T he C oncept of T ext
1 2
in stitu tio n a liz a tio n a n ev en t o f sp o k e n d isc o u rse in to w ritin g fo rm ” H id a ya t, 1 9 9 6 : 1 2 9 -1 3 0 .
1 4
In th e d e fin itio n ab o v e, im p lic itly, sh o w s a b o u t th e rela tio n b e tw e en w ritin g an d te x t. If th e w ritin g is lan gu a g e w h ich p o u re d o u t in to w ritin g fo rm , te x t is sp o k en
d isc o u rse w h ic h p o u re d o u t in to tex t fo rm . H a llid a y an d H a sa n 1 9 8 5 d e fin e ‘tex t’ a s “ lan g u ag e th a t is fu n c tio n a l… th at
is d o in g so m e jo b s in so m e c o n tex t as o p p o se d to iso la ted w o rd s o r sen ten ces.”
1 5
A tex t is n o t ju st a strin g o f se n te n c e. In a n o th e r w o rd , it is n o t sim p ly a larg e gra m m a tic al u n it, so m e th in g o f th e sa m e k in d as sen te n c e b u t d ifferin g fro m its siz e .
A tex t
is n o t
a s a
g ra m m a tica l u n it
at a ll,
b u t ra th e r
as a
u n it o f
d iffe re n t k in d : a se m a n tic u n it. T h e u n ity th a t is h ad is a u n ity o f m ea n in g in co n tex t, a te x tu re th a t e x p re ss th e fa ct th at it c o n n ec ts as w h o le .
1 6
B e in g a se m an tic u n it, a te x t is re a liz ed in th e fo rm o f se n te n c e , an d th is h o w th e re la tio n o f tex t to se n te n c e c an b est in te rp re te d . A set o f re la te d se n te n ces, w ith a
sin g le se n ten c e o r e v en a w o rd a s lim itin g ca se , is th e e m b o d im e n t o r re aliz atio n o f te x t.
sen te n c e s. H e re , th e stu d y is o n ly p u t o n p h ra se o r se n te n c e , n o t re la te d to th e re la tio n se n te n c e b y sen te n c e a s o n e u n ity . E riy a n to , Analisis Wacana: PengantarAnalisis Teks M edia,
Y o g y a k a rta : L K iS , 2 0 0 3 . p . 3 -4 .
1 3
N in u k K le d e n -P ro b o n e g o ro , Pengalihan Wacana: Lisan ke Tulisan dan Teks, d a lam
P u d e n tia M P S S e d ., M etodologi Kajian Tradisi Lisan, J a k a rta : Y a y a sa n O b o r In d o n e sia , 1 9 9 8 , p . 1 9
1 4
A le x S o b u r, ibid. p . 5 3 .
1 5
T erry L o c k e , Continum Research M ethod Critical Discourse Analysis, L o n d o n -N e w Y o rk : C o n tin u u m In te r n a tio n a l
P u b lish in g G ro u p , 2 0 0 4 , p . 1 4 .
1 6
M .A .K . H a llid a y a n d H a sa n , Cohesion in English, 1
st
e d ., L o n d o n : L o n g m a n G ro u p L im ite d , 1 9 7 6 , p . 2 .
1 3
A lth o u g h th e c o n c e p t o f th e te x t e x a ct en o u gh , an d c an b e a d e q u ately a n d
ex p lic itly d e fin ed ,
th e d efin itio n
w ill n o t
p ro v id e u s
w ith au to m a tic
crite ria fo r re c o g n iz in g in a ll se n te n c es w h at is a tex t a n d w h at is n o t. In a ll k in d
o f lin g u istic co n te x t, fro m th e m o st fo rm a l to th e m o st in fo rm a l, w e co n stan tly h av e to d o w ith fo rm s o f in te ra c tio n , w h ich
lie o n th e b o rd erlin e b etw e en
te x tu al co n tin u ity an d d isc o n tin u ity. H o w e v er, th e ex iste n c e o f in d ete rm in a te in sta n c es
o f k in d d o e s
n o t d estro y th e u se fu ln ess o f th e g en e ra l n o tio n o f th e te x t a s th e b asic se m a n tic u n it o f lin g u istic in te ra ctio n .
1 7
2 . T he C oncept of Inter-textual
O n e o f
th e im p o rta n t
id e as o f
F a irc lo u gh is
a b o u t in te r-tex tu a l,
1 8
w h ic h is d ev e lo p e d b y Ju lia K ristev a an d M ic h ael B ac k tin . In te r-tex tu a l is a term , w h ic h te x t a n d id io m are m a d e b y te x t, w h ic h co m es b e fo re , p e rc e iv es e a ch o th e r an d
o n e o f th e p art o f te x t an tic ip a te to an o th e r. In u n d e rstan d in g o f B a c h tin , a s fa irc lo u gh sta ted , all id io m s, e ith e r w ritte n o r
sp o k e n , fro m a ll o f k in d s o f te x t, su ch a s sc ie n c e rep o rt, n o v e l, an d n e w s a re d iffered b y th e c h a n g in g o f th e sp eak e r o r w rite r an d p o in ted b y th e sp e ak e r o r w rite r b e fo re
e ith e r sc ie n c e re p o rt o r n o v e l.
1 9
1 7
Ibid. p . 2 9 5 .
1 8
In te r-te x tu a l is a so u rc e w h e r e c a n b e fo u n d a m b iv a le n c e in th e te x t. If th e m a in te x t is d e te rm in e d o r b a se d o n th e o th e r te x t, w h ic h c o m e b e fo re a n d ta k e in to c o m b in a tio n , th e e le m e n t o f m a in te x t c a n
b e c o m e n o t c le a r w h ic h p la c e d in th e re la tio n w ith in te r-te x tu a l n e tw o r k , a n d th e m e a n in g c a n b e a m b iv a le n c e . O p . C it. p . 3 0 6
1 9
ibid. p. 305-306
1 4
T h e co n cep t o f in te r-tex tu al re la tes to w a ys in w h ich te x ts are re ferre d to o th e r te x ts b y v irtu e o f sto ries o r d isc o u rse e m b e d d e d in th e m . M o reo v e r, te x ts ca n re fe r
fo rw a rd o r b a ck w a rd .
2 0
T h e p ro b le m o f in te r-te x tu a l in n e w s ca n b e d e te c te d fro m ex ce rp tin g n e w s so u rc e in n e w s. A c co rd in g to F a irc lo u gh , an o p in io n fro m
th e n e w s so u rc e , w h ich w ill b e n e w s, c an b e sh o w ed in d irect d isc o u rs e o r in d ire ct d isc o u rse .
2 1
W e a re g o in g to fin d a n e x a m p le as fo llo w s:
D ire ct A m ie n R a is: “ F ro m
n o w , G u s D u r m u st sto p sp e ak in g
ab o u t p o litic ” In d irec t
A m ie n R ais p ro c la im to G u s D u r to sto p sp e ak in g p o litic .
In d irec t A m ie n
R a is b e g in
b ra v in g to
fo rb id G u s
D u r sp e ak
p o litic .
T h e ch o ic e e x c erp tin g b e tw ee n d ire ct an d in d irec t, is n o t th e p ro b le m
o f jo u rn a listic
te ch n iq u e o n ly,
b u t in
fa c t, w h ic h
th e c h o ice
is ta k e n ,
d escrib e th e d isc o u rse stra te g y, h o w th e jo u rn a lists p lac e th e m se lv es in th e c en tre o f
m a n y v o ic e s w h ich is in o u tsid e o f th e m se lv es. In th e d ire ct ex ce rp tin g, sign ed b y th e u sin g o f ap o stro p h e to sh o w th at th e
p art in ap o stro p h e is sp o k en b y A m ie n R a is d irec tly. H ere, th e v o ic e o f so m eb o d y
A m ien R a is ex p lic itly is sh o w ed as h e said th ro u g h e x c erp tin g . O n th e o th e r h a n d ,
2 0
T erry L o c k e , Op. Cit. p . 9 .
2 1
E riy a n to , Op. Cit. p p . 3 0 6 -3 0 7 .
1 5
in th e in d ire ct e x c erp ting , th e v o ic e o f so m eb o d y A m ien R a is is v o ice d th ro u g h
m o u th a n d v o ice o f jo u rn a list, b asica lly, A m ie n R a is d o es n o t sp e ak as h im se lf. It is sign ed , fo r e x a m p le, th e u sin g o f w o rd a s “ sa y, p ro c la im , re q u ire , e tc .” a ltern a tiv ely,
u sin g ad v e rb
“ th a t”
w h ic h asse rt
th a t th e jo u rn a list
w h o ex te n d
w h at is
v o ic ed b y n e w s so u rc e . T h e a lte ra tio n fro m d ire c t e x c erp tin g in to in d ire ct ex ce rp tin g a lso c a u se
th e a lteratio n o f se m a n tic, b e ca u se
h a v e to
ad ju st th e sen ten c e
p a tte rn in
th e in d irec t e x c erp tin g. T h e u sin g
o f w o rd , as “
n o w o r in
th is m o m en t”
w h ic h d e sc rib es
th e re al o p in io n fro m th e n e w s so u rc e w h e n h e sa ys h is h e r w o rd s, h as to b e
ch an g e d in to in d ire ct e x c erp tin g. In te rtex tu a lity,
ge n e ra lly, c a n
b e d iv id ed
in to tw o
p arts; m an ifest
in tertex tu a lity an d m an ifest in terd iscu rsiv ity.
2 2
M an ifest Inter-textuality: it is in terte x tu a lity fo rm
w h e re a n o th e r tex t o r an o th e r v o ic e is a p p ea rin g e x p lic itly in th e tex t.
D iscourse R epresentation: it is u sed fo r sh o w in g a te rm h o w th e ev en t is
rep o rted . W h y th e jo u rn a list ch o se o n e typ e rep o rt o r c ertain d isco u rse , c o m p a re d to a n o th er; w h a t
is sh o w e d n o t o n ly sp o k e n b u t a lso w ritten a n d n o t o n ly stru c tu re im a g e b u t a lso ce rta in d isc o u rse typ e.
Presup position: it is p ro p o sitio n w h ich is a cc e p ted b y th e te x t m ak e r th at is
re ad y
2 2
Ib id . p . 3 1 1 -3 1 5
1 6
p lac ed as so m e th in g th a t b eh e ld tru ly an d p la c e d in th e tex t o rg an iz a tio n in a w h o le
m an n e r. N egation:
th e le g a tio n se n ten c e is o fte n u sed fo r p o le m ic p u rp o se .
Irony: ge n era lly, iro n y is term w h ich is u se d fo r d esc rib in g th a t w h at is to ld is n o t w h a t
w an ts to b e to ld . It is o n ly fo r te asin g o r h u m o r, e tc.
M etadiscourse: it is th e fo rm fro m m an ife st in te rte c tu a lity w h e re th e te x t m ak e r g iv es
th e d iffe re n t lev el in to th e te x t w h ich sh e h e h a v e an d m a k e d istan c e fo r h erh im se lf w ith a n o th e r te x t le v e l.
M an ifest Interdiscursivity:
th e o th e r te x t u n de rla y e le m e n t c o n figu ra tio n w h ic h is d iffe re n t fro m o rd e r o f d isc o u rse .
G enre: it is p art o f co n v e n tio n w h ich is re la te d to ac tio n .
A ctivity T ype: it is a ce rta in g en re w h ic h is re late d to co m p o sitio n
ce rta in stru c tu re .
Style: a
g en re w h ich
is re lated
to c e rta in
style, it
h as se v e ra l
altern a tiv e s th ro u g h w h e re is d istrib u te d . D iscourse:
sh o w o n te x t d im e n sio n w h ic h is g en erally d e fin ed as co n ten t, id ea , th e m e, to p ic an d e tc.
1 7
D . D iscourse
D isc o u rse L .
discursus, ru n n in g
to an d
fro m m ea n s
e ith e r w ritten
o r sp o k e n c o m m u n ica tio n o r d e b a te o r a fo rm a l d isc u ssio n o r d e b a te .
2 3
T h e term is o fte n u se d in se m an tics a n d d isc o u rse an alysis. In se m an tic s, d isco u rse s are lin g u istic u n its c o m p o se d o f sev e ra l se n te n c es ; in
o th e r w o rd s,
co n v e rsa tio n s, arg u m e n ts,
o r sp e e ch es.
In d isco u rse
an a lys is, w h ic h c a m e
to p ro m in en c e
in th e
la te 1 9 6 0 s,
th e w o rd
d isco u rse is
sh o rth a n d fo r
d iscu rsiv e fo rm a tio n , w h ic h is w h a t M ich e l F o u ca u lt c a lled c o m m u n ica tio n th at in v o lv es sp ec ia liz ed k n o w led g e o f v a rio u s k in d s. It is in th is se n se th a t th e
w o rd is m o st o ften u sed in ac a d e m ic stu d ies. S tu d ies o f d isc o u rse h a v e b e en c a rried o u t w ith in a v ariety o f trad itio n s th at
in v e stig a te th e re la tio n s b e tw ee n la n gu a g e , stru c tu re a n d a ge n c y, in c lu d in g fe m in ist stu d ies, an th ro p o lo g y, e th n o g ra p h y, cu ltu ra l stu d ies, literary th e o ry a n d th e h isto ry o f
id ea s. W ith in
th ese fie ld s,
th e n o tio n
o f d isco u rse
is itse lf
su b je ct to
d isc o u rse, w h ich is, d eb a te d o n th e b asis o f sp ec ializ ed k n o w led g e . D isc o u rse c an b e o b serv e d
in th e u se o f sp o k e n , w ritte n a n d sig n e d la n gu a g e an d m u ltim o d a lm u ltim e d ia fo rm s o f co m m u n ic a tio n , an d is n o t fo u n d o n ly in n o n -fictio n a l o r v e rb a l m a te ria ls.
In th e so c ia l sc ie n ce s fo llo w in g th e w o rk o f M ic h el F o u c au lt, a d isco u rs e is co n sid ered to b e an in stitu tio n a liz ed w a y o f th in k in g , a so c ial b o u n d a ry d e fin in g w h at
2 3
C o m p a c t O x fo rd D ic tio n a r y, Thesaurus and W ordpower G uide, N e w Y o rk : O x fo rd U n iv e rsity P re ss, , 2 0 0 1 .
1 8
can b e sa id ab o u t a sp e cific to p ic , o r, a s Ju d ith B u tle r p u ts it, th e lim its o f a cc ep tab le sp e ec h — o r p o ssib le tru th . D isc o u rses are see n to affe c t o u r v ie w s o n a ll th in g s; it is
n o t p o ssib le to e sc ap e d isco u rse . F o r e x a m p le , tw o n o ta b ly d istin ct d isco u rses ca n b e u se d a b o u t v ario u s g u e rrilla m o v e m en ts d escrib in g th e m e ith e r a s fre ed o m fig h te rs
o r te rro rists.
In o th e r
w o rd s, th e
ch o sen d isc o u rse
d e liv ers th e
v o ca b u la ry, ex p ressio n s an d p e rh ap s a lso th e style n ee d ed to c o m m u n ic ate . D isc o u rse is c lo sely lin k ed to d ifferen t th e o ries o f p o w e r an d sta te , a t le ast as lo n g a s
d e fin in g d isco u rses is se en to m ean d e fin in g rea lity itse lf.
2 4
T ab le b e lo w w ill e x p la in en o u gh ab o u t th e d efin itio n o f d isco u rse .
2 5
T ab le II D efin ition of D iscourse
Wacana: 1.
Komunikasi verbal,
ucapan, percakapan;
2. sebuah
perlakuan formal dari subjek dalam ucapan atau tulisan; 3. sebuah unit teks yang digunakan oleh linguis untuk menganalisa satuan lebih dari
kalimat Collins Concise English Dictionary, 1988
Wacana:
1. sebuah percakapan
khusus yang
alamiah formal
dan pengungkapan diatur dalam ide dalam ucapan dan tulisan; 2. pengungkapan
dalam bentuk sebuah
nasihat, risalah, dan sebagainya; sebuah unit yang dihubungkan ucapan atau tulisan.
Longman Dictionary of the English Languag e, 1984 Wacana: 1. rentetan kalimat yang berkaitan, yang menghubung kan proposisi
yang
satu dengan
proposisi yang
lainnya, membentuk
satu kesatuan, sehingga terbentuklah m akna yang serasi di antara kalimat-
kalimat itu; 2. kesatuan bahasa yang terlengkap dan tertinggi atau terbesar di atas kalimat atau
klausa dengan
koherensi dan
kohesi yang
tinggi yang
2 4
Discourse
,
h ttp :e n .w ik ip e d ia .o rg w ik iD isc o u rse . A c c e sse d o n O c to b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 8
2 5
E riy a n to , Op. Cit. p . 2
1 9
berkesinambungan, yang mampu mempunyai awal dan akhir yang nyata, disampaikan secara lisan atau tertulis.
J.S. Badudu 2000 Analsis
wacana memfokuskan
pada struktur
yang secara
alamiah terdapat pada bahasa lisan, sebagaimana banyak
terdapat dalam
wacana seperti percakapan, wawancara, komentar, dan ucapan-ucapan. Crystal 1987
Wacana adalah
komunikasi kebahasaan
yang terlihat
sebagai sebuah pertukaran di antara pembicaraan dan pendengar, sebagai sebuah
aktivitas personal di mana ditentukan oleh tujuan sosialnya. Hawthorn 1992
Wacana adalah komunikasi lisan atau tulisan yang dilihat dari titik pandang kepercayaan, nilai, dan kategori yang masuk di dalamnya; kepercayaan di
sini mewakili pandang an dunia; sebuah organisasi atau representasi dari pengalaman.
Roger Fowler 1977 Wacana:
kadang kala
sebagai bidang
dari semua
pernyataan statement, kadang
kala sebagai
sebuah individualisasi
kelompok pernyataan,
dan kadanng kala
sebagai praktik
regulatif yang
dilihat dari
sejumlah pernyataan. Foucault 1972
T h e im p o rtan t p o in t h ere is th a t fo r c ritica l d isco u rse an a lysts su ch as v an
D ijk an d F a irc lo u g h , d isc o u rse is lin k ed to p o w e r a n d so c ia l in te re sts. F ro m su ch re la tio n sh ip s, th e re e m e rg e d iffe ren t p ersp e c tiv es o n th e w o rld . A s F a irc lo u gh
w rite s: “I
see discourses
as ways
of representing
aspects of
the world
– the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the ‘mental
world’ of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth and, the social world …
different discourses are different perspectives on the world, and they are associated with the different relations people have to the world”.
26
F a irc lo u gh an d v an D ijk are p artic u la rly c o n c e rn e d w ith id eo lo g ic a l effec ts o f d isc o u rse. A s F a irc lo u gh n o te s:
2 6
“
M e d ia G ro u p M e th o d s a n d th e D isc o u rse A n a ly sis o f N o rm a n F a irc lo u g h a n d T e u n v a n D ijk : a c o m p a riso n
o f a p p ro a c h e s .”
A lso a p p e a re d
as: P h ilo ,
G . ‘
C a n D isc o u rse
A n a ly s is S u c c e ssfu lly e x p la in th e C o n te n t o f M e d ia a n d J o u rn a listic P ra c tic e ’ in Journalism Studies ,
V o l 8 N u m b e r 2 . A c c e sse d o n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . w w w .sc rib d .c o m . P . 2
2 0
“One of the causal effects of texts which have been of major concern for
critical discourse
analysis is
ideological affects
… ideologies
are representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to contribute to
establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, dom ination and exploitation”.
27
In h is re c e n t w o rk o n te x tu al an a lysis, F airclo u g h w rite s o n id eo lo g y in te rm s w h ic h h av e so m e reso n a n ce w ith th is:
“A particular discourse includes assumptions about what there is, what is the case, what is possible, what is necessary, what will be the case, and so forth.
In some instances, one might argue that such assumptions, and indeed the discourses they are associated with, are ideological”.
28
In illu stra tin g w h at is se en to b e ‘n ec essa ry’, F airc lo u gh ta k e s th e e x a m p le o f g lo b al ec o n o m ic ch a n g e. H e n o tes th at th is m a y b e p re se n ted as an in ev itab le p ro c ess,
w ith o u t h u m a n a g e n c y a n d co m m e n ts o n a te x t pu b lish e d b y th e E u ro p ea n U n io n : “It
is similar
to many
other contemporary
texts in
representing global econom ic
change as
a process
without human
agents …
a process
in a general and
ill-defined present and without a history
it is just what ‘is’ which is universal or, precisely, ‘global’ in terms of place, and an inevitable process
which must
be responded
to in
particular ways
– an
‘is’ which imposes an ‘ought’, or rather a
‘must’”.
29
Id eo lo g y an d
th e m an n e r
in w h ich
so m e p ersp ec tiv es
a re le g itim iz ed
an d ac h ie v e d o m in a n c e re m a in s a c en tra l issu e in te x tu al an alysis.
T h e m e th o d s, w h ic h a re e m p lo yed , are th e fo c u s o f th e n ex t se c tio n .
2 7
ib id . p . 2
2 8
ib id . p . 4
2 9
ib id p . 4
2 1