which is substituted for a more conventional or familiar one as a way
of avoiding negative value (1989:117). For example, the use of the
word disabilities as a substitution for words such as deaf or mute
people. I included euphemism as an indicator of power because it
shows solidarity value as well as formality.
 Direct or Indirect. It deals with giving command, which is the way a
participant is able to ask the other participants during their interaction.
 Therefore, Fairclough states that it is needed to see the modes of the text to be
able to see the way the subject speaker positions the addressee (1989:125).
There are three major modes. They are declarative, grammatical question, and
imperative. Firstly, a declarative is marked by subject (S) followed by verb
(V). It means the speaker is a giver (of information), and the addressee is a
receiver. However, Fairclough argues that a declarative may have a value of a
request for information (1989:126). For example, “You must be busy.” may
have an implicit meaning of asking whether the addressee is busy or not.

Secondly, a grammatical question can be in form of „wh‟-questions or

„yes/no‟-questions. In this case, the speaker position is as an asker, and the
addressee is as a provider of information. A grammatical question may also
have an implicit meaning of demanding for some actions. For example,
“Would you please closing the window?” may have a meaning of demanding
the addressee to close the window.
Lastly, an imperative is started by a V, which is not started by an S. It means
the position of the speaker in this case is as an asker, while the addressee is
ideally a compliant actor. However, an imperative may also have an implicit
meaning of giving suggestion. For example, “Try to drink some cold
medicines.” is used to suggest the addressee to drink some cold medicines.
Therefore, I assumed that an imperative is the most direct form of a command,
while a grammatical question is more indirect, and a declarative is the most
indirect.
Turn-taking System. Fairclough has explained briefly in his book that turn-taking
system has to do with the way in which the taking of talking turns is managed in
dialogue (1989:134). The turn-taking system in interaction between equal
participants is different from the turn-taking system in interaction between
unequal participants. For example, the turn-taking system in classroom
interaction between teacher and pupils implies an interaction between
unequalparticipants. The teacher is normally the one who selects the next
speaker by, such as, giving instruction and giving evaluative feedback to the
pupil‟s answers (repeating their answers or making an evaluative comment).

Interruption. Interruption is done by more powerful participant interrupting the

less powerful participant‟s speaking in order to constrain and control their
contribution. For example, interruption that is performed by a teacher when a
student is in the middle of explaining something or answering the questions, in
order to stop the students giving irrelevant information.
Controlling Topic. As it has been stated by Fairclough, the topic in an interaction
may be determined and controlled by the more powerful participant to specify
the nature and purposes of an interaction in the beginning, and to disallow
irrelevant contribution (1989:136). Therefore, the more powerful participant is
not only able to initiate an issue of discussion, but also able to swift the topic in
the middle of their discussion.
Enforcing Explicitness. Fairclough explains that enforcing explicitness is a
device for dealing with ambiguity and silence that are usually performed by the
less powerful participant to be noncommittal about what the more powerful
participant says (1989:136). It can be done by numerous questions, such as do
you understand?, do you agree ?or do you really mean it?

Formulation. Fairclough says that formulation is a device on

rewording of what has been said by oneself or others, or a wording
of what may be assumed to follow from what has been said and
what is implied by what has been said (1989:136). The purpose of
formulation is to check understanding and also as the way of
leading participants into accepting one‟s own version of judgment
to limit the other‟s contribution in the future.
b. Non-verbal Aspect
As for the non-verbal aspect of power indicators, we can see it by
revealing some non-verbal aspects that can be found in the text, such
as facial expression, intonation, background music, appearance, and so
forth. These non-verbal aspects can help in revealing the situational
context that surrounding the participants‟ power relation. For example,
the way the participants dress determines their identities as well as the
formal/informal situation between them. From the explanation of some
important points of CDA in Norman Fairclough‟s version that I have
presented before, I might conclude that it is a version of CDA which is
done based upon eight principles of theory or method (Fairclough and
Wodak, on van Dijk, 1997:268-280). Those principles consist of CDA
addresses social problems, power relations are discursive, discourse
constitutes (as well as being constituted by) society and culture,
discourse does ideological work, discourse is historical ( in this term ,
contextual), the link between text and society is mediated by orders of
 discourse, discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory, and
discourse is a form of social action in which its principal aim is to
uncover opaqueness and power relations in society.

vocabulary that has to do with relational values. The use of formality is to express
politeness, concern from participants for each other‟s „face‟, respect for status and
position (1989:117-118). For example, the uses of more formal word such as apologize
rather than sorry.
Euphemism. Fairclough states in his book that euphemism is a
word which is substituted for a more conventional or familiar one
as a way of avoiding negative value (1989:117). For example, the
use of the word disabilities as a substitution for words such as deaf
or mute people. I included euphemism as an indicator of power
because it shows solidarity value as well as formality
Direct or Indirect. It deals with giving command, which is the way
a participant is able to ask the other participants during their
interaction. Therefore, Fairclough states that it is needed to see the
modes of the text to be able to see the way the subject speaker
positions the addressee (1989:125). There are three major modes.
They are declarative, grammatical question, and imperative.
Firstly, a declarative is marked by subject (S) followed by verb
(V). It means the speaker is a giver (of information), and the
addressee is a receiver. However, Fairclough argues that a
declarative may have a value of a request for information
(1989:126). For example, “You must be busy.” may have an
implicit meaning o f asking wheth er the addressee is busy or not.
commit to use r
Secondly, a grammatical question can be in form of „wh‟-questions
or „yes/no‟-questions. In this case, the speaker position is as an
asker, and the addressee is as a provider of information. A
grammatical question may also have an implicit meaning of
demanding for some actions. For example, “Would you please
closing the window?” may have a meaning of demanding the
addressee to close the window.
Lastly, an imperative is started by a V, which is not started by an S.
It means the position of the speaker in this case is as an asker,
while the addressee is ideally a compliant actor. However, an
imperative may also have an implicit meaning of giving
suggestion. For example, “Try to drink some cold medicines.” is
used to suggest the addressee to drink some cold medicines.
Therefore, I assumed that an imperative is the most direct form of a
command, while a grammatical question is more indirect, and a
declarative is the most indirect.
Turn-taking System. Fairclough has explained briefly in his book
that turn-taking system has to do with the way in which the taking
of talking turns is managed in dialogue (1989:134). The turn-taking
system in interaction between equal participants is different from
the turn-taking system in interaction between unequal participants.
For example, the turn-taking system in classroom interaction
between teacher an d pup ils impli es an interaction between unequal
commit to user
participants. The teacher is normally the one who selects the next
speaker by, such as, giving instruction and giving evaluative
feedback to the pupil‟s answers (repeating their answers or making
an evaluative comment).
Interruption. Interruption is done by more powerful participant
interrupting the less powerful participant‟s speaking in order to
constrain and control their contribution. For example, interruption
that is performed by a teacher when a student is in the middle of
explaining something or answering the questions, in order to stop
the students giving irrelevant information.
Controlling Topic. As it has been stated by Fairclough, the topic in
an interaction may be determined and controlled by the more
powerful participant to specify the nature and purposes of an
interaction in the beginning, and to disallow irrelevant contribution
(1989:136). Therefore, the more powerful participant is not only
able to initiate an issue of discussion, but also able to swift the
topic in the middle of their discussion.
Enforcing Explicitness. Fairclough explains that enforcing
explicitness is a device for dealing with ambiguity and silence that
are usually performed by the less powerful participant to be
noncommittal about what the more powerful participant says
(1989:136). It can be done by numerous questions, such as do you
understand?, do yocuom
agmreite?t o, oursedro you really mean it?.
 Formulation. Fairclough says that formulation is a device on
rewording of what has been said by oneself or others, or a wording
of what may be assumed to follow from what has been said and
what is implied by what has been said (1989:136). The purpose of
formulation is to check understanding and also as the way of
leading participants into accepting one‟s own version of judgment
to limit the other‟s contribution in the future.
c. Non-verbal Aspect

As for the non-verbal aspect of power indicators, we can see it by

revealing some non-verbal aspects that can be found in the text, such
as facial expression, intonation, background music, appearance, and so
forth. These non-verbal aspects can help in revealing the situational
context that surrounding the participants‟ power relation. For example,
the way the participants dress determines their identities as well as the
formal/informal situation between them.

From the explanation of some important points of CDA in Norman

Fairclough‟s version that I have presented before, I might conclude that it is a
version of CDA which is done based upon eight principles of theory or method
(Fairclough and Wodak, on van Dijk, 1997:268-280). Those principles consist of
CDA addresses social problems, power relations are discursive, discourse
constitutes (as well as being constituted by) society and culture, discourse does
ideological work, discourse is historical (in this term, contextual), the link
 between text and society is mediated by orders of discourse, discourse analysis is
interpretative and explanatory, and discourse is a form of social action in which its
principal aim is to uncover opaqueness and power relations in society.

B. A Movie Entitled “Freedom Writers”

The data used in this analysis was a transcript of a series of class scenes
that were taken from a movie entitled Freedom Writers. This movie was directed by
Richard LaGravenese who has been nominated once in Oscar as Best Writing,
Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen for one of his movies, The Fisher King
(1991). This movie was adapted from a novel entitled The Freedom Writers Diary
which records the diaries of thoughts and feeling from the described-“unteachable, at
risk” students at Wilson High School in Longbeach, California, with a narrative by Erin
Gruwell. The Freedom Writers Diary novel has ever been sentenced as #1 Best Seller by
New York Times magazine as it portrays an uplifting and unforgettable example of how
hard work, courage, and the spirit of determination changed the lives of a teacher and
her students (Freedom Writers Foundation, 2014).
This movie tells us a story about Mrs. Erin Gruwell (played by an
Academy Award winner, Hillary Swank) who is a 23-years-old new English
teacher for freshman year in Wilson High School. Most of the students in her
class in room 203 have a gang associated as a background and ever involved in
gang violence. It is really hard for her to make progress with her students at first,
but she does not easily give up. Later, she comes up in the class with the special
project inspired by the treasured book of Anne Frank: the Diary of a Young Girl.
This project gradually breaks the barriers between Mrs. Erin Gruwell and her
students. As it tries to give its audiences a message of “when the only chance for
survival is to befriend a person who was once your mortal enemy, the world is
opened to a whole new realm of possibilities” (Freedom Writers Foundation,
2014), this movie was rated 7,5 points out of 10 by IMDb, and 69% critics-likes
by Rotten Tomatoes.
Then, these followings are the explanations of some terms that were found
in the movie and can be used as consideration for the analysis:
1. The Rodney King Riots

This movie took a setting of time in 1994 that was still influenced by the
impact of the Rodney King riots. The Rodney King Riots, also known as The Los
Angeles Riots, began in 1992. It was one of the most extreme racially riots in
California that ever brought Los Angeles to its lowest part. It was caused by the
anger of black Americans who thought that it was unfair for the jury to acquit four
Los Angeles Police Department officers (Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno,
Timothy Wind and Laurence Powell) in a brutality case against a black man,
Rodney King. Some people then began a series of gang violence in Los Angeles.
LA Weekly reported that the first violence erupted at the intersection of Florence
and Normandie avenues in South L.A. when a white trucker, Reginald Denny,
was driving by in his big rig when he was yanked from its cab by a group of black
men, then bashed in the head with a claw hammer, a brick and an oxygen tank,
nearly killing him and leaving him with permanent brain damage. On May 1st,
1992, as reported by ABC News, Rodney King appeared on TV and tried to
reduce the anger by asking, “Can we get along?” Then, George H.W. Bush, the
president of U.S.A at that time, deployed thousands of soldiers and Marines to
disperse the crowd. The four police officers involved in Rodney King‟s case also
received indictment on charges of civil rights violations from the federal grand
jury. L.A then began to calm down.
Early 1990s was said as the year when murder cases reach its highest rank
in L.A. This riots even caused, as also recorded by L.A Weekly, the California
Economic Development Department to label L.A's labor market as “experiencing
one of the most severe recessions of the postwar era” when 108,000 local jobs
vanished. Black and Latino communities were also hard hit with a combined 29.7
percent in poverty and more than 13 percent unemployed.
2. Holocaust

We could find in one of the class scenes from this movie, when Mrs. Erin
Gruwell as the teacher compares the current situation of her class to holocaust.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (henceforth, USHMM) stated on their
site that Holocaust is a word of Greek origin meaning “sacrifice by fire”, that was
used to refer to the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and
murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany and its
collaborators. The Nazis, who once held the power and influence during World
War II, believed that Germans were racially superior and that the Jews, deemed
"inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. Not
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.a3c0.id

only Jews, but the German authorities under the Nazi regime also targeted Roma
(Gypsies), the disabled, some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others),
Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals as racially
inferior. Under the rule of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis who achieved the power in
Germany in 1933, used the term “Final Solution” to refer to their genocide
mission towards Jewish people in Europe.
In 1945, all of the prisoners formed the Allied liberation, and made forces
offensive move across Europe against Germany. It continuously happened until
the German side surrendered unconditionally on May 7th, 1945. It marks the end
of the Holocaust era, along with the official end of World War II on the following
day.
If we talk about Holocaust, it can be separated with the story of Anne
Frank. She is a 13 years old Jewish girl who lived on hiding in the so-called
Secret Annex in Amsterdam during World War II, and continuously poured all of
her thoughts and feelings into a diary. She was then arrested two years later after
the Nazis found their hiding place, and eventually died from typhus. Her diary
was found by Miep Gies. She is an Austrian-born Dutch woman who worked as
an office assistant for Anne‟s father and helped the Frank‟s family through their
hiding. She is also the only survivor among those who helped to hide the Jewish
families in Amsterdam. After the war ended, Anne‟s diary was published into a
novel entitled “Anne Frank: the Diary of a Young Girl”, and that makes Anne
Frank as a symbol of children who experience the terror of Holocaust during
World War II. This novel is also treasured and cherished a lot by the students in
Mrs. Erin Gruwell‟s class.
3. Tupac Shakur

One of Tupac Shakur‟s songs is used by Mrs. Erin Gruwell as a material to

a covering poetry lesson in her class. It can be found in the Datum 2 of the
analysis. Tupac Amaru Shakur himself is a very famous American rapper who
was born on June 16th, 1971 in New York City. His mother, Afeni Shakur, was a
Black Panther activist, and he never had a contact with his father, Billy Garland.
He was mostly known by his stage name 2Pac.
The U.S Bio website recorded that 2Pac has sold more than 75 million
albums worldwide, and is said to be one of the best-selling music artists in the
world. 2Pac is known for his bold song-lyrics that mostly tell us about growing up
in the middle of violence and hardships, racism, other social problems, and his
conflicts with other rappers during the hip hop rivalry between East Coast and
West Coast. IMDb also stated that his 2Pacalypse Now album which was out in
1991, marks his fame as a leading figure of the gangster permutation of hip-hop,
with references to cop killing and sexual violence. He also proved his multi talent
skills as he began his career in movie a year later by playing a role in Juice (1992)
and co-starring with Janet Jackson in Poetic Justice (1993).
On September 7th, 1996, Tupac Shakur was shot while driving in a car on
his way to Las Vegas to watch a boxing match. He then died six days later at Las
Vegas hospital at the age of 25 years old. Even after his death, numerous albums
of his works are still posthumously released and sold millions of copies. His life
story also inspires some books and theatrical productions. The latest was the
production of the musical Holler If Ya Can Hear Me.

C. Review of Related Studies

As I have explained, CDA deals with the issues of language, power, and
ideology. CDA mostly analyzes the interactions through language or
communication, whether it is one-way or two-way communications. The study
might take the presidential speech, interviews, advertisements, and movies as its
object. Most critical discourse analysts are more interested to take the presidential
speech as their object. I rarely found critical discourse analyst use a movie as an
object. Hence, I used a movie for the data of analysis.
However, the main focus on my research is the class scenes that contain
the interactions between the teacher and her students. Therefore, I used a journal
from Steve Thornton and Noemi Reynolds, who are from University of Canberra
and John Curtin College of the Arts, entitled “Analysing Classroom Interactions
Using Critical Discourse Analysis” that is included in J. Novotna‟s Proceedings
30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, Vol. 5, as a reference on my analysis. It is due to this journal has
similarities with my research. Firstly, both of our analysis employed classroom
interactions as research object. Then, both of us apply the same theory for our
analysis, it is Norman Fairclough‟s version of CDA.
Nevertheless, there are some differences between our researches. First, the

classroom interactions used in Thornton and Reynolds‟s analysis is from an actual

class of Noemi‟s a year 8 Math classroom. Meanwhile, my analysis took the classroom
interactions from some class scenes of Freedom Writers movie. Second, Thornton and
Reynolds‟ analysis derived from the discourse of Mathematics, while mine was from
racism discourse.
The conclusion that should be underlined from Thornton and Reynolds‟s
analysis is that Noemi‟s classroom exemplifies the discourse which is exploratory,
tentative and invitational, contains emergent and unanticipated sequences, is
immediate, recognizes alternative ideas even those that are strange (using shapes
instead of numbers in an equation), and has a collaborative orientation in which
students are vulnerable yet maintain high levels of mutual obligation. Noemi‟s
classroom can be considered to be both empowering and emancipatory for students
(2006:278).
 Instrument of The Research, Research Design, Technique
of Collecting Data, and Technique of Analyzing Data.

CHAPTER IV Analysis consists of Introduction, Data Analysis (Context

of Situation, Description, Interpretation, and Explanation),

and Discussion.

CHAPTER V Conclusion and Recommendation

commit to user