The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

(1)

THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKER IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S SPEECHES

A THESIS

BY:

ROSALINA MUNTHE 040705025

UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA FACULTY OF LETTERS

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT MEDAN

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praise to Almighty God Jesus Christ who has been giving me his mercy and blessing. I would like to thank Him for giving me guidance the power and the ability to finish this thesis.

I would like to thank to Dean of Faculty of Letters University of Sumatera Utara, Drs. Syaifuddin, M.A., Ph.D, the Head of English Department, Dra. Hj. Swesana Mardia Lubis, M.Hum and the Secretary of English Department, Drs. Yulianus Harefa, M.Ed TESOL for giving all facilities and opportunities in completing this thesis.

I also would like to thank to all lecturer of English Department who has given me valuable knowledge and guidance during the year of my study in English Department, Faculty of Letters, USU.

Further, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to my Supervisor, Drs. Syahron Lubis, M.A and my Co-Supervisor, Dra. Masdiana Lubis, M.Hum for their willingness to share time and patience in guiding and correcting and supervising this thesis.

My highest appreciation and greatest attitude to my beloved parents, Jaliston Munthe and Delyana Sembiring, who have given me unending love and care, prayer, advice, and a great financial support during my study. I express my deep thanks to my beloved sister, Roriana Margaretha Munthe, Amd and my beloved brother, Jannerson Munthe for their support, prayer and motivation for a better future.

(3)

Furthermore, I would like to express my great thanks to my best friends, Siska, Agus, Merlin, Erlin and Ocha for giving motivation, advice, knowledge, and sharing their time with me all days. My gratitude goes to all my friends in the members 2004 who have given me support and help during study.

Last but not least, I would like to thank to all my seniors and junior, for their attention and support. Also thank to all staff in English Department and Faculty of Letters for helping me in administration.

May God bless us.

Medan, June 2008

The Writer

(4)

ABSTRAK

Judul skripsi adalah The Use of Discourse Markers in Written Text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches. Melalui skripsi ini, penulis mendeskripsikan penggunaan penanda wacana dalam teks tertulis pidato Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Penulis menemukan bahwa penanda wacana dalam pidato Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono adalah bagian dari pertalian wacana, bagaimana pembicara dan pembaca bersama-sama membentuk arti sehingga pesan dari pidato tersebut dapat dimengerti. Data yang diambil sebagai bahan analisis menggunakan purposive sampling (sampling bertujuan) yaitu sample yang telah ditentukan oleh penulis yaitu yang berhubungan dengan hubungan luar negeri. Secara keseluruhan skripsi terdiri dari 5 bab. Bab 1 berisikan pendahuluan yang terdiri atas latar belakang, batasan masalah, rumusan masalah, tujuan penulisan dan manfaat penulisan. Bab 2 menguraikan tentang tinjauan kepustakaan dan teori yang mencakup apakah analisis wacana dan penanda wacana. Bab 3 menguraikan tentang metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian. Pada bab 4, penulis mengkaji penanda wacana yang terdapat dalam teks tertulis pidato Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Dan bab 5 berisi kesimpulan dan saran dari penulis. Akhirnya, penulis menyimpulkan bahwa penggunaan penanda wacana tidak hanya ditemukan dalam percakapan tetapi juga dapat ditemukan dalam teks tertulis.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……… i

ABSTRACT ……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… iv

I. INTRODUCTION ……… 1

1.1Background of the Analysis ……… 1

1.2Scope of the analysis ……… 2

1.3Problem of the Analysis ……….. 3

1.4Objective of the Analysis ………. 3

1.5Significance of the Analysis ……… 3

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……….. 4

2.1An Overview of Discourse Analysis ……… 4

2.1.1 The Definitions of Discourse Analysis ……… 4

2.1.2 The Scope of Discourse Analysis ……….. 5

2.1.3 The Types of Discourse ……….. 6

2.1.4 Properties of Discourse ……… 7

2.2 Discourse Markers ………... 9

2. 2.1 Why Analyze Discourse Markers? ……….. 9

(6)

2.3 Relevance Study ……….. 30

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….. 33

3.1Research Method ………. 33

3.2The Population and Sample ……… 33

3.3Method of Collecting Data ………. 34

3.4Method of Analyzing Data ………. 35

IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S SPEECHES ……….. 36

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 89

5.1Conclusion ……….. 89

5.2Suggestion ………... 89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(7)

ABSTRAK

(8)

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Analysis

Speech means communication or expression of thought in spoken words (Crystal 1980:327). It is a general word for a discourse delivered to an audience. Through speech, speaker conveys a message to the audience either it is to convey information or insight, to persuade or to motivate. A speaker must engage his or her audience with a central idea or propositions. If a speaker does not have a clear reason to give a speech, the speech should not be given.

Discourse is a stretch of language larger than a sentence (Crystal 1980:115). It is natural spoken or written language, with meaning being transferred through a sentence of a text, in context. Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used (McCarthy 1991:5). Some words and expression are used to show discourse is constructed. They can show the connection between what has already been written or said and what is going to be written or said. They can indicate what speakers think about what they are saying.

The various linguistic devices that create a text should be ‘coherence’, the way a sentence makes sense, and ‘cohesive marker’ which create link across the boundaries of sentence and also chain related item together. One of linguistic devices is discourse markers.

Discourse markers are words or phrases that mark a boundary in discourse and indicate discourse relations like ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘but’ and a like. As

(9)

what Schriffin (1987:49) says “Discourse markers are part of the more general analysis of discourse coherence-how speaker and hearers jointly integrate forms, meaning, and actions to make overall sense out of what is said”. Discourse markers signal relationships between segments of a discourse. Discourse markers signal how the current utterance related to prior discourse. They organize and extended stretches of discourse helping to make text cohesive and coherent. It also has contribution to the message.

Related to these principles, the writer found that there are many discourse markers such as markers of connectives in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches. The writer considers that discourse markers are important to be analyzed in order to show the function and the influence of using them in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches. Sometimes they are just said without meaning but otherwise they show a cohesion relationship between the markers and the sentence said when the markers are presented. Thus, the title of this thesis is The Use of Discourse Markers in Written Text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches.

1.2Scope of the Analysis

In discourse analysis, there are some topics that can be analyzed. They are transitivity process, theme and rheme, discourse markers, mood element and so on. In this analysis, the writer focuses on discourse markers in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

According to Deborah Schriffin (1987) in Discourse Markers, there are six types of discourse markers i.e. marker of information management (oh),

(10)

marker of response (well), markers of connectives (and, but, or), markers of cause and result (so, because), markers of temporal adverbs (now, then) and markers of information and participation (y’know, then)

1.3 The Problem of the Analysis

The problem of this analysis is how are discourse markers applied in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches ?

1.4 Objective of the Analysis

In relation to the problem, the objective of this analysis is to describe the application of discourse marker in written text of President of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

1.5 The Significance of the Analysis

The findings of the analysis are as follows:

1. It will give new information about speeches to the reader especially who are interested in speeches.

2. It will be useful for the reader to know about discourse markers and their functions in speeches.

3. It will be valuable as reference for student of English Department University of Sumatera Utara, who want to do further research on discourse analysis especially on discourse markers.

(11)

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 AN OVERVIEW OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 2.1.1 The Definition of Discourse Analysis

In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise in connection with the way language is ‘used’, rather than what its components are. We were, in effect, asking how is that language-users interpret what other language-users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and ask how is that we, as language-users, make sense of what we read in texts, understand what as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.

The analysis of discourse is necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independently to the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs. While some linguists may concentrate on determining the formal properties of a language is used for. While the formal approach has a long tradition, manifested in innumerable volumes of grammar, the functional approach is less well documented. Attempts to provide even a general set of labels for principal functions of language have resulted in vague, and often confusing, terminology.

The term discourse analysis is very ambiguous. It can refer to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse.

(12)

Roughly speaking, it refers to the attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistics units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular interaction or dialogue between speakers.

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analyst study language in used; written texts of all kinds and spoken data from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk.

2.1.2 The Scope of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken interaction. In addition to all our verbal encounters we daily consume hundreds of written and printed words: newspaper articles, letters, stories, recipes, instructions, notices, comics, billboards leaflets pushed through the door, and so on. We usually expect them to be coherent, meaningful communications in which the words and/or sentences are linked to one another in a fashion that corresponds to conventional formulae, just as we do with speech; therefore discourse analysts are equally interested in the organization of written interaction.

(13)

2.1.3 The Types of Discourse

Discourse can be classified into two kinds, namely: 1) Oral Discourse or Spoken Discourse

It is a discourse which used the spoken text, such as conversation. By oral discourse, we mean discourse which text is constructed in the real time. It means oral discourse is concerning some actual facts in the present time.

2) Written Discourse

It was formed by the written text (written language). By written discourse, we mean discourse which text is not constructed in the real time.

Briefly, these two types of discourse above can be distinguished according to the type of situation. Oral discourse is concerning face-to-face situation while a recorded transmission situation involves in the written discourse.

There are still other types of discourse which is important to be distinguished namely interactive and non-interactive discourse. A definition of interaction, if it is to be used for the term of discourse, should be based on an analysis on the type of role play by participants in the communication. It is called interactive discourse if each participant constructs only part of text, expressing a number of fragments in alternation with the other participants. It is called non-interactive discourse if a single participant is responsible for the whole of the discourse.

(14)

Can both the oral and written discourse be both interactive and non-interactive? It is undutiful that the majority of oral discourse is interactive, since this type of discourse is usually realized in face-to-face communicative situation which generally need the interactive participation of all present. In certain situation, however, the oral discourse can be in non-interactive form, for example the political speech or lecturer, who is clarifying the subject of the lesson, produces the whole discourse orally by him without any participation of the collegian.

On the other hand, a written discourse can also be interactive and continuity. For example: in the first letter, Bob writes to his uncle asking for help. In the second letter, Bob’s uncle replies the help will be given at the exact time he needs. In the third letter, Bob thanks his uncle for the favor that was offered, and mentions the time when he needs the help. These three kinds of letters are regarded as three ‘speaking turns’ which form the whole. This discourse is, therefore, interactively coherent.

2.1.4. Properties of Discourse

There are 3 properties of discourse, they are discourse forms structures, conveys meaning, and accomplishes action. The first two properties are largely concerned with discourse as extended sequences of smaller units, e.g. sentence, propositions and utterances. The third property is more concerned with language as it is used within social interaction; included is speakers’ use not only of extended sequences, but their use of single unit within social interaction.

(15)

1. Structure

More recent approaches have based discourse grammars on transformational generative sentence grammar claims that texts can be treated as extensions of sentences and that a text grammar can be written in the same form as a generative sentence grammar. Within such a text grammar, the acceptability of a discourse would be determined by a set of rules acting as formal criteria for the interpretability of sentences within the text. Several studies take a more liberal approach to non-textual factors in their suggestion that discourse structure reflects the informational content and structure what is being talked about. They all view discourse as a structured composition of linguistic constituents (morphemes, clauses, sentences) within a monologue.

2. Meaning

Particular items such as pronouns, adverbs and conjunctions help create discourse not because of their rule-governed distribution, but because they indicate an interpretive link between two parts within the text. And although we can recognize a cohesive element by its surface appearance in a clause, what such an element actually display is a connection between the underlying propositional content of two clauses - the clause in which the element appears and a prior clause. In short, the cohesive link is established because interpretation of an element in one clause presupposes information from a prior clause.

Studies of cohesion indicate that the meaning conveyed by a text is meaning which is interpreted by speakers and hearers based on their inferences about the propositional connection underlying what are said. Cohesive devices do

(16)

not themselves create meaning; they are clues used by speakers and hearers to find the meanings which underlie surface utterances.

3. Actions

Structure and meaning are properties of discourse when discourse is considered as a linear sequence of smaller units, e.g. sentences, turns, propositions. Although action or more accurately the accomplishment of action is also a property of discourse, it is a property which emerges not so much from arrangements of underlying units, as from the organization of speaker goals and intentions which are taken up and acted upon by hearers, and from the ways in which language is used in service of such goals.

2.2 DISCOURSE MARKERS

2.2.1 Why Analyze Discourse Markers

The analysis of discourse markers is a part of more general analysis of discourse coherence-how speaker and hearer jointly integrate forms, meanings and actions to make overall sense out of what is said.

For example, the discourse (1) is a rhetorical argument through which a speaker (Tina) is defending a position-her belief in destiny-by presenting personal experience to serve as evidence, or support, for that position.

(1) a. I suppose we can’t deny that we all have our own time in this world. b I believe that … y’know its destiny.

c. it really is.

d. because my grandfather died of heart-attack.

(17)

f. and I really believe.

g. I don’t think that you can deny destiny. f. and I think a lot of people do.

g. I don’t think that you can deny destiny. h. and I think a lot of people do.

i. but I feel that we are brought to this world for many, years or whatever the case is

j. and that’s how it was and it will be.

k. because like when I was studying in Malaysia l. I supposed to study there for two years.

m. I got a letter saying that my immigration files got lost. n. and I had to go back to Indonesia.

o. And when I got back I got admitted in USU, Indonesia. p. while I was enjoying my stay in Malaysia.

q. and I just felt, this was better for me.

r. because if it isn’t, I would have not got into USU.

s. so eh y’know it seems it just seems that it’s meant to happen like that.

Consider, first, that (1) forms an argument because it contains two informational differentiated parts. The main part of an argument as a position: a general statement toward whose truth a speaker is committed. Subordinate to the position is support: any information, e.g. personal experience, other’s testimony, logical reasoning, which justifies either the truth of the statement of the speaker’s commitment towards the truth. Ira’s position in (1) is that she believes in destiny;

(18)

she states this in various ways in several locations; lines (a)-(c), (f)-(j) and (s), support for this position is given through brief description of two experiences in which coincident events had no rational explanation, and are thus interpreted as meant to be. This evidence is presented (in line d-e, k-r) between paraphrases of the position.

Several markers in (1) play a role in its formation as an argument. First, we find because preceding support in (d) and (k). Because often precedes not just evidence, but other casually related discourse material, e.g. background information in narratives.

We find and in (f); and precedes a self-interrupted restatement of the position. We will see that and often precedes material which continues an earlier part of discourse-especially material which is not subordinate to the overall structure of the discourse. In both (h) and (j), and links ideas which seems closely related to just prior ideas. In (h), the speaker is contrasting a feeling of her own (about denying destiny) with the actions of others. Thus, within the position, and seems to have a role in linking related ideas when the union of those ideas play a role in larger ideational structure of the argument.

In (i) but is an adversative conjunction suggests that what follows but is an idea which contrasts with what has preceded. Like and, then, it seems that but could have a cohesive function within the position.

Finally we find so in (s), preceding the final paraphrase of the position. We will see often so brings information understood as resultative (the outcome of connection between reported events) or conclusive (the outcome of inferential connections). Markers also occur within the position and the support.

(19)

There is one other marker in (1) that is y’know. It is directed toward gaining hearer involvement in an interaction. In (b) and (s), y’know seems to be marking some kind of appeal from speaker to hearer for consensus, e.g. for understanding as to the meaning of destiny, or even for understanding as to the meaning of destiny, or even for agreement on the position being taken about destiny.

We will see that y’know is widely used throughout talk at locations in which discourse tasks hinge on special cooperative effort between speaker and hearer.

The observation about what markers add to discourse have based largely on their locations within discourse where markers occur, and with what markers co-occur. There are other issue: markers as coherence options, shows options for each other-as alternative ways of saying the same thing also rises the problem of whether elements as diverse as and, y’know can form one class of items in a discourse paradigms. In traditional linguistic analysis, items which occur in the same environment but do not produce a different meaning are in contrast, whereas items which occur in the same environment but do not produce a different in meaning are in free variation.

2.2.2 Kinds of Discourse Markers

As explained above, there are many kinds of discourse markers. Understanding of discourse markers requires separating the contribution made by the marker itself, from the contribution made by the discourse slot in which the markers occur.

(20)

1) Marker of Information Management

The first type of discourse markers is oh. The explanation of discourse markers oh is not clearly based on semantic meaning or grammatical status.

Oh is traditionally viewed as an exclamation of interjection. When it use alone, without the syntactic support of a sentence, oh is said to indicate strong emotional states, e.g. surprise, fear or pain. For examples:

(1) Andi : Was that interesting games? Budi : oh ! yes! It was

(2) Andi : Like I’d say, ‘What d’y’mean you don’t like rock music concert? Oh! I don’t like it. It’s too crowded

Oh can aslso initiate utterances, either followed by a brief pause; (3) Fay : oh, well I was here when I was a child

Or with no pause preceding the rest of tone unit:

(4) Adi : does he like classical music? Oh maybe he’s too young.

Regardless of its syntactic status on intentional contour, that oh occurs as speaker shift their orientation to information. Oh pulls the flow of information in discourse to the temporary focus of attention which is the target of self and or other management. Oh occurs in several different situations such as: oh in repair initiation, for example, Cathy is answering a question about whether she believes in extrasensory perception by describing her husband Jack’s abilities to predict future political events.

(5) I mean …he can almost foresee:…eh::for instance with

Nixon…he said …now he’s not in a medical field my husband. He said coagulation his blood…uh thinning his-Nixon‘s blood…will

(21)

not be good for him, if he should be operated on. Oh maybe it’s just knowledge.

I don’t know if that’s E.S.P or not in that C-in this case.

Cathy recategorizes a particular description from an instance of E.S.P. to an instance of knowledge: this self-repair is initiated with oh.

Oh prefaces both self and other completion. For example, Lita self-initiates and self completes her replacement of yeh with no and Senior High School Plus and then further self-completes with oh that’s right.

From all the examples above, oh has a role in information status because oh marks a focus of speaker’s attention which then also becomes a candidate for hearer’s attention. Oh has or is suggested to have a pragmatic effect-the creation of a joint focus. Oh can be focused on or situated in social interaction. First, oh makes evident a very general and pervasive property of participant framework. Because oh displays one’s own on going management of information, its user is temporarily displayed as an individual active in the role of utterance reception.

So oh is a marker of information management: it marks shifts in speaker’s orientation (objective and subjective) to information which occurs as speakers and hearers manage the flow of information produced and received during discourse. Orientation shifts affect the overall information of state of a conversation: the distribution of knowledge about entities, events, and situations. Although oh is a number of cognitive tasks, its use may have pragmatic effects in interaction.

(22)

2) Marker of Response

Like oh, the use of well is not based on semantic meaning or grammatical status. Although well sometimes is a noun, an adverb or degree word, its use in utterance initial position is difficult to characterize in terms based on any of these classes. We can see some placements of well.

It can occur in request-compliance pairs, for example: in (1) Irene issues a request for action to Henry and Zelda, who have been talking about topics other than those on conversational agenda.

(1) Irene : Let’s get back because she’ll never get home. Debby : Well, actually we don’t have that much more.

Well can occur in request for confirmation although it is a bit harder to identity. Such requests are often identifiable because of the information status assumed to hold at the time of speaking, that is, speaker or hearer knowledge and meta-knowledge. This is, if a speaker makes a statement about an event about which a hearer is expected to have knowledge as request for confirmation, then, are statements about the hearer’s past life, abilities, likes and dislikes, knowledge, and so on. For examples:

(2) Erwin : And my father has been working for the government company. Roni : So your father must like them as an employer then.

Erwin : Well my father likes his job, now.

Well is a response marker: well anchors its user in a conversational exchange when the options offered through a prior utterance for the coherence of an upcoming response it is not precisely followed. More generally, well is possible whenever the coherence options offered by one components of talk differ

(23)

from another: well locates a speaker as a respondent to one level of discourse and allows a temporary release from attention to others.

3) Markers of Connectives

Another different set of markers are and, but, and or. They are called discourse connective. The first item of this kind of marker is and. And is the most frequently used mode of connection at a local of idea structure, for examples:

(3) a. See this is what every student does. b. But we were serious

c. And we tried to answer d. And we tried to pass e. And we fail

Mathematic teacher is explaining that every student tried to do the sum in the exam (a,c,d); some students, however, failed the exam (b, e). The contrast between the efforts to pass and the unintended fail is marked, first with but (in b), and then with and (in e). And thus occurs in environment by but.

And also occurs in an environment shard by so. In (4) Nely prefaces and outcome of reason with and. She is explaining why she remembers a particular childhood game; note, again preface of the reason with because.

(4) a. That’s one game I remember b. Because we had a driveway c. And, like we would hide

d. And they would walk around the driveway? e. Y’know?

(24)

After explaining why she remembers the game (b-c), Nely again mentions that memory (f). Her paraphrase of the outcome is prefaced with and rather so.

And is a structural coordinator of ideas as which has pragmatic effect as a marker of speaker continuation. But discovering which ideas are coordinated by and, which action are continued, required looking into the content and structure which tell us what idea units, are being marked by and.

The second item of connective marker is but. Although but is a discourse coordinator (like and), it has a very pragmatic effect: but marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action, because this effect is based on its contrastive meaning, the range of ideational uses of but is considerably narrower that that of and, for examples:

(5) a. But, in my house, we were not taught liar. b. And he didn’t have a place to sleep.

c. Never did I ever say this girl is like this, that girl is like that.

d. It was prove for a fact that her uncle always did take care of his children.

e. She put her in her own house. f. So we were not liar.

This shows the contrast that becomes a new position, and evidence is presented to support his position. In (6), John shows or faced contrast with the tolerance provided the family.

(6) g. But, I went to my village.

(25)

This contrast explains the use of but in (g). The mentioning of hostility is also broader structural role in the argument: it provides an instance of support, and thus provides evidence for the main position of the argument. But marks both position and support in John’s argument. But it does so only when the content of those units contrast with prior ideas: but in (a) contrast the tolerance faced by one group with the tolerance provided by that group; but in (g) marks both of these contrasts. But marks idea units which are functionally related-support, position, their functional relationship is less important than their contrastive contents in explaining the use of but.

The third item of connective marker is or. Or is used as an option marker in discourse. It differs from and and but not only in meaning, because it is move hearer-directed: whereas and marks a speaker’s continuation, and but a speaker’s return to a point, or marks a speaker’s provision of options to hearer. Or offers accepting only one member of disjunc or both members of a disjunct. Or provides idea options in argument-a mode of discourse whose organization has also revealed the use of and and but. Or is used in arguments primarily to mark different pieces of support as multiple evidence for a position. In (7), for example, Jack is arguing Hongkong movies never present a realistic view of life. He presents two examples to support his generalization about the lack of realism.

(7) Jack : i. I’m-I’m speaking how kind everybody is on the movie. j. Or uh …how’s poor working girl is out looking for a job.

There are two potential ways to interpret or in (7). First, we could say Jack is directing his hearers to choose one example, either example, but only one. This would mean that or is exlusive: only one member of the disjunct can hold.

(26)

This would mean that or is inclusive; either one member or both members of the disjunct can hold.

Or is also used to offer inclusive options, as a response to questions, for examples:

Ita : a. I’d like t’live in Jakarta. Wina : b. Who wouldn’t

Ita : c. I was up there with my husband last two weeks. There are many beautiful places there.

Wina : d. There are really beautiful.

Ita : e. Or I have a sister that lives up in eh: Bandung. Do you know it?

Wina : f. No. I’ve never gone there.

Ita : f. So, they have nice places, really beautiful places Or can also occur in a clarification. For examples:

Edy : a. If I had a girl friend

b.I’d never let her go out to somewhere alone. Evi : c. Y’think it’s too uh…

Edy : d. I would never let her t- e. No no no. Its very good idea

f. But I or I would never let my sister to go out to somewhere alone either

g. I think its too-it’s too dangerous for them. h. I think that they should be with their friends.

(27)

Or is also used in offering inclusive options to hearer in disagreement. For example:

Diana : a. Yeh, but wait; it doesn’t mean because they’re got the same religion, they’re-they’re bad.

b. Or if they are of your religion that things are gonna work out well.

c. It’s the person… too. d. So it takes both.

Or is used as an option for a marker in discourse: it provides with a choice between accepting only one member of disjunct or both members of disjunct. Thus, or is fundamentally different from and and but because it is not a marker of a speaker’s action toward his own talk, but of a speaker’s desire for a hearer to take action.

More specifically, or represents a speaker’s effort to elicit from a hearer a stance toward an ideas unit, or to gain a response of some kind, or thus prompts the exchange the status quo, and but returns it to a prior state.

4) Markers of Cause and Result

Another different set of markers are so and because. They are called markers of cause and result. Like and, but, and or, so and because have grammatical properties which contribute to their discourse use. So and because are grammatical signals of main or subordinate clauses respectively, and this grammatical difference is reflected in their discourse use: because is a marker of subordinate idea units, and so is a complementary marker of main idea units. It is important to define ‘subordinate’ and ‘main’ in discourse. Such designations

(28)

depend on both the functional and referential organization of talk. From a functional perspective, subordinate material is that which has a secondary role in relation to a more encompassing focus of joint attention and activity. From a referential perspective, subordinate material is that which is not as relevant in and of it, as it is to a more global topic of talk. For example, so and because may show a fairly clear differentiation of main by from subordinate material. In the following examples, Defy is explaining why she and Fajar are not going to see their daughter that evening.

Defy : a. Well, we were going up t’see uh…my- our daughter tonight. b. But we’re not

c. Cause the younger one’s gonna come for dinner. d. Cause he’s working in the neighborhood.

e. So that’s out.

The event being explained is in (b): we’re not. The first reason is in (c) and a reason for that reason is in (d). Thus, Defy uses cause to progressively embedded reason in her explanation.

Because and so have semantic meaning which are realized at both sentence and discourse levels: because conveys a meaning of ‘cause’ and so conveys meaning a ‘result’. These meanings appear on three of planes of discourse: ideational structure, information state and actions.

Because and so can mark fact-based cause and result relations at both local and global levels of discourse. (1) Illustrates so at both levels.

(1) a. So, her mother wouldn’t let her go to there anymore. b. And she tried to get another jobs and she couldn’t

(29)

The event in (a) resulted from the prior story events; thus, so functions globally over a wide range of talk.

Both because and so are use used to mark convergent portions of an explanation and an answer. For examples:

Ira : a. Susi goes with me a lot

b. Cause she has more patience…with my son I do c. So, sometimes we go shopping together with my son.

It is important to note down that so is used at potential transition locations in talk-when speakers offer hearer a turn at talk, a chance to complete an incomplete proposition by answering a question, an opportunity to change topic.

Because and so convey meanings of cause and result which may be realized as fact-based, knowledge-based and/or action based relations between units of talk. Like the other markers considered so far, so and because work at both local and global levels of talk. At local level, so and because allow two ordering options which are thematically constrained by surrounding discourse. Like and, but, and or, so and because are used in discourse in ways which reflect their linguistic properties.

5) Markers of Temporal: Now and Then

Deictic elements relate an utterance to its person, space and time coordinates. Now and then are time deictics because they convey a relationship between time at which a proposition is assumed to be true and the time at which it is presented in an utterance. In other words, now and then are deictic because their meaning depends on a parameter of the speech situation (time of speaking).

(30)

Now occurs in discourse in which the speaker progresses through a cumulative series of subordinate unit. The discourse in which now occurs need not be explicitly structured or identified as having two subordinate units. Now occurs not only when the comparison is explicitly identified as having two clearly introduced subtopics, but also when the subtopics under comparison are only implicit. For example:

Tony: a. They aren’t brought up the same way. b.Now Italian people are very outgoing. c.They’re very generous.

d.When they put a meal on the table it’s a meal. e.Now, these boys were Irish.

f.They lived different.

Tony is comparing the childbearing practices of Italians and Irish. This comparison is explicitly introduced in (a). Following the introduction of the comparison, Tony uses now to introduce both subtopics: Italians (b) and Irish (e).

Now also occurs with an opinion about a disputable topic. It is displaying the speaker’s recognition of interpersonal differences about that topic. For example: Sally has asked Zelda how she feels about intermarriage.

a. Well …it is all depend on um..

b. Now my husband believes in eh marrying in his own religion. c. And he tried to stress it with the boys.

After introducing a comparison (a), Zelda prefaces her husband Henry’s position with now. She then continues with her own opinion.

(31)

Now shows a speaker’s progression through the discourse time of a comparison a discourse which is comprised of a cumulative series of subtopic. In all the comparisons, however, now has the same function. It displays that what is coming next in the discourse is but a subpart of a larger cumulative structure, and thus has to be interpreted as a subordinate unit in relation to a progression of such units. In short, now marks the speaker’s orderly progression in discourse time through a sequence of subparts.

Then indicates temporal succession between prior and upcoming talk. For example: Sari is answering Tina’s question about where she has lived:

a. And…I lived there until I got married. b. And then, for about two years after then c. So: uh, and then we moved here.

d. We’ve been living here for about twelve years.

In (b), then indicates both coterminous and successive event time: initial then marks the two years time period following Sari’s marriage (a) and final then marks the time period co-occurring with the time of the marriage.

Then marks successive subtopics in list. For example: Irene is answering Lely’s questions about her bowling team.

Lely : How many people are in the team? Irene : Four

Lely : So, it’s just the two of you and … Irene : The two couples, yeh…

(32)

The overall topic of Irene’s answer is the membership of the bowling teams. Her two subtopics are the members of each team: first, the two couples and second, the kids. Her answer lists the two teams.

Then indicates temporal succession between prior and upcoming talk. Its main difference from now is the direction of the discourse which it marks: now points forward in discourse time and then points backward. Another difference is that now focuses on how the speaker’s own discourse follows the speaker’s own prior talk; then, on the other hand, focuses on how the speaker’s discourse follows either party’s prior talk.

6) Markers of Information and Participation

The last markers whose literal meanings directly influence their discourse use are y’know and I mean. Y’know marks transition in information state are relevant for participant framework, and I mean marks speakers orientation toward own talk i.e. modification of idea and intention. Both markers also have the uses which are less directly related to their literal meanings: y’know gains attention from the hearer to open an interactive focus on speaker-provided information and I mean maintains attention on the speaker. These both markers are called information and participant.

Y’know functions as the first information and participant marker. The literal meaning of expression you know suggests the function of y’know in information status. You is a second pronoun and it is also used as an indefinite general pronoun similar to one. Know refers to the cognitive state in which one has the information about something.

(33)

For examples:

Mark : a. And when you’re resentful, you’re ang-

b. In other words…you are angry because you are resentful c. In other words you are like stupid person

d. Like this…y’know what stupid person is?

Defy : e. umhmmm

Mark : f. Stupid person is person can not do anything.

In (d) Mark tries to illustrate his point by mentioning a stupid person, but because he can not be sure that Defy knows about stupid person, he checks her knowledge with y’know what stupid person is? Since Defy knows about stupid person and that the relationship to her is being resentful, Mark tries to continue his description in (f). Thus, this illustrates the transition from situation (b), in which the speaker does not know that the hearer has knowledge to situation (a0, in which speaker/hearer shared knowledge is openly situated.

Y’know also occurs when a hearer is invited to share in the information transfer being accomplished through narrative discourse. The interaction effect of y’know in narratives differs however, because y’know enlists the hearer not just as an information recipient, but as a particular kind of participant to the story telling (an audience).

This function is suggested by the fact that y’know has two primary locations in narratives: with the events which are internally evaluative of the story’s point, and with external evaluation of the narrative point.

(34)

For examples:

Henry : a. And I was working very hard

b. And I told him, I said I must save money t’send my children t’college.

c. Y’know what he told me for an answer?

d. He says, “Henry, children find their own ways t’go t’college if they want to

e. He says, “They make better children!

By the example, Henry illustrates y’know with an internal evaluation. It is the end of retelling Henry’s conversation with a wealthy man. Henry has previously made the point that by giving the children too much money it is a kind of giving them poison, and the story reiterates that point. Y’know in (c) prefaces the reported speech in (d) and (e) which conveys the story’s point: children should not be spoiled.

Y’know helps creating a particular kind of exchange structure. Y’know displays the speaker as one whose role as the information provider is contingent upon the hearer reception.

The second information and participant marker is I mean. I mean functions within the participant framework of talk. I mean marks the speaker attention to two aspects of the meaning of talk: ideas and intentions. For examples:

Maya : a. But I think umm 12 years from now. b. It’s going to be much more democratic. c. I could see it in my country.

(35)

d. I mean, when I was born in Indonesia, there were about 30 percent who demanded a more democratic country.

e. And today eh..uh..sixth percent, of the people are demanding a more democratic country.

Another sense of ‘mean’ is the speaker intention. Meaning and I mean both preface explanation of intention, particularly when the intended force of an action is deemed to have been missed by a recipient, e.g. because it is too indirect for appropriate uptake. For examples:

Tina : a. But, the last time they were around she wasn’t there. b. And they were kidding him.

c. They said, “Where’s your wife? d. Meaning, is she running round now. e. Y’know sorta teasing him.

Tina uses meaning in (d) to preface an explanation of the quoted speaker’s indirectly conveyed intentions in (a). Compare with another example below that Tina is describing how Henry proposed marriage to her.

Tina : a. He says, “Oh, I wish you could come with me!” b. And I said-I was very pro-proper and prim! c. And I said, “Oh, I couldn’t go away with you.” d. And he says, “ I mean let’s get married!” e. And I said, Oh okay!

Here, it is Tina’s I mean in (d) which prefaces an explanation of Henry’s indirect proposal in (a). Thus, again we see that the predicate ‘mean’ has parallel

(36)

uses in two different expressions: both meaning and I mean preface explanation of the speaker intention.

The two examples above focus on only one aspect of speaker intention: intended action. Another aspect of speaker intention is the tone which a speaker intends an utterance to be interpreted.

There are some reasons for having considered y’know and I mean together. First, the semantic meaning of y’know and I mean influence the discourse functions of both markers: y’know marks interactive transitions in shared knowledge, and I mean marks the speaker’s orientation toward the meaning of own talk.

Second, the functions of I mean and y’know are complementary; whereas I mean focuses on the speaker’s own adjustments in the production of his or her own talk, y’know proposes that a hearer adjusts his/her orientation toward the reception of another’s talk.

Third, whereas y’know works basically within the formation of state of talk, with secondary effects on the participant framework, the functioning of I mean may be the reserve.

Fourth, the reason to have being considered y’know and I mean together is that both are markers which are socially evaluated and negatively sanctioned.

So the analysis suggests a reason for such consideration. First, we have seen that y’know is used whenever the continuation of conversation hinges upon a hearer giving to the speaker something which is the exchange for the speaker’s talk.

(37)

Y’know can be interpreted as revealing a speaker’s dependence on other for his/her own talk, simultaneously forcing the hearer into a relationship of exchange and reciprocity. Second, we have seen that I mean focuses attention on the speaker’s own orientation to his/her own talk. I mean can be interpreted as displaying the speaker’s own involvement with his/her own talk.

In short, the use of both y’know and I mean could run counter to standard beliefs about the appropriate division of labor in conversation: use of y’know can be interpreted as overdependence on the hearer, and use of I mean can be interpreted as over involvement with itself.

2.3 RELEVANCE STUDY

In completing the writing this thesis, the writer has consulted some thesis and previous research findings. Those thesis and research findings help the writer to complete this thesis.

Chaume Frederic studies in University of Jaume, Castello, Spain has analyzed discourse markers. The title of the study is Discourse Markers in Audivisual Translating. The object of the study is movie Pulp Fiction. The result of the study is in the domain of audiovisual translating from English into Spanish, the particles now, oh, you know, I mean, you see, look are often omitted for the sake of brevity or for the meaningful and stroking presence of the parallel image. Their omission in the translation affects the balance between interpersonal meaning and semantic meaning.

(38)

Norrick Neal also has tried to analyze discourse markers which entitle Discourse Markers in Oral Narrative. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that well and but function as a special sort of discourse markers in oral narrative and that their function within the oral narrative context follow neither from their usual meanings nor from their usual discourse markers functions in other context. The analysis of well and but in oral narrative shows that discourse markers enjoy specialized functions in this particular type of discourse due to its highly coded sequentially and storytelling conventions.

Besides Chaume and Norrick, another research is Taboada Maite who studies in Simon Fraser University, Department of Linguistics. Taboada also has analyzed discourse markers. Its title is Discourse Markers as Signals (or not) of Rhetorical Relations. This study uses two different corpus studies: a study of conversations and a study of newspaper articles. The conclusion in both studies is that a high number of relations (between 60 and 70% of the total, on average) are not signaled. A comparison between the two corpora suggests that genre-specific factors may affect which relations are signaled and which are not.

Atmaja (2005) in his thesis A Study on Discourse Markers Found in Friend Season 1 Episode 1: A TV Show analyzes the data by using quantitative method. The result of this thesis is marker of information management (oh) is the most dominant kinds of discourse markers found in Friends Season 1 Episode 1: A TV Show.

The writer will use some references which are concerned with this topic to support this analysis. Since the analysis of this thesis talks about discourse markers, the reference is related to the topic.

(39)

The first book as reference is Discourse Markers by Deborah Schriffin(1987). Schriffin tries to discuss about several properties of discourse: discourse form structure, convey meaning, and accomplishes actions. It will become obvious that these properties concern slightly different aspects of discourse. The first two properties are largely concerned with discourse as extended sequences of smaller units, e.g. sentence, propositions, utterance. The third property is more concern with language. It is used within a social interaction, included in speaker not only of extended sequences, but their use of a single unit (e.g. an utterance within the social interaction)

The second book as reference is Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language by Michael Stubb(1983). In his book states that discourse analysis consists of attempts to study the organization of language above sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units such as conversation exchanges or written text. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language in use in social context and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers.

(40)

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

Nawawi states (1991: 61) states that method is a way which is conducted in order to reach the goal. In writing the thesis, the writer uses descriptive method. As what Saifuddin (1998:7) says “Penelitian deskriptif bertujuan menggambarkan secara sistematis and akurat fakta dan karakteristik mengenai populasi atua mengenai bidang tertentu.” (Descriptive research aims to describe systematically and accurate of fact and characteristic of concerning population or about the certain area). The writer describes the use of discourse marker in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

3.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

A population is a group of individuals persons, objects, or items from which samples are taken for measurement while a sample is a finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole (Webster, 2003: 966). The data in this analysis are text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches that the writer found from the internet accessed at http://www.presiden.go.id/index.php.eng/pidato/2007.html. There are 30 speeches of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The writer takes 5 speeches purposively as the sample related with foreign affairs. Arikunto says (2005:97) “Sampling bertujuan adalah teknik sampling yang digunakan oleh peneliti jika peneliti memiliki pertimbangan-pertimbangan tertentu di dalam pengambilan

(41)

sampelnya. (Purposive sampling is technique of sampling that is used by researcher when researcher has consideration in taking the sample). They are:

1. Speech by H. E Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President of Republic Indonesia at the ASEAN Forum: Rethinking ASEAN toward the ASEAN Community.

2. Speech by President of The Republic of Indonesia DR. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the Society Petroleum Engineering Asia Pasific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition 2007 (APOGCE 2007) on “Resource, Professionalism, Technology: Time to Deliver”

3. Speech by President of Republic of Indonesia at the Opening Ceremony of the 1st International Junior Olympiade (IJSO)

4. The Challenge of Security for the World Economy Addressed by His Excellency DR. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President of Republic Indonesia at the APEC CEO-SUMMIT.

5. Opening Remarks by President of the Republic of Indonesia at a Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation: Community Building and Harmony.

3.3 METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA

1. The written texts of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches are collected.

2. Read the speeches comprehensively

(42)

3.4METHOD OF ANALYZING DATA 1. Collecting the data

2. Identifying discourse markers in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches.

3. Classify discourse markers into 6 kinds of discourse markers and analyze the application of discourse marker in written text of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches based on Schriffin’s theory.

(43)

IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN WRITTEN TEXT OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S

SPEECHES

THE ANALYSIS OF DATA 1

SPEECH BY H. E SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO

PRESIDENT REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

AT THE ASEAN FORUM:

RETHINKING ASEAN TOWARDS THE ASEAN COMMUNITY.

[3] Let me therefore thank the ASEAN Foundation and the ASEAN Secretariat for organizing this Forum, which has given me a unique opportunity to share my thoughts with you on how ASEAN and its ongoing transformation.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinate in structure to some prior unit

And is a marker of current speaker’s continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as continuation of what had preceded.

[4] The theme “Rethinking ASEAN towards ASEAN Community 2015” is timely and fitting.

(44)

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[7] The Cold War was then at its height and the world had been carved into two hostile camps, with an “iron curtain” standing between them.

And groups specific events together in service of a more general point.

[11] SEATO was there, but it was just an anti-communist alliance that included non-regional powers among its members.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[12] Founded in 1971, the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), which would bring together the Malaysia and Thailand, died in its infancy.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[14] But it could not work either, since it was formed on the very eve of konfrontasi.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[15] Moreover, an open dispute was about to break out between Malaysia and the Philippines on the issue of Sabah.

(45)

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[18] The Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore had to go on retreat on a beach resort in Thailand to carry out the seemingly impossible task: devising an organization that had any chance of staying together in the midst of such turbulence.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[19] But they managed it.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[20] And forty years ago almost to the day, ASEAN was born by virtue of the Bangkok Declaration.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[21] It was, of course, born for a purpose—and that was for the member nations and their regional neighbours to survive in the harsh geopolitical and economic environment of the time.

(46)

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[23] And they had to acquire collective regional resilience by cultivating the habits of consultation, consensus and cooperation.

And groups specific events together in service of a more general point.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[24] Moreover they had to engage non-regional powers and other regions in mutually beneficial cooperation.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[25] ASEAN pursued all of these activities with faith and determination in all of four decades, during which Southeast Asia and the rest of the world underwent profound change.

(47)

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[26] ASEAN also changed but not in a passive way.

But prefaces a remark which disagrees with the prior remark.

[27] Through intensive internal cooperation and engagement with other countries and regions, ASEAN changed its environment as much as it was changed by that environment.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[28] Today the Cold War is but a fading memory.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

[30] All the countries of Southeast Asia are at peace with one another and with the world.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

(48)

[31] Moreover, the ASEAN region is now a free trade area—where intra-regional trade has been growing by leaps and bounds since AFTA was established in 2002.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[32] As early as 1976, ASEAN adopted the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia, which serves as a code of conduct governing relations among ASEAN members and between ASEAN and external powers.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[33] Most of ASEAN’s Dialogue Partners, countries with which it has cooperative arrangements, have either acceded or decided to accede to the Treaty.

Or marks a speaker’s provision of options to a hearer; or provides hearer a two- way choice between accepting only one members of disjunction or both members of a disjunction.

(49)

[34] In 1994, we established the ASEAN Regional Forum for consultation and dialogue on security matters, and for the promotion of confidence building measures, preventive diplomacy and, eventually, conflict resolution.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[39] The East Asia Summit (EAS), launched in 2005, brings together 16 countries of an East Asia that has been redefined no longer as a strictly geographic entity but as a group of countries on this side of the world, with long-established habits of consultation and cooperation, and a sense of common destiny.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[40] These three processes need ASEAN to be in the driver’s seat because, in the first place, it is ASEAN that gives them political cohesion.

Because initiates the explanatory unit of reason.

[42] In the second place, ASEAN needs to be in the driver’s seat because these engagements must contribute to the success of ASEAN integration even

(50)

while ASEAN itself contributes to the eventual integration of East Asia and even the Asia-Pacific region.

Because initiates the explanatory unit of reason.

[43] In 2003 ASEAN Leaders, at the ninth summit in Bali, adopted the second Declaration of ASEAN Concord that mandated the establishment of an ASEAN Community, which would rest on three pillars: an ASEAN Security Community, an ASEAN Economic Community and an ASEAN Sociocultural Community.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

[45] The attainment of the envisioned ASEAN Community would constitute the ultimate integration of ASEAN and the firmest guarantee that in a world of deepening globalization, ASEAN would never be marginalized.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[46] ASEAN would be a more effective player and contribute more to the cause of security, prosperity and social harmony at the regional and global levels.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

(51)

[47] But such an intensive process of integration would be extremely difficult and slow if ASEAN remained the loose and largely informal regional organization that it is today.

But marks an upcoming unit as a contrasting action.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[48] That is why at the ASEAN Summit of 2005 we decided to write and adopt what will serve as a constitution—an ASEAN Charter.

And is a marker of current speaker continuation; and marks a speaker’s definition of what is being said as a continuation of what had preceded.

[50] It will also imbue ASEAN with a new sense of purpose, reaffirm and codify the key objectives and principles of ASEAN, strengthen its organization and its institutions, and enable the less developed members to catch up with the others.

And is a discourse coordinator; the presence of and signals the speaker’s identification of an upcoming unit which is coordinates in structure to some prior unit.

(1)

[9] A conducive environment means the maintenance of security at all levels-national, regional and international.

[10] A conducive environment demands a healthy climate for investment and trade. [11] We all want our productive forces to inter-connect, grow and expand, so that incomes of our citizens can also grow.

[12] And a conducive environment requires a secure and efficient flow of goods, people and services within and across borders.

[13] The problem is that, for now and the foreseeable future, our economies must function in an international system which is fraught with threats and turbulences.

[14] Terrorist groups continue to prey on our economies, seeking to strike a damaging blow to us with minimal resources.

[15] Non-traditional security threats are becoming prominent.

[16] Trans-national crimes are growing all its aspects, from narcotics trafficking to money laundering, people smuggling to illegal logging.

[17] This is compounded by the increasing disparity between the haves and the have-nots, between developed and developing countries.

[18] And the specter of conflicts, be they old and new conflicts, inter-state conflicts or intra-state conflicts, continue to cast a worrying shadow over us.

[19] The sum of all this is an unsettling sense of global insecurity. [20] Yes, some of us can talk proudly of successful elections, or of great military victories, or about phenomenal rises in GDP, or about export growth, or about expanding and integrating markets, or about outstanding human development index. [21] Still, these things do not erase an uneasy feeling which many of us feel about the present and future state of international and national security.

[22] We see this unsettling sense of global insecurity in many developing countries, which are falling farther behind the develop countries. [23] We detect this jitteriness in many developed countries, which are becoming increasingly worried about public security and terrorist threats. [24] We notice it in the restlessness felt throughout the Islamic world. [25] We see it being reflected in the travel warnings to many nations across the globe. [26] We see it in the rising flow of illegal migrants between borders. [27] And we feel it in the phenomenal rise in the price of oil recently.

[28]This situation of presents great challenges for the world economy in a variety of ways. [29] Allow me to highlight at least 6 security challenges for the world economy which in my view require the attention of policy makers and business leaders.

[30] First, is the challenge of striking a satisfactory balance between security concerns and open trade? [31] Our economic infrastructure needs to be guarded and well-protected against terrorist attacks but not at a cost or burden to business in such a way that trade flows will cease to exist. [32] It is not an easy matter to balance the need for increased security and our goals to reduce transaction cost in the APEC region by 5% by the year 2006.

[33] Second, is the challenge of building a greater resilience? [34] The economies of the world must develop a capacity to withstand the devastating effect of terrorist attacks and rebound quickly.

[35] In the last 3 years, we in Indonesia were hit by 3 major bomb attacks : the Bali bomb in 2002, the Jakarta Marriott bomb in 2003, and the Kuningan bomb this year. [36] All of them were devastating—the worst being the Bali bomb which killed over 200 people of various nationalities. [37] But we recovered much better after each attack. [38] And for each attack, it took less effort to rebound than the previous one. [39] Look at our political stability, our stock market, our exchange rate, tourism industry, flow of travel, and the economy in general. [40] All indices bounced back much more quickly following each terrorist strike.

[41] Ultimately, resilience is the responsibility of each Government. [42] But any country experiencing distress will still need a helping hand from its international friends. [43] Gestures of support and solidarity can go a long way in strengthening resilience. [44] Hard working

(2)

Indonesians in the service industry have complained that the travel warnings on Indonesia badly hurt their livelihood, and many of them think they are being unfairly, though unintentionally, punished for what the terrorist are doing. [45] But we were also touched by the sympathetic gesture of a number of foreign residents who decided to stay in my country no matter what. [46] That display of solidarity is not only appreciated by Indonesians, it also send a strong signal to terrorist that they will not scare us into changing our way of life.

[47] The third challenge is evolving the right kind of security cooperation.

[48] While terrorism has been around for a long time, fighting modern-day terrorists today is a new experience for all of us. [49] To deal with it, we need to change the way we think about national and international security. [50] During the Cold War, governments ensured their national security by keeping intelligence from each other. [51] In the 911, Bali, post-Riyadh, post-Madrid world, we can ensure our security only by sharing our intelligence with one another. [52] To fight terrorists who ignore borders, Governments must evolve a different security culture. [53] Our police, intelligence, immigrant officials must be able to work together extensively. [54] The community of nations must evolve a new global security culture where the norm is for all law enforcement agencies to cooperate with one another. [55] This is what Indonesia and Australia did when we co-sponsored a number of regional conferences on people’s smuggling, money laundering and counterterrorism.

[56] Forth, is the challenge of promoting security for all?

[57] Security can sometimes be a zero sum game, but it does not always have to be that way. [58] Governments must take care to ensure that its quest for security does not lead to the insecurity of others. [59] On the contrary, we must strive to achieve an international condition where the enhancement of one’s security also leads to the security of others.

[60] No one country can achieve security by locking itself and insulating others. [61] Just like we cannot have a world where prosperity is segregated, nor can we have a community of nations where security is enjoyed only by some. [62] The world economy must spread prosperity and security for all.

[63] Promoting “security for all” has a deeper dimension: that is, security for individuals. [64] Government must ensure not just security of the state but also human security, that is, the safety of individuals within the state. [65] It is not sufficient that the state is secure if some of its citizens insecure, unsafe, and unprotected.

[66] Fifth, is the challenge of promoting greater inter-changes and openness. [67] Of course, in this uncertain and dangerous world, there is a definite need to control access into one’s borders. [68] But if we seriously intend to unite the world in peae and progress, we will need more, not less, inter-changes across borders and oceans. [69] We need to exchange our students, our teachers, our business actors, our artist, our religious figures, our politicians, our NGOs, our tourists, our citizens. [70] We need to keep the gates closed for criminals and terrorists, but we need to keep it wide open for the creative and productive forces of society.

[71] The world economy must therefore ensure, for its own good, that measures to promote greater security also produce greater inter-changes between the people of the world.

[72] The sixth challenge is promoting tolerance building. [73] In this restless world where the factors of ethnicity and religion are becoming more prominent, we have to redefine the concept of “security” and the concept of “development” so as to include tolerance and building.

[74] Yes, it is important to promote and defend freedom. [75] But in my view it is even more important to promote tolerance, for without it freedom can become twisted and warped. [76] Many problems of security can be traced to ignorance and a lack of tolerance. [77] A more tolerant society is often more secure, and thereby more free and able to pursue their development goals. [78] This is why Indonesia and Australia are jointly sponsoring an inter-faith dialogue next month in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to facilitate a constructive discourse between religious leaders from various countries.

(3)

[79] I have explained what I think are the security challenges for the world economy. [80] Yet, at this CEO Summit, what I am really interested in is the question of what business leader--that is, all of you--can do to promote a more peaceful world.

[81] Here is how I believe the movers and shakers of the business world can do their part to help our mutual goal of strengthening security and prosperity.

[82] First, you can help the world deal with globalization better. [83] As the engine of this globalized world, the business community can help us better understand, accept and embrace globalization.

[84] You can help us preventing globalization from becoming something that divides, marginalizes and de-humanizes.

[85] You can help see to it that globalization does not pit us into conflict, but instead can become a tool for empowerment: empowerment of the poor, empowerment of local communities, empowerment of minority groups.

[86] You can help turn globalization into a positive force, one that can bring governments and business to join hands rather than to confront one another.

[87] By doing this, you will help the world tackle the root causes of terrorism, which often take the forms of poverty, alienation, ignorance and injustice.

[88] How do you do this? Well, you can start, as the saying goes, by “walking the talk”. [89] That means developing good corporate social responsibility. [90] For trust to develop between business and local, if not global, communities, there must be a mutually reciprocal relationship. [91] The community must feel that commercial entities give back as much as they take, and help them in their time of need. [92] This can mean lending a hand to educational programs or making sure that your enterprise does not endanger the environmental health of the community. [93] Paying attention to your community’s well-being can simply mean the difference between conflict and harmony.

[94] Corporations can also be more generous in sharing their technology. [95] Part of the discontent with globalization stems from a sense of inequity, exploitation, and a growing social gap. [96] Almost half of the world’s population lives on less thant $ 2 a day. [97] Amongst many of these communities, almost half of all their children are malnourished.

[98] Let’s reverse this deplorable statistic. [99] Let’s help the UN accomplish its mission of halving the numbers of people struggling on less than a dollar a day.

[100] Companies can do their part by closing the gap, in concrete terms, sharing some of the knowledge that has led them to good fortune. [101] Much of this technology-be it hardware or software does eventually become common knowledge anyway, adopted by the mainstream. [102] Bringing about this learning curve earlier to local communities can prompt a reserve of goodwill that is immeasurable in terms of numbers.

[103] If you want your investment to serve you well, you must also invest in people. [104] You must help communities boost their human resources, providing training programs, scholarships and other educational opportunities. [105] You must address the public’s perception that globalization is turning societies into unskilled labor forces. [106] You must convince them that a more educated and skilled workforce is as much your objective as it is theirs.

[107] Corporations are regarded by most of the population as a wellspring of wealth. [108] Hence it is your responsibility to transform this perceived “plenty” into “opportunity” for those around you. [109] Corporations are in a strategic place to bridge this great divide between poverty and prosperity make the most of that opportunity and you may just see this prosperity become even greater.

[110] So this is my message to all of you: let us join hands, let us partner with one another-governments hand in hand with the private sector to promote security and prosperity.

[111] Let us do our best to think of and realize solutions that will make our families safer, our economies prosper and our countries secure. Thank you and God bless you.

(4)

DATA 5

OPENING REMARKS

BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AT A DIALOGUE ON INTERFAITH COOPERATION:

COMMUNITY BUILDING AND HARMONY

Excellencies,

Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,

[1] It is an honour and privilege for me to address this unique and special forum.

[2] It is a forum which serves as a communion of people of faith, who are engaged in an important process of dialogue and sharing to chart the way forward to community building and harmony.

[3] Let me commend both the Government of Australia and the Muhammadiyah for working closely with the Government of Indonesia through our Department of Foreign Affairs in bringing to reality this dialogue.

[4] I am particularly delighted that Australia and Indonesia are, once more, working intensively to promote the security and stability of our region.

[5] The Muhammadiyah has for many years now served as a forceful voice of mainstream and moderate, intellectual Islam. [6] As such, it is a very credible advocate of Islam as “Rahmatan al Alamin,” or God’s mercy upon a troubled world. [7] The Muhammadiyah is certainly a natural partner to any endeavour at any dialogue between and among the religions of the world.

[8] I am heartened to see so many faiths and religious traditions represented in this gathering. [9] Through we hold various religious beliefs and live by different faith traditional, we are all united here by a common faith in the power of dialogue and cooperation in an atmosphere of mutual trust and acceptance.

[10] Our coming together here is an affirmation of our common humanity. [11] In a dialogue like this, there is no need for anyone to give up or defend his religious convictions. [12] There is no need for anyone to surrender the uniqueness of his faith. [13] Instead, this dialogue recognizes and affirms the wisdom of casting aside prejudices and enmities.

[14] This inter-faith dialogue that you are embarking on is particularly significant against the backdrop of a volatile world that we live in. [15] It is an unsettling world still punctured in some areas by ethnic and religious tensions, by communal violence, by prejudice, by misunderstanding and miscommunication.

[16] And when ethnic and religious prejudice is compounded by economic and political rivalries as well as by mutual grievances deemed unforgivable, the resulting situation can be explosive.

[17] The solution is not to deny that there are differences between people—nothing can be gained by such denial or reality. [18] Pluralism is a fact of life not only between adherents of different religions, but often also between groups within the same religion.

[19] Instead, the course that we should take is to affirm a deeper, greater and more important reality –and that is our common humanity. [20] We are all children of the same providence on a journey to the same destiny.

(5)

[21] Therefore, within the fold of humankind, there is a place for everyone. [22] The things that make us different from one another can be regarded as assets that can be pooled in order to achieve a common purpose.

[23] This idea of variety within a unity is especially meaningful to us Indonesians, who live by our national motto “Bhinneka tunggal ika” -- we are many but we are one.

[24] We are all here today because we believe in tolerance as an imperative to human and social development.

[25] We all know that tolerance does not easily and naturally happen. [26] It has to be deliberately cultivated and nurtured so that it becomes an important part of the framework of society.

[27] Tolerance cannot grow on the soil of ignorance. [28] That makes education equally an imperative. [29] In Indonesia, therefore, students have to take courses in religion from primary to university level. [30] They must have sufficient knowledge not only about their respective religions but also about other religions.

[31] Moreover, our Constitution provides that it is the obligation of the state to promote the religious life of the people. [32] Hence, Indonesia is not a secular state in the Western tradition. [33] For us, a harmonious relationship among religions must be nurtured, as it is one of the most important building blocks in the process of our national development.

[34] We must not look at development as purely economic process. [35] It has a very broad sociocultural and spiritual aspect. [36] We must not be merely concerned with lifting people from their provery. [37] We must also redeem them form narrow-mindedness, from prejudice and intolerance, and from the poverty of their spirit and their ideas. [38] Tolerance-building is very much part of development.

[39] Apart from the issues of prejudice and intolerance, a number of other intractable problems also demand to be addressed by a dialogue like this. [40] These include the tensions, conflicts and acts of violence that all together deprive humankind the peace and security that it longs for.

[41] And there is one exceedingly heinous form of violence that we must grapple with, and that is the scourge of terrorism.

[42] To my mind terrorism today must be regarded as the enemy of all religions.

[43] Terrorist are well organized, well funded and are highly skilled in sowing mayhem and fear through the slaughter of innocents. [44] They never operate in a social vacuum; they establish safe havens and bases of operations among the people. [45] There, they fan the flames of real or imagined grievances and pass themselves off as champions of the downtrodden.

[46] On the other hand, people of faith like you are committed to bring enlightenment and the most positive human values like tolerance and compassion to wherever hatred and prejudice rear their ugly heads.

[47] People of faith like you have the responsibility to bring your message of truth, unity and hope deep into grassroots of society. [48] And that message will resonate strongly among peace-loving people at all levels.

[49] In the end, the forces of light, reason and hope must overpower the forces of darkness, despair and violence.

[50] And indeed, a commitment to and a preoccupation with community building can be one of the most effective antidotes to the culture of violence and destruction that terrorists promote and practice.

[51] One of the great attractions of becoming a community is the feeling of security that it generates.

[52] In a community, there are no masks: members communicate frankly and honestly with one another. [53] More than just toleration one another, they rejoice together and grieve together, according to their fortunes and misfortunes. [54] Above all, they are responsible to and for one another. [55] That is what makes the community so effective and progressive.

(6)

[56] And the people most qualified to lead in the building of communities are the people of faith, such as yourselves, whose life’s calling is to spread and foster enlightenment and humanitarian values.

[57] You have a wide agenda in this dialogue, but it is my fervent hope that in the course of your discussion, the beginnings of some practical strategies for building true communities at the grassroots level will come to the surface.

[58] It is also my hope that you will be able to move toward the establishment of a permanent forum for the exchange of ideas and insights to help us understand and effectively deal with the fundamental problems of the human condition in our time. [59] At any rate, I trust that this dialogue will be the beginning of a truly meaningful engagement that will include many more nations, apart from the 14 already represented here.

The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

Pragmatics Analysis In Humorous Text In Reader’s Digest Magazine

Evaluation of WHO Criteria to Determine Degree of Dehydration in Children with Acute Diarrhea

A Contrastive Analysis Of Prefixes In English And Pakpak Dairi Language

THE CONTROVERSY OF RICE IMPORT POLICY IN THE ERA OF SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S GOVERNMENT

DEIXIS IN INAUGURATION SPEECH OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO.

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

AN ANALYSIS OF MAXIMS IN SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S POLITICAL SPEECHES A THESIS BY MESTIKA PASARIBU

Dukungan

Links

The Use Of Discourse Marker In Written Text Of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Speeches

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

Pragmatics Analysis In Humorous Text In Reader’s Digest Magazine

Evaluation of WHO Criteria to Determine Degree of Dehydration in Children with Acute Diarrhea

A Contrastive Analysis Of Prefixes In English And Pakpak Dairi Language

THE CONTROVERSY OF RICE IMPORT POLICY IN THE ERA OF SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S GOVERNMENT

DEIXIS IN INAUGURATION SPEECH OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO.

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

An Analysis of Maxims in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Political Speeches

AN ANALYSIS OF MAXIMS IN SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO’S POLITICAL SPEECHES A THESIS BY MESTIKA PASARIBU

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan