Distributing Knowledge with the Discourse Marker ‘Nah’ in Food Reviews in Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian

Author Information

Rika Mutiara,
Esa Ungggul University, Indonesia

DOI: 10.47298/cala2022.2-1
The GLOCAL Proceedings:  The GLOCAL Conference in Asia 2022


The present study sheds light on the use of the discourse marker nah, and explores how knowledge distribution is constructed at the discourse level with the use of nah. The data were drawn from YouTube food review videos spoken in colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Nah was applied in several actions at times when the speakers convey knowledge. The speakers introduce and pinpoint the objects as the focus of information, which itself functions as a descriptive and evaluative device. The speakers also discuss activities that were not displayed in the videos. The final action invites the audience to act on the information distributed. Here, the speakers who employ nah provide knowledge while switching the discussion from one object to another object.

Keywords: Discourse marker, knowledge, Indonesian, linguistic anthropology, Colloquial Indonesian


Chor, W. (2018). Sentence Final Particles as Epistemic Modulators in Cantonese Conversations: A Discourse-Pragmatic Perspective. Journal Of Pragmatics, 129, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pragma.2018.03.008
Couper-Kuhlen, E., And Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318
Djenar, D. N., Ewing, M. C., And Manns, H. (2018). Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction. In Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction. Walter De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516439
Du Bois, J. (2007). The Stance Triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (Pp. 139–182). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status, Knowledge and Agency. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (Pp. 285–312). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., and Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-Response Sequences in Conversation across Ten Languages: An Introduction. Journal Of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2615–2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pragma.2010.04.001
Englebretson, R. (2003). Grammatical Resources for Social Purposes: Some Aspects of Stancetaking in Colloquial Indonesian Conversation. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (Pp. 69–110). John Benjamins.
Ewing, M. C. (2005). Colloquial Indonesian. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar (Pp. 227–254).
Hamdani, F., and Barnes, S. (2018). Polar Questions in Colloquial Indonesian: A Pilot Study. Journal of Pragmatics, 132, July, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pragma.2018.05.002
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Yo-Marked Assessments in Japanese (T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig, Eds.; Pp. 58–81). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1, 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Hsieh, C. Y. C. (2018). From Turn-Taking to Stance-Taking: Wenti-Shi ‘(The) Thing Is’ as a Projector Construction and an Epistemic Marker in Mandarin Conversation. Journal Of Pragmatics, 127, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pragma.2018.02.002
Levinson, S. (2012). Action Formation And Ascription. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (Pp. 101–130). Blackwell Publishing.
Locher, M. A., and Limberg, H. (2012). Introduction to Advice in Discourse (H. Limberg and A. M. Locher, Eds.). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/Pbns.221.02int
Morek, M. (2015). Show that You Know – Explanations, Interactional Identities and Epistemic Stance-Taking in Family Talk and Peer Talk. Linguistics and Education, 31, 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Linged.2014.10.004
Morita, E. (2015). Japanese Interactional Particles as a Resource for Stance Building. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pragma.2014.12.008
Mutiara, R. (2021). Contrasting Marked and Unmarked Questions: A Case of Sihs in Indonesian. Linguistik Indonesia, 39(1), 97–109.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization In Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. In Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I (Issue January). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Sidnell, J. (2014). “Who Knows Best?”: Evidentiality and Epistemic Asymmetry in Conversation. In J. B. Nuckolls and L. Michael (Eds.), Evidentiality in Interaction (Pp. 294–320). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/Bct.63.08sid
Stevanovic, M., and Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface Between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037
Vehviläinen, S. (2012). Question-Prefaced Advice in Feedback Sequences of Finnish Academic Supervisions (H. Limberg and M. Locher, Eds.). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/Pbns.221.04veh
Wouk, F. (1998). Solidarity in Indonesian Conversation: The Discourse Marker Kan. Multilingua, 17(4), 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/Mult.1998.17.4.379
Wouk, F. (2001). Solidarity in Indonesian Conversation: The Discourse Marker Ya. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00139-3

Full CALA 2022 Proceedings book