Regular Exchanges of Dialogical Dakwah Discourse in Surakarta City
Miftah Nugroho, Sri Samiati Tarjana, and Dwi Purnanto
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Keywords: Regular exchange, structural exchange, structure, dialogical dakwah, dai, mad’u.
Abstract: This article empirically elucidates structure of exchanges, especially the regular exchanges manifested in the
dialogic dakwah or Islamic preaching discourse in Surakarta city. The data of this article is in the form of
spoken words expressed by dai ‘Islamic preacher’ and mad'u ‘the recipients’ as reflected in the question and
answer (Q&A) session. The data obtained through implementing techniques of Simak Bebas Libat Cakap
(Uninvolved-Conversation Observation), recording, and note taking. The data were classified, and analyzed
using the theory of structural exchange by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and was further developed by Stubbs
(1983). The result shows that in this genre of discourse, there were found two structures of exchange, namely
regular exchange and irregular exchange. Findings on the regular exchanges comprise of six structures,
namely the I R structure, I R Ir R structure, I R F R structure, I F Ir R structure, and the structures of I R Ir R
F R, and I R Ir R Ir R Ir R.
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of language in dialogic Islamic preaching
discourse in Surakarta city is one of the linguistic
events that deserve to be studied. Basically many
aspects researchable from such a linguistic event, one
of the potentially and interestingly aspects to be
studied is on the structure of exchanges or interaction
patterns, which occur at the time the dai ‘preacher’
and mad'u ‘recipients’ interchangeably interact in a
question and answer (Q&A) session. Previous studies
on language use in Islamic preaching or da'wah
discourses have been mainly referred to monological
discourses. Similarly, studies on the structure of
exchange have never been found in the language use
in da'wah or Islamic preaching discourse. This is
evidenced by a number of studies undertaken vy the
various researchers such as Ma’ruf (1999), Hidayat
(1999), Subagyo (2000), Maksan (2001), Atmawati
(2002), Irawati (2004), Hadisaputra (2005), Sadhono
(2005), Gusneti (2007), Atmawati (2009), Abdullah
(2010), Sadhono (2011). In religious preaching
discourse, Susanto (2006) reported that
codeswitching appears to be mostly found in
preaching discourse and very much influenced by
metaphorical factors Similar genre to those such as
Religous discourse of sermons (Christianity) studied
by Morozov (2015). In regard of the theoretical
method applied in this study, Sinclair and Coulthard’s
method has been dominantly applied to various
discourses especially in teaching domain (White,
2003; Raine, 2010; Sauntson, 2011). Departing from
those various studies, the structure of exchange
becomes a relevant gap to study dialogical discourse.
Dialogical preaching is mainly divided into two
sessions, namely the question and answer (Q&A). In
that session, the only speaker is a dai or Islamic
preacher. As for the Q&A session, speakers are not
only a dai, but also a mad'u or recipients. In other
words, during the Q&A session there occurs an
interaction between dai and mad'u.
The dai’ ‘preacher’ and mad'u ‘recipients’
commonly interact in the Q & A type of
communication. In which a mad'u (s) conveys Q and
dai delivers A. Despite the overall realized through
Q&A type of communication, the dialogic dakwah
discourse results the following interaction marked
with (1) and is illustrated as below.
(1) Questioner: Yen anu Pak, menawi sok-sok nembe ngaji,
ngoten nggih. Ngoten napa ya kedah
mandek napa diteruske?
Da’I : Menawi kita maos Alquran, enten azan,
kendhel rumiyin, kita mengutamakan azan
karena itu panggilan untuk shalat, nggih.
Menika mengutamakan adzan. Nggih
menika
On data (1) there is an interaction between a
questioner and preacher. The spoken utterance
produces by the questioner is an initiation or a
254
Nugroho, M., Tarjana, S. and Purnanto, D.
Regular Exchanges of Dialogical Dakwah Discourse in Surakarta City.
DOI: 10.5220/0007165502540259
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 254-259
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

beginning symbolized by (I), while the spoken
utterance is A or response symbolized by (R). In other
words, from the interaction (1) it is found a pattern or
structure formulated into I R structure.
The Q&A interaction in dialogic preaching
discourse in Surakarta city, surely establishes an
interactional pattern or exchange structure as shown
from data (1). The next question would be what
structures of exchange were formed?. Such a question
is appealing to know and elaborate, what sorts of
interaction do dai and mad'u undertaken a
communication through Q&A session. To seek the
answer of such question, then the theoretical
underpinning to address the focus of this study is the
theory of exchange structure as put forward by
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). This theory is used to
analyze the interactions reflected from class
discourses. On the basis of such theory, interactions
at the class discourse at least establish a structure
called I R F which means the exchange is begun with
initiation, replied by a response, and followed up with
feedback. By this theoretical underpinning, is it
possible the structures of exchange reflected from a
class discourse which share similarities of that
dialogic dakwah or other forms of structural
exchanges?, for that reasons at least has led the
writing of this paper.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Sinclair and Coulhard (1975) argue that an exchange
is the basic unit of an interaction. Exchange is one of
the ranks besides acts, moves, transactions, and
lessons. If they are listed from the bottom, the class
discourse rank starts from act, move, exchange,
transaction, and lesson. The bottom rank establishes
the next ranks. The act of composing move, the move
of composing exchange, the exchange of composing
transaction, the transaction of composing class.
Within the exchange, there were found two main
classes which are boundary and teaching. In the
exchange there were established two moves, namely
framing and centralization. Meanwhile, the exchange
of teaching includes 5 main classes as follows.
Table 1: Main Class of Lessons Change.
Class Exchange
Structural Exchange
The Elicitation of teacher
I R F
The Direction of teacher
I R (F)
The Information of teacher
I R
The Elicitation of student
I R
The Information of student
I F
The elicitation of teacher means initiation / the
opening of an exchange begins with questions,
responded with answers, and followed by evaluation.
In the meantime, the directive act of the teacher
means an exchange beginning with a request or order,
responded with a nonverbal answer, and followed by
an arbitrary evaluation. In that sense, the information
of teacher is an exchange which is initiated or opened
with the delivery of information and responded with
approval. The elicitation of student means the
exchange which is initiated or opened students with
questions and responded by the teacher with answers.
The information of students means an exchange
opened with the delivery of information from students
and the teacher's response with approval.
The structure of exchanges reflected in Table 1 is
composed of three structural elements, namely the
structural element I which includes initiation, such
structure of r includes response, and the structural
element of F as feedback. According to Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975), the structural element of I
comprised of the act of asking for attention, act of
delivering the introduction, informing, the directive
acts, and the act of elicitation (asking). Meanwhile,
the structural element of R was realized by the act of
answering acts of approving and commenting. In that
a case, the structural element of F structure realized
through the acts of accepting, commenting, and
agreeing, in addition to the act of judging as well.
There has been criticism of the model introduced
by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). It was criticized,
corrected, and modified by a number of experts
(White, 2003, p.3-8). White (2003, p.3) ciriticizes that
model for being failed to account role changing in
students-teachers’ interaction within classroom
communications. Additionally, Stubbs (1983) argues
that the S&C’s model needs modification and he
suggested that the structural exchanges at least
taxonomically consist of 9 structures i.e., (1) [Inf], (2)
[Inf (F)], (3) [Inf (Ir R) (F)], (4) [I R], (5) [I R (F)],
(6) [I R (Ir R) (F)], (7) [I R/I R], (8) [I R/I (F)], and
(9) [I R/I (Ir R) (F). For that reason, the Stubbs’
taxonomy (1983) was then used to provide a vivid and
more systematic classification in understanding the
S&C’s model.
3 METHODS
This study descriptively examines the spoken words
expressed by dai ‘Islamic preacher(s)’ and mad'u ‘the
recipients’ in question and answer (Q&A) session.
The data sources were obtained from various
locations from which the dialogic dakwah or Islamic
Regular Exchanges of Dialogical Dakwah Discourse in Surakarta City
255

preaching taken place, either the events were
organized by Islamic organizations such as
Muhammadiyah, MTA (Majelis Tafsir Alquran) or
other non-Islamic organizations. The data were
obtained by using the techniques of Simak Bebas
Libat Cakap (Uninvolved-Conversation
Observation), the techniques of recording, and note
taking. After having collected the data, these data
were then classified, and analyzed using the theory of
structural exchange put forward by Sinclair and
Coulthar (1975) in addition to using Stubbs’ opinion.
4 FINDINGS
Having done classification on data, there were found
a number of structures of exchange in dialogical
dawah or preaching in Surakarta city, one of which in
the form of regular structure. A regular structure is
named after the occurring structure which appears for
more than once. The regular structures found include
6 structures, namely (1) IR structure, (2) IR Ir R
structure, (3) IRFR structure, (4) IF Ir R structure, (5)
IR Ir IRR structure, IR Ir R and (6) IR structure Ir R
Ir R Ir R. Here is description of the 6 regular
structures.
4.1 I R Structure
The I R structure is realized by the structures of
initiation and response. These structures tend to
establish a series of question and answer as in
example (2) above.
(2) Questioner: Lha kula kaleh. Kadang ten musola kadang
ten mriki. Ngoten pripun? (I)
Da’i: Nek, lhaaaa....nggih niku. Nek kula
prinsipe, yang yang paling sering
njenengan jamaahe pundi, itu yang
diutamakan. Nek, puadha-padhane, ya
arep jawab loro ya ra isoh, nek iso dijawab
loro ya dijawab loro, nggih. Nek ora
bareng niku karoan isoh njawab. Ning yang
kedah kita jawab niku, engkang kita kulina
wonten mriku, nggih. .... (R)
The above interaction is an exchange consists the
act of elicitation (asking), expressed by the
questioners (mad’u) and being answered by the
preacher (da’i). This structure in the dialogical
Islamic preaching discourse in Surakarta city as much
as found 9 times.
4.2 I R Ir R Structure
The I R Ir R structure composed of initiation
responded by the act of response, followed by re-
initiation and response. This structure tends to be
composed of a series of frequently repeated questions
and answers as in (3) below.
(3) Questioner: Jadi pada intinya itu dibolehkan ya Ustad?
(I) [So in essence it is permissible Ustad?]
Da’i: Ya (R)
Questioner: Selesai di, apa innaka hamīdun majīd baca
yang lain boleh? (I) [ended up in, is it
innaka hamīdun majīd, (is it permissible to
recite the other?)].
Da’i: Ya (R) [Yes]
The above interaction is an exchange comprising the
act of elicitation expressed by the questioner and followed
by the acts of answering by da’i or preacher. The series of
elicitation and reply actions repeated for twice. In the
discourse of dialogical preaching in Surakarta city, these
structures were found as much as 6 times of use.
4.3 The I R F R Structure
The I R F R is a structure which consists of initiation,
response, feedback and response. In other words, in this
structure there are occurring exchanges beginning with
initiation, replied by a response, and replied again with
response, and replied back by response, as found in (4)
below.
(4) Questioner: Tanya cara menyimpan daging, Pak? (I)
[May I ask how to keep meat, sir?]
Da’i: Oh iya, dulu menyimpan daging tu ndak
boleh, li ajri kaafah kuntum nahaytukum
‘aniddikhaari udubil adhoqii kata
Rasulullah dulu saya melarang kamu untuk
menyimpan daging, daging kurban al aan
atau ala fat fa’qulu waaminu waddakhilu
tiga hal makanlah dan berikan kepada
orang-orang, yang ketiga simpanlah, boleh
kamu menyimpannya. Dan ketika Nabi me
(-) setelah menyembelih ternak kurban, ah
namanya, ada yang kurban ada yang, ya apa
ketika haji itu, ada dam,atau ...... (R)
Mad’u: Dam (F)
Da’i: Atau namanya apa haidibyu itu Nabi juga
mengatakan ketika di Mina fat iddakhilu
simpanlah dan boleh sampai menuju ke
Mekkah tu membawa daging sembelihan di
Mina ya, saya kira demikian mungkin ada
(R)
The above interaction is an exchange which
begins with the act of elicitation, responded by the act
of answering, and was mixed with the act of
commenting, and then followed by the act of
answering. Elicitation is delivered by the questioner.
In the meantime, acts of replying and commenting on
each were expressed by both preacher and recipients.
The exchange of I R F R structure is found as much
as 3 times.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
256

4.4 I F Ir R Structure
The I F Ir R is a structure which includes initiation,
feedback, re-initiation, and response. In other words,
the exchange is considered to hold I F Ir R structure
at the time being initiated, responded to feedback,
followed by re-initiation and response. The
interaction below observes the I F Ir R structure.
(5) Questioner : Tanya Ustad (I) [May I ask for a question,
Ustadz?
Da’I : Iya (F), [yes please]
Questioner: Mohon penjelasannya perihal bacaan
tasbih daripada tahiyat akhir apakah kita
baca doa sampai innaka hamīdun majid,
setelah selesai ataukah setelah doa
allāhumma innī a’ūdzubika minal apakah
itu termasuk daripada yang dianjurkan atau
memang apa ada dasar hukumnya? mohon
penjelasannya! (Ir)
Dai: Memang ... di akhir salat. Setelah kita
membaca fil ‘ālamīna innaka hamīdun
majid ada sebuah hadits yang menyuruh
kita itu atau membolehkan hadits itu kita
berdoa sesuai ketentuan kita. Maka dari di
sini para ulama tidak menyalahkan ketika
setelah salat menambah permintaan kepada
Allah yang semau kita. Bisa paham? Maka
ada yang fil ‘ālamīna innaka hamīdun
majid Pak Kholil kemarin mengatakan saya
baca, doa asma Allah, ya ndak papa ‘tidak
apa-apa’. Yang penting dari itu, saya harus
membacakan dasar hukumnya. Setelah itu
baru kita enak mengamalkan. Dasar
hukumnya mereka itu di mana? Apakah di
dalam sujud, akhir, atau di akhir tahiyat?
Setengah ulama menerangkan akhir sujud,
lha besok Selasa depan insyaallah kalau
gak ‘tidak’ lupa, saya akan ketengahkan di
hadapan bapak-bapak ibu-ibu secara jelas.
(R)
The above interaction is an exchange beginning
with the acts of asking for attention, responded by the
acts of acceptance, followed by the act of elicitation
(ask), and responded with answering. In that sense,
the acts of asking for attention and questioning were
expressed by questioners. In addition to expressing
the acts of accepting and answering by the preacher
or dai. In dialogical preaching discourse in Surakarta
city, the I F Ir R structure found as much as 4
structures.
4.5 I R Ir R F R Structure
The I R Ir R F R structure consists of initiation,
response, re-initiation, response, feedback, and
response. In other words, an exchange is found in the
structure of I R Ir R F R beginning with initiation,
responded with feedback, followed by re-initiation,
and then continued by response. The interaction of I
R Ir R F R structure is found below.
(6) Questioner: Ini berhubungan dengan sholat. Nah
sehabis sholat dhuha kan ada sholat
rawatib dua rekaat. Terus itu kan ada yang
melakukan, terus seorang datang itu
langsung makmum gitu. Itu gimana Ustad?
(I) [This deals with prayer. Well, after
praying dhuha there is no rawatib prayer
for two rekaat. Then, in case there is
someone who did, and the one who came
was instantly follow him up. That's what
Ustadz?]
Da’i: Ya sudah, ya ndak ngerti yang dimakmumi
ya sudah, … yang ndak ngerti kan yang
yang yang yang yang makmum tadi kan
nggak ngerti itu sholat rawatib, ya sudah
sah, sesuai dengan niatnya masing-masing,
yang sholat rawatib dapet rawatibnya,
yang makmum dapet jamaahnya. (R) [Yes
already, in case the one really does not
know.it is permissible, ... who does not
understand that the one who becomes the
makmum ‘follower of a congregational
prayer did not understand it is a rawatib
prayer, so it is legal, in accordance with the
each personal intention, the one who did
rawatib prayer will be counted for the
rawatib, and one who’s following will be
counted for congregational prayer]
Questioner: Boleh? (Ir) [So is it permissible?]
Da’i: Boleh, artinya kalau ndak ngerti boleh.
Tapi kalau makmum dengan sholatnya
orang su.., sholat sunnah itu tidak ada, tapi
ndak ngerti. (R)
Mad’u: Langsung datang langsung. (F) [just after
immediately come in]
Dai: A datang iya, pokoknya ada ikut, boleh (R)
[A comes in, as if there is, the one is
permissible to follow]
The above interaction is an exchange that begins
with the act of conveying the introductory and
elicitation acts expressed by the questioner,
responded by the preacher’s act of replying, followed
by the questioner’s act of elicitation, responded back
by the preacher’s act of replying, interrupted act
without necessarily commenting, and responded by
the preacher’s act of answering. The exchange refers
to I R Ir R F R structure and found as much as 2
structures.
4.6 I R Ir R Ir R Ir R Structure
The I R Ir R Ir R Ir R structure means an exchange
consist of repetitive responses and reactions which
occurred for three times. The I R Ir R Ir R Ir R
Regular Exchanges of Dialogical Dakwah Discourse in Surakarta City
257

structure includes three structural elements, namely
the structural element of I (initiation), the structural
elements of Ir (re-initiation) and R (response).
(7) Questioner: Tanya Ustadz, ini kalau penyembe-lihan
qurban tidak di masjid gimana? Tidak
sekitar masjid, sebab tempat saya ada itu
tempat pengajian tapi bukan masjid (I)
[May I ask for question, Ustadz] how if the
slaughtering for qurban is not undertaken in
mosques? Out of the mosque either,
because my home is a place for studying,
not even a mosque].
Da’i: Kalau tadi saya sampaikan itu di mushola.
(R) [I just said in mushalla]
Questioner: Bukan mushola itu. (Ir)
Da’i: Lha iya, sebentar. Kalau di masjid itu
ada… ada segi negatifnya menjadikan bau
mesjid tidak enak tidak sedap dan kita
dianjurkan untuk memperwangi masjid
kita. Jadi sebalik sebaiknya itu tidak di
sekitar masjid. Tapi kalau ndak ada
tempatnya, jadi malah bagus Pak kalau
di... (R) [Of course, wait a minute, in case
there is a mosque ... there would also be
negative aspects that probably will
generate smell on our mosque area while
we are recommended to decorate our
mosque with fragrance. Thus, the opposite
should not be around the mosque. But if
there were no place, so it is even better if
in….]
Questioner: Boleh? (Ir) [So is it permissible?]
Da’i : Tempat di mana ... (R) [what places
(do you mean)?]
Questioner: Jadi… jadi lebih jauh dari masjid (Ir)
Da’i : Lha iya... Nabi juga
melaksanaknnya di tempat sholat itu
tidak di masjidnya. kalau disini ya tempat
kosong mungkin ada… ada halaman, a…
ada apa… pekarangan yang kosong kita
sembelih di sana. Sebab yang sudah-
sudah itu di samping masjid kemudian
karena daging yang kecil-kecil itu sulit
untuk disapu, dianu itu wis dikei karbol
barang telung dina jik mambu mesjide.
Kalau itu diusahakan jangan sampai
begitu. Mangga bagaimana caranya. (R)
The above interaction is an exchange beginning
with the acts of asking for attention, elicitation, and
the acts of giving information by the questioner,
responded by the act of unanswering by the da’i,
responded by the act of elicitation by the questioner,
exchanged by the act of responding by the questioner,
interrupted by the act of giving information by the
questioner, ending up with the act of responding by
the dai or preacher. The series of actions established
the I R Ir R Ir R Ir R structure. This structure was
found 3 times].
5 CONCLUSION
From the findings, it can be concluded that the
structure of exchange in the discourse of dialogical
preaching is more dynamic so as to find various
modifications of structural exchange from the theory
of origin put forward by Sinclair and Coulhard
(1975). The six regular structures comprise of the
regular exchanges reflected in the discourse of
dialogical preaching in Surakarta city.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, Asep Abbas, 2010, “Jenaka dalam Dakwah
Ulama: Studi Kasus di Pesantren Tebuireng Desa
Cakir Kecamatan Diwek Kabupaten Jombang (Kajian
Sosiolinguistik)”. Dissertation. Doctoral Degree on
Linguistics. Postgraduate Program. Surakarta:
Univeristas Sebelas Maret.
Atmawati, Dwi, 2002, “Register Dakwah: Studi Kasus
Dakwah Islam oleh K.H. Zainudin, M.Z.: Kajian
Sosiolinguistik. Master Thesis. Linguistics Program.
Humanities Studies. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah
Mada.
Atmawati, Dwi, 2009, “Wacana Dakwah Beberap
Dai/Daiyah Terkemuka di Indonesia”. Dissertation.
Linguistics Department Faculty of Humanities.
Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Coulthard, M., 1985, An introduction to discourse analysis.
Harlow: Longman.
Gusneti, 2007, “Penggunaan Bahasa Mubaligh dalam
Pengajian Ramadhan di Mesjid Cahaya Rohani Pasir
Sebelah Padang: Suatu Tinjauan Sosiolinguistik” in
National Linguistics Congress XII. Surakarta,
September 3-6, 2007.
Hadisaputra, Widada, 1994, “Gejala Interferensi dalam
Bahasa Jawa: Studi Bentuk Tuturan Khotbah Agama
Islam” dalam Jurnal Jala Bahasa. Jakarta: Pusat
Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Hidayat, Dudung Rahmat, 1999, “Pemakaian Bahasa
Indonesia Ragam Lisan oleh Para Khotib di
Kotamadya Bandung: Studi Deskriptif Terhadap
Ragam dan Fungsi Bahasa”. Tesis. Bandung: Program
Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Irawati, Lydia, 2004, “Interferensi Bahasa Sunda pada
Dakwah Bahasa Indonesia K.H. Abdullah Gymnastiar
(Aa Gym)” dalam Metalingua Volume 2 No. 1 Juni
2004. Bandung: Balai Bahasa Bandung.
Morozov, M.Evgeniy, 2015, Current Trends in Church
Sermons. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 200, 22 August 2015, pp. 496-501.
Maksan, Marjusman, 2001, “Alih Kode dalam Pengajian
Ramadan” dalam Linguistik Indonesia. Jakarta: MLI
dan Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Ma’ruf, Amir, 1999, “Wacana Khotbah Jumat: Studi Kasus
Empat Masjid di Yogyakarta”. Tesis. Yogyakarta:
Universitas Gadjah Mada.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
258

Raine, P, 2010, An application of the Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) method of discourse analysis.
Retreived January 2011, from
http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/raine_si
nc-coul.pdf.
Sadhono, Kundaru, 2005, “Analisis Wacana Khotbah
Jumat: Pendekatan Mikrostruktural dan
Makrostruktural”. Laporan Penelitian. Universitas
Sebelas Maret.
Sadhono, Kundaru, 2011, “Wacana Khotbah Jumat di Kota
Surakarta Sebuah Kajian Sosiopragmatik”. Disertasi.
Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Ilmu Budaya
Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Sauntson, H, 2012, Approach to Gender and Spoken
Classroom Discourse. New York: Palgrave MaMillan
Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard, 1975, “Toward an
Analysis of Discourse” In Malcolm Coulthard (editor)
Advanced in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London:
Rouledge
Subagyo, P. Ari, 2000, “Alih Kode sebagai Salah Satu
Kunci Sukses Ceramah K.H. Zainudin, M.Z.” dalam
Jurnal Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Sanata
Dharma. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Susanto, Djoko, 2006, “Codeswitching in Islamic Religious
Discourse: The Role of Insha’Allah”, A paper
presented to the Second Annual Rhizomes: Re-
visioning Boundaries Conference of The School of
Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, The
University of Queensland, in Brisbane, 24–25 February
2006.
Stubbs, Micheal, 1983, Discourse Analysis: The
Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press
White, A., 2003, The application of Sinclair and
Coulthard's IRF structureto a classroom lesson:
analysis and discussion. Retrieved January 2011,
from
http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/AWhite
4.pdf.
Regular Exchanges of Dialogical Dakwah Discourse in Surakarta City
259