irrelevant and unimportant complex information. Macrostructures are the representation of the reduced information.
For conducting the macrostructure analysis, van Dijk proposes general rules namely Macro rules consisting of DeletionSelection, Strong DeletionSelection,
Generalization, Construction, and Zero rules van Dijk, 1980: 46-49. The rules are applied upon the macropropositions derived from the texts regarding the microlevel
analysis including the choice of words, the sentence structures, and coherence. DeletionSelection is the rule that allows the language user to eliminate the
irrelevant propositions to the generalglobal meanings. Strong DeletionSelection is the process of analysis in which the locally but not globally relevant propositions
are dropped. The Generalization is the interpretation process in macrostructure analysis. In the Generalization, the propositions are generalized into a group of
similar semantic domain. In the Construction process, the similar propositions might be defined in a new denominator resembling a new semantic group. In this
process, even a new predicate should be applied to denominate the general proposition. Due to the possibility that there might be propositions that do not need
to undergo the processes previously described, van Dijk also mentions the Zero rules in which the local propositions directly resemble the macropropositions.
The application of the macro rules needs to pay attention to two conditions. First, the order of the macro rules might differ from one analysis to others. The
reason underlying the difference is that the object of the discourse might differ also. Further the analysts might also possible to have no access to the whole discourse.
Second, the interpretation of the same text or discourse by the macro analysis might
come to different conclusions. The differences are due to the different knowledge, beliefs, tasks, goals, and interests of the language users 1980: 50.
Microstructures as the source of macrostructures are the local meanings of the discourse. Van Dijk mentions that the microstructure meanings are the result of
the writersspeakers selections 2001: 103. The microstructures can be observed in the meaning of words, the structure or propositions, and coherence and other
relations between propositions. Principally, “microstructures are the actually and directly expressed structures of th
e discourse” 1980: 29. Since the analysis is more to semantic or meanings rather than the syntax or forms, the interpretation of
microstructures should take account on the meanings. Van Dijk sets the interpretation rules that first, the sentence meaning is a function of meaning of its
parts and second, the structure of the sentence meaning is a function of the syntactic structures 1980: 30.
By connecting the contexts, the macrostructures, and the microstructures, a discourse analysis can be conducted and achieve its objectives. The focus of CDA
should be on the discourses, both locally and globally, by observing the macro meanings and the micro meanings. The contexts would construct its social and
political sense. The contexts, macro and micro structures are connected each other in ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ linkage 2001: 118 that the local meanings and
global meanings simultaneously influential one another through the contexts. This view of conduction CDA meets with some notions proposed by Fairclough 1995,
2001. Since CDA wants to reveal the ideology and the practice of power
imbalance it provides a set of analysis that should be conducted. Fairclough
proposed the “three-dimensional” framework that is required to draw a holistic picture of the ideology and power in society. The dimensions are the analysis of
spoken or written language texts, analysis of discourse practice processes of text production, distribution and consumption and analysis of discursive events as
instances of sociocultural practice 1995: 2. In conducting CDA Fairclough suggested that the context of the observed
text should be elaborated. The context may cover the other texts in the production, consumption and distribution of the observed text. Fairclough mentioned, “I
described the discourse practice dimension of the framework as concerned with the production, consumption and distribution
of texts” 1995:13. It proposes the idea of intertextuality in the analysis. For instance, in terms of the production, the setting
of time and place a particular text was produced are significant. Related to the situational context, then, the culture and political circumstances are influential. In
terms of the consumption, the target readers of a text may be significant as well as the unintended readers. In terms of distribution, the analysis should also pay
attention to the discourse responsible to the circulation of the text. In other words, the analysis may observe the mass media, the society, or particular institutions.
In the textual analysis, a text is analyzed by its structure. The structure here does not limited to the grammatical structure but also the generic structure of the
text. Fairclough described the structure as the “texture” of the texts. Further he acclaimed that the textual analysis is not an interpretation of the content of the text
but the interpretation should be supported by the “texture” of the text, “..that textual analysis should mean analysis of the texture of texts, their form and organization,
and not just commentaries on the content of texts which ignore texture 1995: 4.
In textual analysis, therefore, knowledge on linguistics theories is needed. The texture of the text may be seen as the grammatical or syntactic structure of the
sentences in the text and also the organization of the elements of the text. In observing the syntactic structure the theories on grammar may be beneficial and the
knowledge on the style of texts genres is also beneficial to see the organization of the elements of the text being observed. Hence, for example, the high occurrences
of pronoun we in a literary text as well as the absence of heading in an article is the subject of textual analysis.
Since the main objective of CDA is to reveal the transparent power relation and power imbalance in society the analysis on the social practice seems to be the
important analysis in CDA. In the analysis the finding of the textual analysis and discourse practice are combined to elaborate the wider social context. The
discussion will no more focus on the contexts but to the existing social practice being observed. The analysis tries to observe the reason of certain social actions
showing power imbalance. Fairclough notes, “social conditions and effects are analysed in the dimension of social practic
e” 1995: 79. The framework of CDA by Fairclough covers five aspects Fairclough 2001
in Wodak and Meyer 2001. Those aspects are set as steps in conducting CDA. The first step is that CDA focuses upon a social problem, which has a semiotic aspect.
In this case, the semiotic aspect could be language since it is a configuration of signs and meanings. The second step is the identification “of the obstacles to it
being tackled” 2001: 125. In this step, the focus is on the analysis of the relation of the semiotic aspects of the social problem and the other social practices. Under
the discussion of this step, Fairclough notes about the advantage of being a language
specialist since the language in use might contribute largely in the critical analysis in this step. The language analysis might present the interaction between the social
practices. In other words, the linguistic analysis itself might reveal the interconnectivity of the social practices, since language is an observable practice.
The third step is the consideration whether or not the social order or the social practices needs the problem. In other words, this step might be a concern of the
significance of the addressed social problems. The analysis should be beneficial or have a specific urgency to solve. The fourth step is the proposal of the practical
solution to the social problems. The solution might be “a matter of showing contradictions or gaps of failures within the domination in the social order, … or a
matter of showing difference and resista nce” 2001: 127. The last stage is the
reflection on the whole analysis. The reflection is on the effectiveness of the analysis conducted as critique.
2.1.3. Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic Functional Linguistics SFL is a channel of linguistic theories to conduct a study in CDA because of the focus is on the interpretation of language
use. SFL concentrates on the semantic orientation rather than the syntactic one in interpreting the use of language. Morley states that this is the contrast to the focus
of Transformational Grammar 2000: 8. The focus on the semantic orientation of language is included in the three metafunctions proposed by Halliday, namely
ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunction 2004: 20. This thesis investigates the three metafunctions in terms of the transitivity, modality, and the
thematic structure. Besides, the semantic information towards the choice of language use in the clauses is also included in the elaboration. This notion becomes
one of the central parts in discourse analysis. A language user, whether consciously or unconsciously, chooses the utterances to deliver the meanings Gee, 2011: 48,
and Barker and GalasinÂski, 2001: 65.
2.1.3.1. Transitivity
The transitivity analysis as one part belongs to Systemic Functional Grammar is suitable in conducting the research on CDA since transitivity is used
more as semantic concepts rather than syntactic description. Therefore, the next discussions are mainly the elaboration of the transitivity concepts proposed by
Halliday 2004. Halliday discusses the concepts and functions of transitivity as linguistic analysis towards clauses as representations and configurations of
processes and participants involved in them. In the transitivity analysis, Halliday distinguished six types of processes. The processes are namely material, relational,
mental, verbal, behavioural, and existential process 2004: 174. They represent processes of doing, being, sensing, saying, behaving, or existing.
Transitivity analysis seems to be operational and systemic since it observes a clause based on its internal components. In the analysis, a clause is examined in
terms of the process, participants, and the circumstances 2004: 175. Those three components can be found in every clause since they are the realization of
experiences of the world linguistically 2004: 178. In a clause, the process is the central component that a clause must have a process. The participants are the
components involved in the process whether they carry out the process or are affected by the process. However, different processes might need different types
and numbers of participants. The configuration of a process and the participants is central in a clause. Halliday defines them as the configuration of ‘experiential
centre’ of a clause. Another component is the circumstance of a clause. The presence of circumstances in a clause is not obligatory since they are not directly
involved in the process. Halliday mentions that circumstances “augment” to the centre. The augmentation brings additional meaning to the process. The meaning
might be temporal, spatial, causal, or others 2004: 176. The realization of the components in a clause is typically by particular word classes. The processes are
usually realized by verbal groups while the participants are by noun groups, and circumstances are by adverbial or prepositional groups.
The first type of processes in transitivity analysis is called material process. In material process, the process affects the changes of the participants. This process
marks the process of “doing and happening” 2004: 179. The difference between whether the process is “doing” or “happening” is in the state of the clause being
transitive or intransitive. An intransitive clause that only has one participant represents “happening” process while a transitive clause that might take more than
one participant represent “doing” process. The participants of this process are Actor and Goal. Actor is obligatory that a material clause should possess an Actor that
“do” or “happen”. Goal as a participant is not obligatory in intransitive clause. Further Halliday explains the other representation of the participants in material
process namely “operative” and “receptive” 2004: 182. Those two representations are based on the possibility that the same process might be represented from two
different perspectives; from the actor’s perspective and from the goal’s perspective. The division of being operative and receptive is meant to conduct rigorous study
towards a clause and to avoid misinterpretation of the clause meaning.
To conduct more detailed analysis on the relation between a process and the participants, the clauses in material process are divided into two criteria namely
“creative” and “transformative” 2004: 184. The basis of the division is the impact and effect as an outcome of the process. In creative clauses, the outcome is the
presence or the existence of the Actor or the Goal. In transformative clauses, the outcome is the change of some aspects of the existing Actor or Goal. The outcomes
of transformative clauses might be an elaboration, extension, or enhancement of the Actor or the Goal 2004: 186.
Based on the roles of the participants, material clauses might take other roles of participants namely Scope, Recipient, Client, and Attribute. In general, Halliday
mentions that the Scope in material clauses is not affected by the process but it represents the domains or the process itself 2004: 192. As the representation of
the domain of the process, the process does not affect the Scope but the process takes place over the Scope. Halliday gives an example of Scope some lonely
mountains in a clause You will be crossing some lonely mountains. In that example,
the Scope is not the answer of the activity of doing from the process. Halliday supports the claim by paraphrasing the sentence into What will you do to some
lonely mountains is cross them. The paraphrased sentence shows that the scope has
nothing to do with what the process does. As a representation of the process, the Scope is a redundant entity in material clause. The existence of the Scope is
predictable because it reflects the process. Halliday exemplifies by a clause I play tennis,
or I sing a song. He notes that the word tennis itself represents the act of playing the game and so does the word song that reflects the process of singing.
The Scope and the Goal of material clauses are similar in terms of the presence in
intransitive clauses. In intransitive clauses the direct participant is the Actor. The other participants in intransitive material clauses are not being affected by the
process. However, Halliday proposes grammatical clues to distinct between Scope and Goal 2004: 194. First, the distinction is by the state of being done by the
process. A Scope is not a result of the process in a particular clause. Halliday defines the notion by “resultative attribute” to the attribute that might attach to the Scope’s
meaning. Second, a characteristic of a Scope is that it is impossible to be a personal pronoun and that it is impossible to be modified by a possessive pronoun. Another
characteristic is the conventional application of the participant to be the Subject of a clause. A goal seems to be common to occupy the Subject while a Scope does not.
Recipient is a participant I a transformative material process in which there is a transfer of possession. Client is a participant in a creative material process in which
something is being created instead of being transferred. Different from a Goal, Recipient and Client are participants which take benefits from the process.
The second type of processes in transitivity analysis is what defined as mental processes. As the name suggests, mental processes represent the activity
happening in mental. In other words, it represents mental activity of the clause producers. The activity might be the product of either cognition or emotion.
However, the participants in mental clauses are defined as neither Actors nor Goals anymore but Sensers and Phenomena. The labeling is based on the nature of the
participants that the participant directly attached to the process does not act but it senses. Halliday notes that in interpreting mental clauses functional interpretation
is required 2004: 200.
The participants in mental clauses are the Senser and the Phenomenon. By definition, the Senser is a participant that senses the phenomenon while the
phenomenon is the participant being sensed by the Senser. Halliday mentions that the Senser requires consciousness 2004: 202. The most feasible Senser, therefore,
is human being. However, the “consciousness” mentioned by Halliday might be attached to non-human being. For instance, exemplified by Halliday, inanimate
being participant as in the empty house was longing for the children to return might be considered as a participant with “consciousness”. The other participant is called
the Phenomenon. The Phenomenon denotes to what is being felt, sensed, wanted or perceived. Being different from the Goal in material clauses, the Phenomenon is
not restricted to things but it might be abstract such acts or facts 2004: 203. Mental clauses represent several types of mental activity. It might represent
different processes in our mind. Halliday differentiates the types into perceptive, cognitive, desiderative, and emotive 2004: 210. Perceptive mental clauses are
realized by the verbs of perceptions, i.e. see, notice, glimpse, hear, taste, etc. Cognitive mental clauses include the process with the cognitive aspects of human
being. The verbs that realize the cognitive mental clauses are for example think, believe
, suppose, know, etc. Desiderative mental clauses represent the mental activity of wanting, desiring, longing, etc. The last, the emotive mental clauses
employs the process in verbs such like, love, hate, etc. The third type of processes in transitivity analysis is the relational process.
Halliday names this process as “processes of being and having” 2004: 210. What is meant by “being “is elucidated by the nature of the process as the nature of the
configuration. Halliday explains further that the nature of “being” is a matter of
