as the object of the study. Not only that, the study also uses the same theory to reveal the politician’s ideology in which it uses Critical Discourse Analysis
CDA. However, there are 3 differences between Anindyaputri’s and this study. The first is Anindyaputri’s study uses euphemism as it’s focus of analysis.
However, this study uses metaphorical expressions as the focus of analysis. The second diff
erence is Anindyaputri’s study uses componential analysis of meaning as the strategy to discover the euphemistic expression meanwhile this study uses
Conceptual Metaphor Theory CMT as strategy to discover metaphorical expressions. The third difference is that even though Anindyaputri and this study
use political speech as its object, the statesman is different. Anindyaputri chooses Bashar Al-Assad as the statesman, meanwhile this study uses Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei as the statesman. It means the ideology of those two statesman may be different as well.
Another study of political speech is conducted by Reza Khany and Zohre Hamzelou 2014 in the title
A Systemic Functional Analysis of Dictator’s
Speech:Towad A Move-Based Model
. In the journal, they analyze the rhetorical structure of political speeches from several dictators such as Hitler, Stalin,
Mussilini, Gadhafi, and Mubarak by using Systemic Functional Grammar SFG and Critical Discourse Analysis CDA. They explain that the dictators use their
linguistic skill to manipulate the society, so that they can convey their message. The journal, through SFG, classify the use of political speech to sustain the
dictator’s message into three purposes. The first is to highlight commonality, to justify current policy, and to create state order. They explain that in justifying
current policy, those dictators will antagonize foreign state as evil enemy, then they are going to justify why their policy is the best, and they will provide
solution for the current problem Khany and Hamzelou, 2014: 919. The finding provides guidance to this study by showing the means of
political speech. It supports the analysis of this study because the political speech of
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s speech can be classified as ‘justifying current policy’ purpose. Khamenei antagonizes US as its eternal enemy. However, this
study will only focus in one speech from one politician rather than several speech from the dictators. The second is this study will not use SFG as its method to
discover the rhetorical behavior of the politician, but this study focuses on analyzing the metaphorical expressions by using the semantic theory of anomaly
and conceptual metaphor theory as the strategy. The third is that this study intends to find the ideology of the political speech done by a politician, meanwhile the
journal only stop its analysis in classifying types of political speech by using SFG. The last is conducted by Ali A. Al-Ridha and Ahmed K. Fahad 2009
with the title “Obama’s Speech in Cairo “New Beginning” : A Critical Discourse
Analysis Study ”. This study shows that Obama uses his linguistic skill to convey
peace message to Cairo and its society. The critical Discourse Analysis is used to discover Obama’s hidden intention that he wants to make global security by
presenting America as Cairo’s partner instead of patron. In one of the findings, they believe Obama uses the word extremist in emphasizing the concern that he
does not want the Cairo society to be an extremist and persuade them to uphold peace Al-Ridha and Fahad, 2009: 17. This study supports
the speaker’s initial PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
assumption that political speech can be a tool used by the politician to persuade people to follow the politician’s agenda. However, this study will focus more in
metaphorical expressions rather than choice of word in general. Through analyzing the speech of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei related to
nuclear deal agreement in August 18th 2015, this study will prove that the metaphorical expressions found in the speech contain hidden ideologies. Thus,
this study analyzes metaphorical expressions not as figurative language, but as part of discourse.
B. Review of Related Theories 1. Semantics
In linguistics, semantics is the study of meaning. According to Leech, “The meaning can be best studied as a linguistic phenomenon in its own right.
This means we investigate ‘what it is to know’ a language semantically, e.g. to know what is involved in recognizing relations of meaning between sentences,
and in recognizing which sentences are meaningfu l and which are not,” 1974: 8.
The meaningful sentences are identified through the meaning of words used in the sentence.
Lexical semantics is the study of word meaning. Cruse explains, “The
word functions as central role to play in the coding of meaning, and are responsible for much of the richness and subtelty of messages conveyed
linguistically,” 2000: 83. However, he adds, “A word, on its own, does not actually say anything, does not convey a whole though
t” 2000: 90. Nida 1975: PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15-20 proposes that the meaning of word can be identified by analyzing its relational value with other words. There are 4 types of relations between words
with related meaning: Inclusion, overlapping, complementation, contiguity. Inclusion means the meaning of word may be said to be included within
the meaning of another. For example all
poodles
are
dogs
, and, all
dogs
are
animals
. Thus, the meaning of
poodle
can be said to be included in the meaning of
dog
, and the meaning of
dog
is included in the meaning of
animal
. In overlapping, the relations between words are almost never substitutiable one for the other in
any and all context. It means that the meaning between the words are not identical, but they overlap and they can be substituted with one another in
particular context without significant change. For example the word
bestow
and
give
.
Bestow
means to
give
something. It expresses greater formality than
give
. In complementation, the related words share some same features but
show certain marked contrast and often opposite meanings and features. For example in the words
beautiful
and
ugly
. The word
beautiful
has the semantic feature appeasing to the sight meanwhile the word
ugly
has the semantic feature offensive to the sight. In contiguity, the meanings are closely related but it has at
least one distinctive feature. for example the words walk and run share the same semantic features movement by animate being and use limbs. However, the
number of limbs, the order of movement, and the relation of limbs are different. Thus, from this explanation it can be concluded that between words with closely
related meanings, there must be at the minimum one semantic feature that is distinctive.
2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory CMT
It is proposed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. The theory proposes that metaphor is beyond a device of poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish.
Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action 1980: 3. It means what people perceive, how people think, what people
experience is metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson elaborate this idea to be what does it mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an
everyday activity. The example is by using the concept ARGUMENT and the conceptual metaphor WAR. For example your claims are
indefensible
and he
attacks every weak point
in my argument. people do not only talk about arguments in terms of war. People can win or lose an argument. People treat the person who
oppose their idea as opponent. From the 2 metaphorical expressions, many things we do in argument are
partially structured by the concept of war eventhough there is no physical battle. Thus, it can be concluded that metaphor is understanding one thing in terms of
another thing. The concept is called as SOURCE DOMAIN and the conceptual metaphor is TARGET DOMAIN. Kovecses 2010: 7 emphasizes that to
understand SOURCE DOMAIN in terms of TARGET DOMAIN means there are set of correspondences the constituent conceptual element that correspond to
each other. It is generally called as mapping. For example in the sentence ‘we are
not
going anywhere
’
.
The expression
go anywhere
indicates travelling to a destination, and based on the context it means a jurney that has no clear
destination. In an appropriate context, the sentence talks about love that has no PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
clear future. The set of correspondences are we the traveler to lover, journey to event in a relationship, physical destination in a journey to the goal of the love
relationship. Then, the final result from the SOURCE DOMAIN and the TARGET DOMAIN is called as metaphorical expression. For example
ARGUMENT is WAR, LOVE is JOURNEY, and IDEA is FOOD. According to Kovecses 2010: 18 - 21, some common SOURCE
DOMAIN are human body, health and illness, animals, plants, building and construction, machines and tools, games and sports, money and economic
transactions, cooking and food. Meanwhile, some common TARGET DOMAIN are society or nations, politics, economy, human relationships, communication,
time, life and death, religion.
3. Critical Discourse Analysis CDA
Critical Discourse Analysis CDA views language as social practice that can be analyzed from interpreting and explaining a text Weiss and Wodak, 2003:
12. They add that CDA is particularly interested in discussing the relation between language and power 2003: 12. In analyzing the relation between power
and language, it believes that there is unequal power between those who have the capitals and those who are minority and less capital.
Weiss and Wodak 2003: 14 explains that ideology is the way to maintain the order and power. In elaborating the notion of power, it is signalled
not only by grammatical forms within a text, but also by the control of the person of a social occasion by means of the genre of the text. It is often exactly within the
genres associated with given social occasions that power is exercised or PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
challenged 2003: 15. That means if the speaker is a highly respectable figure, the more attention will be given.
Fairclough 1995: 23 explains 3 dimensional framework for understanding discourse. It is an integated analysis of text, processes of text
production, consumption, and distribution, sociocultural anaysis of the discursive events Fairclough, 1995 : 23. In addition, Critical means it takes pejorative view
of ideology as a means through which social relations of power are reproduced Fairclough, 1995 : 17.
CDA concerns on the implicit proposition which is intentionally reduced from the text. Thus, CDA believes that in order to understand the meaning of a
text, we have to go beyond it, finding the implicit ideology within it. Therefore, it is important to consider imbalance power and social inequality in understanding
the discourse. Weiss and Wodak explains,”CDA research is often interested in the study
of ideologically biased discourses, and the way they polarize the representation of us ingroups and them outgroups. Both at the level of global and local meaning
analysis,”2003: 103. The ingroups are the stakeholder that hold power. They shape bias judgement toward the outgroups so the listener the society believe
that the ingroups are on the opposite direction with the outgroups and the society. In order to achieve that goal, the ingroups
do “Positive Self Presentation” when they degrade and create bad image to the outgroups or “Negative Other
Presentation”. In this case, the good image of the outgroups is deemphasized. Weiss and Wodak, 2003: 103
