Discourse Analysis: Macrostructure, Superstructure and Microstructure in Critical Discourse Analysis

According to Teun Van Dijk. There are three elements of critical discourse analysis as follows: macrostructure, superstructure and microstructure. 

Macrostructure
Macrostructure focused on the global meaning that more emphasize on the meaning of discourse theme or topic. It is described by Dijk (2003 in Rosidi paper, 2007: 11) as follows:

“The meaning of discourse is not limited to the meaning of its words and sentences. Discourse also has more 'global' meanings, such as 'topics' or 'themes'. Such topics represent the gist or most important information of a discourse, and tell us what a discourse 'is about', globally speaking. We may render such topics in terms of (complete) propositions such as 'Neighbors attacked Moroccans'. Such propositions typically appear in newspaper headlines.”

Discourse Analysis - Another Theory of Discourse Analysis By Sara Mills

Another theory of discourse has been brought by Sara Mills. She focused on discourse about feminism: how women appeared in a text, either in novel, picture,and photo or in a report. Therefore, what is done by Mills is often called as feminism perspective. The focus of feminism discursive perspective is to show how the text bias in showing women. Women often appeared in text as the wrong side, and marginal. Inequality and nasty delineation of women is being Mills focus.

The same thing about bias in showing women also happened in news report. The reports about rape, sexual insulting is some of reports appeared women as the object of the report. The focus of this discourse analysis is to show how women are marginalized in media and how the form of marginalization is done (Eriyanto 2005: 199).

An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (1)

There are three paradigms of discourse analysis; Positivist Discourse Analysis, Interpretive discourse Analysis, and Critical Discourse Analysis. In positivist paradigm, language refers to the bond between human and the object out of him. Related with discourse analysis, the language researchers do not need to see the meaning or subjective value that underlay a statement. Positivist discourse analysis maintains to fulfill a set of syntactic and semantic principle. Semantics validity and syntactic accuracy is the main focus of this paradigm (Hikam in Eriyanto, 1996: 4-7).

Then he explains further, the proponent of interpretive paradigm refuses separation of human as subject with the object. Language can be understood by observing the subject. Human as subject is convinced able to restrain a certain aims in a discourse. And the last is critical discourse analysis; it is not only doing the textual interrogation but also revealing the relationship of the interrogation product with the macro-contextual behind the text. It is more specifically as a study on how the power misused or how the domination and also the inequality put into the community.

An Introduction To Discourse Analysis

In a bit long holiday like this time, some of you, guys, may forget about discourse analysis. Now, i wanna help you to keep you schemata about discourse by posting this article. it does not mean that when discourse class finish, there is no need to keep in touch with that course. Discourse analysis is not simply just a lesson written in those papers. no way. the real discourse needed to analyse is still there, exist in many parts of our daily life. thus, it is clear that this approach is inevitably crucial to the students or who ever you are. Now, if you forget that definiton and the scopes of discourse analysis, please read this brief notes.

A. What is discourse analysis?

Discourse Analysis is an approach we use in analyzing the language context either in a written or spoken text. Discourse anaysis and pragmatics have a close relation, even some people are difficult to separate these two distintive terms. if you study about pragmatics, you analyse how the context can give contribution to the message meant. To anayse that, you need the discourse analysis as your approach to examine the pragmatic problems.

Euphemism Definition and Examples

Language is a power used to make one’s statement stronger. Someone uses language to influence people. Moreover, it can hide the fact to avoid misunderstanding between the speaker and the hearer or the writer and the reader. This is the same things with euphemism that implying the use of polite expression.

In language use, there is common way that is used by people to speak in polite expression, it is usually called euphemism. Euphemistic words and expressions allow us to talk about unpleasant things and neutralize the unpleasantness, e.g. the subject of death and dying, unemployment, and criminality (Wardhaugh, 1986:231).

Hymes' SPEAKING in Ethnography

Hymes' SPEAKING in Ethnography

Hymes, a sociolinguist, anthropologist, a folklorist of languages of the Pacific Northwest, and the founder of linguistic anthropology, in 1974 proposed an ethnographic framework which takes into account the various factors that are involved in speaking. An ethnography of a communicative event is best described as all of the factors that are relevant in understanding how that particular communicative event achieves its objectives.
There is a strong connection betweenspeech, human relations, and human understandings of the world. Hymes is particularly interested in how different language patterns shape different patterns of thought. He created what we call as “Dell Hymes Model of Speaking” and coined the term “communicative competence within language education"

Theory of Deixis; First person, Second person, and the Third person

Here are some kinds of person deixis.
1. First Person Deixis
First person deixis is the grammaticalization of the speaker’s reference to himself (Levinson, 1992: 62). First person deixis is a deictic reference which refers to the speakers, or both the speaker and referents grouped with the speaker.
An interesting phenomenon in this regard takes place with the deixis of the first person plural "we". This word can mean the group as a whole: (Renkema,1993: 78).
1) Do we have time for that? (When the utterance is being directed at the group in general)
2) Do we have time for that? (When you are asking someone else for advice)
3) Do we have time for that? (Asked by a mother who sees her children taking out a new toy two minutes before bedtime)

Person, Place and Time in Deixis Theory

Person, Place and Time in Deixis Theory- According to Karl Buhler (in Renkema, 1993: 77), There are three types of deixis, namely person deixis, place deixis, and time deixis. Those types of deixis will be explained descriptively below:
Person Deixis
Person deixis is deictic reference to the participant role of a referent, such as the speaker the addressee, and referents which are neither speaker nor addressee. (Levinson, 1983: 62). Person deixis is commonly expressed by the following kinds of constituents: Pronouns Possessive affixes of nouns Agreement affixes of verbs. In addition, Renkema (1993: 77) states that person deixis is realized with personal pronouns. The speaker as first person, "I," directs the utterance to the listener as second person, "You," and could be talking about a third person, "he" or "she.
Place Deixis
Place deixis can be described along many of the same parameters that apply to time deixis. So, the references to place can be absolute or rational in  nature. Absolute references to place locate an object or person in a specific longitude and latitude, while relational references locate people and places in terms of each other and the speaker (cummings, 2005: 26)  I

Pragmatic Study: Theory of Deixis and The Definition

When language is spoken, it occurs in a specific location, at a specific time, is produced by a specific person and is (usually) addressed to some specific other person. Only written language can ever be free of this kind of anchoring in the extra linguistic situation. A sentence on a slip of paper can move through space and time, "speaker" – less, and addressee – less. All natural, spoken languages have devices that link the utterance with its spatio – temporal and personal context. This linkage is called "deixis." (Tanz in Fromkin, 2003: 217)

Definition of Deixis
Deixis is the way in which a small number of words, such as come, go, I, here and now require an addressee to be able to pick out a person, place, or time relevant in understanding how the word refers (Grundy, 2000: 23). Because I, Here, and now identify particular referents, it can be picked out to refer to if we like. We call these words indexical and this function of language deictic, borrowing the Greek word meaning pointing to or picking out. In addition, Levinson (1983: 54) states that deixis is the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves. The topic of deixis or as philosophers usually prefer, indexical expressions (or just indexicals), may be usefully approached by considering how truth – conditional semantics deals with certain  natural language expressions.
According to Renkema (1993: 76), deixis deals with connection between discourse and the situation in which discourse is used. The words deixis, which is derived from the Greek word meaning “to show” or “ to indicate”, is used to denote those elements in a language which refer directly to the situation, while deictic words are words with a reference point which is depend on the speaker or writer and is determined by the speaker’s or writer’s position in space and time.
Fillmore in Levinson (1983: 54) states that the importance of deictic information for the interpretation of utterances is perhaps best illustrated by what happens when such information is lacking. For example, finding the following notice on someone’s office door “I’ll back in an hour”, we do not know when it was written, we cannot know when the writer will return. A deictic center is a reference point which is related to a deictic expression or an expression that has a deictic usage which has to be interpreted. (Levinson, 1983 : 64). The central person is the speaker, the central time is the time at which the speaker produces the utterance, and the central place is the speaker’s location at utterance time.
The form of deictic is classified into two, namely deictic in which the context is required to determine the reference and non – deictic in which the reference is general rather than to particular identifiable persons (Grundy, 2000:6). In accordance with Levinson (1983: 68), deictic is used for gestural and symbolic, while non – deictic is used for non – anaphoric, and anaphoric.
Based on the preceding definition, it can be conclude that deixis is a words or expressions whose meaning depends on the context of the speaking. To know  the meaning of the language, we have to determine the speaker who produces the utterance, and the location of the utterance in space and time.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Concept of Politeness In Face Threatening Acts

Sometimes in our daily lives, we can find acts that do not satisfy the “face wants” of the speaker and the hearer. The acts that threaten either positive or negative face of the hearer are called ‘Face Threatening Acts’ (Brown and Levinson). In other words, those acts infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain his/her self-esteem and are respected. Those acts that primarily threaten the addressee’s or Hearer (H’s) negative face want, by indicating (potentially) that the speaker (S) does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action, include orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminding, threat, warning, offer, promise, compliment, and expression of negative emotion.
In contrast, there are acts that threaten H’s positive face such as expression of dissatisfaction, disagreement, criticisms, complaints, accusation, insults, out of control, irrelevance, bringing bad news about H or boasting about S, raising divisive topics, and blatant non-cooperation in an activity. All these acts indicate that the speaker does not care about the addressee’s feeling or want. For example, disagreeing with someone’s opinion also causes threat to his positive face, as it means that you indicate that he is wrong about something.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Concept of Politeness In Face

Brown and Levinson (1987) define politeness as behaving a way that attempts to take into account the feeling of people being addressed. In other words, being polite means that we try to keep our manners or behaviors and our language not to hurt other people’s feelings. Moreover, they proposed the concept of politeness strategies which are developed to save hearer’s face. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself and maintaining that ‘self esteem’ in public or in private situations.
Face
Brown and Levinson (1987)22 state their notion of “face” is derived from that of Goffman (1967) and English people which is related to the idea of being embarrassed, humiliated, or losing face. Thus, face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, and enhanced. In general, a person has to pay attention to his interlocutor’s face. In other words, the speaker and the hearer must cooperate in maintaining each other’s face in interaction based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
There are two kinds of face as divided by Brown and Levinson that everyone possesses. They are positive face and negative face. Positive face is defined as the desire of every member that his selfimage, wants, and opinion be liked and approved. Take for the example, a woman who spends most of her time gardening and takes care of her roses. She is proud of her and expects people admires her. Second, negative face is defined as the desire of every member that he has Freedom of Action as well as Freedom of Imposition. For example, there is a boy who loves watching TV but at the same time he has problem with his eyes’ health. Therefore, the mother warns him not to watch TV too much since it is not good for his eyes. Here, the boys has freedom to watch TV as much as he likes (Freedom of Action), but considering his eyes’ health, the mother forbids it which means the mother disturbs the boy’s freedom of watching TV.

An Introduction to Pragmatics In Linguistics

Pragmatics is the study of how language is used in communication. The pragmatic of language is concerned with audience-directed intention-how the speaker or writer intends the utterance to be taken. It deals very explicitly with the study of relationship holding between linguistic forms and the human beings who use these forms. As such, pragmatics is concerned with people’s intentions, assumptions, beliefs, goals, and the kinds of actions they perform while using language.

Pragmatics is also concerned with context, situation, and settings within which such language uses occur. According to Yule17, the area of pragmatics deals with the speaker meaning and contextual meaning. Speaker meaning is concerned with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances rather than what the words and phrases in those utterances might mean in and of themselves. Speaker meaning, rather than sentence meaning, can only begin to be understood when context is taken into consideration. Any utterance, therefore, can take on various meanings depending on who produced it and under what circumstances.

This science studies the context within which the interaction occurs as well as the intention of the language users. Who are the addressees, what is the relation between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, when and where does the speech event occur and so on. Pragmatics also explore how listeners and readers can make inferences about what is said or written in order to arrive at an interpretation of the user’s intended meaning. There are four kinds of context. First, physical context, it is where a conversation and what action takes places, and what objects are present. Second, epistemic context, it is a background knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. The third is linguistic context. It is about the utterance which is followed by other utterances under consideration. Fourth or the last is social context. It is the social relationship and setting of interactive participants. Obviously, the emphasis in this kind of exploration must be placed not only on what is actually said but also on what is not being said explicitly but recognized implicitly as part of the communicative exchange, such as presupposition,  implication, shared knowledge and circumstantial evidence.

Presupposition in Pragmatics and Semantics

Grundy (2000: 121) divides presupposition into pragmatic presupposition and semantic presupposition. Pragmatic presupposition is cancelable where inconsistent with speaker or hearer knowledge about the world. Semantic presupposition is non-defeasible, contributes to the truth conditional meaning of the sentences. Brown and Yule (1983: 30) state that all of these presupposition are the speaker’s and all of them can be wrong or can be interpreted in other interpretation, since this sentences not speakers have entailment. Entailment means a term taken from logic, thus what is conveyed in an utterance will typically consist of what is said or entailed on the one hand and what is implied (Grundy, 2000: 81). Then, he asserts that entailments are conventional or semantic meanings that cannot by definition be cancelled without creating contradiction.

Renkema (1993: 154) says that presupposition is used to denote a special type of implicit information. In addition, presupposition is about the existing knowledge common to the speaker or the hearer that the speaker does not therefore need to assert. So, when the speaker or hearer, because of certain knowledge between them, understands certain information, the speaker does not need to assert that information explicitly (Grundy, 2000: 119).

Presupposition in Pragmatics

When someone speaks to us, we typically make all sorts of assumptions about the background to their utterance which we presume to be mutually known before the utterances ever occurred (Grundy, 2000: 120). One further significant category of pragmatics phenomena is presupposition. Presuppositions are variously defined but in general constitute assumptions or inferences that are implicit in particular linguistic expressions. For example, in the following utterance:

The doctor managed to save the baby’s life.

It is assumed that the doctor tried to save the baby’s life. Moreover, this assumption is implicit in the meaning of the verb ‘managed’. Yet this assumption is in no way part of the semantic meaning of this verb (Cummings, 2001: 29-30).The defeasibility of presuppositions cannot be explained by any semantic treatment of this notion that is based on truth conditions – the contextual assumptions that override the presupposition normally attached to ‘manage’ are not part of the truth conditions of the sentence that contains this verb. In order to address issues such as defeasibility, theorists have proposed various pragmatic analyses of presupposition (Cummings, 2005: 32).

Furthermore, Givon in Brown and Yule (1983: 29) defines presupposition as the assumptions the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge. While Stalnaker still in Brown and Yule (1983: 29) says that presuppositions are what is taken by the speaker to be the common ground of the participants in the conversation. Presupposition as is described by Yule (1996: 27) can be divided into potential and existential presupposition. Potential presupposition related to the use of large number of words, phrase and structures which can only become actual presupposition in context with the speaker. Existential presupposition is not only assumed to be present in possessive constructions, but also more generally in any definite noun phrase.

Politeness Theory: Independence Strategy By Scollon & Scollon

The independence has been defined by Scollon & Scollon in Fatkhurozi (2007: 19) as an aspect which emphasizes the individuality of the participants. This strategy emphasizes the participants' right in order not to be dominated by group or social values and to be free from the impositions of others. Independence shows that the person may act with some degree of autonomy and freedom of movement or choice.

Scollon & Scollon (1995) also stated that independence can be shown by some acts as making minimal assumptions about the needs or interest of others, such as by "not putting words into their mouths," by giving others the widest range of options, or by using more formal names and titles. For example, in ordering in a restaurant we may say, "I don't know if you will want to have rice or noodles", or in making in the initial suggestion to out for coffee we might say "I'd enjoy going out for coffee, but I imagine you are buss". The characteristics of independence can be seen from giving independence to the hearer.

As in case of involvement, there are many ways in which independence can be reflected linguistically. The ten features below have been selected from among the most common used in English. Again, "H" refers to the "Hearer" and "S" to the "Speaker".

1. Make minimal assumptions about H's wants
I don't know if you want to send this by air mail or by speed post.
2. Give H the option not to do the act
I would be nice to have a tea together, but I am sure you are very busy.
3. Minimize threat
a) I just need to borrow a little piece of paper, any scrap will do.
b) I just need a little of your time.
c) Can I talk to you for just a minute.
In this strategy, S tries to make the request by minimizing the favor asked.
4. Apologize
a) I'm sorry to trouble you. Could you tell me the time?
b) I don't want to bother you, but…
c) Can you possibly help me with this, because I can't manage it.
By apologizing S tries not to interrupt on H's negative face.
5. Be pessimistic
a) I don's suppose you'd know the time, would you?
b) If you had a little time to spare for me this afternoon, I'd like to talk
about my paper.
c) There wouldn't suppose be any chance of your being able to lend me
your car for just a few minutes, would there.
This strategy gives compensation to H's negative face by explicitly expressing doubt that S can obtain the expected acts from H.
6. Dissociate S, H from the discourse
This is to inform our employees that…
7. State a general rule
a) Company regulations require that I ask you to leave.
b) Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.
c) You will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.
This strategy is used by manipulation that S does not want to disturb H's face, but what he or she does is forced by the situation.
8. Use family names and titles
a) Mr. Lee, there's a phone call for you.
b) Can I help you, Sir?
c) Excuse me, officer. I think I might have parked in the wrong place.
In this example, H has higher social status than S. So, the S uses the family or the titles of the hearers.
9. Be taciturn
a) Well, if one doesn't leave the gas open when he leaves the house…
b) Well, I really can't see you…
10. Use own language or dialect
a) I was honored by his kaishaku.
b) Takeshi-san, have you seen what happens to the villages that stands in
the way of the railroad?

Politeness Strategies: Scollon & Scollon's Model

Scollon & Scollon (1995: 36 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007: 16) said that face is a paradoxical concept. In one side we need to be involved with other participants, in other side we need to maintain some degrees of independence from other participants and to show them that we respect their independence. Both involvement and independence will show the polite behavior that speakers or hearers do. The following are clearer description about these terms.

 Involvement Strategy

The involvement aspect of face is related to the person's right. People need to be considered normal, contributing and supporting the member of society. Someone may shows involvement by participating in a communication. It is shown by paying attention to interlocutors such as showing interest to the topic discussed or using the interlocutors' first name. Watts (2003: 89 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007: 17) gives some examples about it, "Jim, you're really good at solving computers problems", "I agree. Right.” Manchester united played really badly last night, didn't they", "I think you've had a bit too much to drink, Jim".
This examples show how someone respects to the interlocutor by involving him/her in communication.
Scollon & Scollon (1995: 40 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007: 17) have argued that there are many ways in which involvement can be shown through linguistics forms. The examples below are just ten types which have been selected from English, as also Brown and Levinson said (in Goody, 1996 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007: 17). In these examples the letter "H" represents the "Hearer" to whom one is speaking, and "S" represents the "Speaker".
1. Notice or attend to H
a) I like your jacket
b) Are you feeling better today
c) Goodness, you cut your hair! By the way, I came to borrow some flour!
Here, S wants to show his or her understanding and attention to H's condition.
2. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
a) Please be careful on the steps, they're very slippery.
b) You always do so well in the school.
c) How absolutely marvelous!
Here, S wants to show his or her empathy towards H by exaggerating his or her expression.
3. Claim in-group membership with H
All of us here at economic department. Here, S wants to show H that they are in the same group
4. Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge and
empathy
I know just how you feel. I had a cold like that last week
Here, S wants to satisfy hearer's positive face that is the wants to be liked and appreciated by giving hearer gifts in the forms of goods or compliment. S gives the opinion to H that he or she had same condition last week.
5. Be optimistic
a) I think we should be able to finish that annual report very quickly.
b) I know you're always glad to get a tip or two on gardening, Fred.
c) I'll just help my self to a cookie then-thanks.
Here, S is optimistic that H also wants S's wants. This strategy usually happens among person with close relationship.
6. Indicate S know H's wants and is taking them into account
I'm sure all of you will want to know when this meeting will be over.
7. Assume or assert reciprocity
a) I know that you want to do well in sales this year as much as I want you to do well.
b) I'll do this for you if you do that for me.
c) If you help me with my math homework, I'll mow the lawn after school tomorrow.
Here, the involvement strategy of politeness works by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations between S and H.
8. Use given names and nicknames
Bill, can you get that report to me tomorrow?
9. Be voluble (speak a lot)
I came down the stairs, and what do you think I see? – a huge mess all over the place, the phone's off the hook and clothes are scattered all over. By making good stories in this example, S shares some his or her wants to intensify the interest of S's contribution to the conversation.
10. Use H's language or dialect
a) Mind if I stay here for a while?
b) How about a drink?
c) Got any spare cash.
S can implicitly claim the common ground with H that is carried by that definition of the group.

Politeness Theory

In conversation, there are ways to go about getting the things we want. However, in different social situation we are obliged to adjust our use of language to fit the occasion (Fatkhurozi, 2007:14). It would seem socially unacceptable if people speak the same ways to all kinds of people surrounding them. Brown and Levinson (in Watts, 2003: 34 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007: 14) describe politeness as an instrumental system of means to satisfy individual face. Politeness strategies are developed to save the hearer's face. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself. 

The main concept is about maintaining "face" which consists of two related aspects. First, negative face, which is the want of the member of society in which their action are not imposed by others. Second, positive face, that is the want of the member of society in which they want to be appreciated by others. In this concept generally, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction. Meanwhile, Holmes (1992 as cited in Fatkhurozi, 2007:14) explains that politeness involves taking account of the feeling of others. A polite person will make others feel comfortable. Being polite linguistically involves speaking to people appropriately in the light of their relationship to others. 

Using an imperative such as stop talking or shut the door to a superior at work is likely to earn the office junior a reprimand. Calling the managing director Sally when you do not know her well and have only just stared work in the typing pool or stationary store is liked to be impolite. Making decisions about what is or is not considered polite in any community, therefore involves accessing social relationship along the dimensions of social distance or solidarity, and relative power or status. We need to understand the social values of a society in order to speak politely (Fatkhurozi, 2007: 14).

Being polite may also involve the dimension of formality. In formal situation the appropriate way of talking to your brother will depend on your roles in context. If he is acting as the judge in a law court then calling him Tom will be considered disrespectful, while at the dinner table calling him your honor will be perceived as equally rude (Fatkhurozi, 2007: 15).

Flouting Maxims In Pragmatic Study

Flouting a maxim is a particular salient way of getting an addressee to draw an inference and hence recover an implicature (Grundy, 2000:78). Grice puts to flout a maxim is to contravene it deliberately and openly (Martinich, A.P, 1984: 36) 

Reasons of FloutingThere are some common reasons for flouting the maxims (Imelda, 2003)
As mentioned below:

Flout a Maxim of Quantity
Here the reasons of flout a maxim of quantity (1) to explain more about something; usually someone tries to explain about something by giving much information and expecting that the hearer will understand more about the topic, (2) To stress something; people use many words when they want to stress something in order to make the intended meaning more clear for the listener to follow, (3) To expect something; Sometimes people act and say more words to show something. They use this condition in order to expect something from other person, (4) To show panic, people are said to flout a maxim of quantity when he or she answer a question by asking many questions as a sign to show panic, for example: when we get a bad news, but do not believe on that, sometimes we try to convince ourselves, although by showing panic (A: Your boy friend gets an accident this morning,

Reduce Your Prostate Cancer Risk With Coffee

Drinking a coffee has been an inseparable lifestyle for the people in this era. it recognizes a lot of various taste in coffee. Those are from moccacino, chapuccino, latte, even a tradtional taste like Tubruk Coffee which is popular in Indonesia or a very expensive one, Kopi Luwak (Luwak Coffee). Some people are even willing to go overseas to study about coffee, to discover the new taste for a coffee.

Drinking coffee is not merely to relieve your sleepy feeling or to strengthen the spirit for your daily activties. This beverage is able to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. People who drink more than six cups of coffee in a day will have 20 percent less possible to suffer that serious disease. The risk is lower than 60 percent for the people to suffer other type of cancer.

      The study invites 48 thousand men who work in the field of health to participate in the research. They were asked to report their average consumption for drinking coffee in a day from 1986 to 2006.

      There is no differences found between the effects of caffeinated coffee and non caffeinated coffee. Thus, it is possible to coffee consists of compounds that can protect the body from prostate cancer. However, Helen Rippon, a doctor from The Prostate Cancer Charity, would not recommend their patients to drink coffee. Excessive consumption can make the symptoms of benign prostatic even worse, "he said. The early symptoms of prostate disease is usually difficult in the process of urination.

Implicature analysis from the Dialog of 'Bahwa Cinta Itu Ada' The Movie (2010)

The dialogue
Fuad lalu berdehem sambil melihat ke arah laki-laki berbaju resmi ala kantor yang berdiri tak jauh dari kerumunan mereka. Si laki-laki yang lagi diam saja baru paham maksud Si Fuad setelah didehem tiga kali. Si laki-laki itu bernama Slamet.

Slamet    : “Ssss,, saya Slamet, Slamet Hartono dari Trenggale.” (Ia menunjukkan a clumsy expression in his introduction)

Fuad            : “Wuiiihh, Keturunane Empu Sendhok iki, ” (Fuad tertawa)

Poltak menimpali    : “Antik!?.” (Sambil tertawa juga)

Slamet hanya diam saja melihat tingkah mereka. Saat itu Slamet mengantri sambil membawa dua kardus berlapis koran yang ditali dengan raffia.

Gunar            : “Mau daftar atau mau transmigasi neh??, hey, hey, hehehe. . .”