Text Analysis of The Representation of The United Nations in Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech.
ii Maranatha Christian University
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS……….. ……….ii
ABSTRACT ... iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 4
1.3 The Purpose of the Study ... 4
1.4 Methods of Research ... 5
1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 5
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 6
2.1 The Macro Level Analysis ... 7
2.2 The Meso Level Analysis ... 7
2.3 The Micro Level Analysis ... 7
2.3.1 The Macrostructure ... 8
2.3.2 The Microstructures ... 9
2.3.3 Superstructures (Schemata) ... 12
CHAPTER THREE: TEXT ANALYSIS OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN BENJAMIN NETANYAHU’S SPEECH ... 14
3.1 Macrostructure Analysis... 14
3.2 Microstructure Analysis ... 18
3.2.1 Lexicon ... 18
3.2.1.1 The UN Delegations’ Attitudes in Responding to the President of Iran’s Speech ... 19
(2)
iii Maranatha Christian University 3.2.2 Sentence Syntax: Active Sentences to Emphasize Negative Deeds of the
UN delegations ... 27
3.2.3 Interactions ... 30
3.3 Superstructure Analysis ... 36
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 52
(3)
iv Maranatha Christian University
ABSTRACT
Dalam Tugas Akhir ini, saya membahas representasi negatif PBB dalam sebuah pidato yang disampaikan oleh Benjamin Netanyahu, Perdana Menteri Israel, di hadapan delegasi PBB pada tanggal 24 September 2009 dalam acara ulang tahun
General Embassy PBB.
Dalam Tugas Akhir ini, saya akan membahas analisis wacana kritis dengan menggunakan teori van Dijk. Di dalam teori tersebut, disebutkan bahwa untuk mendapat analisis wacana kritis yang utuh, terdapat tiga tataran yang harus diperiksa, yaitu tataran makro, meso dan mikro. Saya hanya menganalisis tataran mikro saja karena berbagai keterbatasan. Tataran mikro akan dibagi dalam tiga analisis yaitu analisis makrostruktur, superstruktur, dan mikrostruktur.
Setelah dianalisis, berdasarkan analisis makrostruktur, saya menemukan bahwa PBB direpresentasikan secara negatif. Berdasarkan analisis superstruktur, dapat dilihat bahwa Netanyahu merepresentasikan PBB secara negatif dengan menggunakan pola gaya argumentasi yang berbeda dari gaya konvensional. Representasi negatif tersebut juga dapat dilihat dari pola argumen yang dipakai oleh
(4)
v Maranatha Christian University Netanyahu. Dari analisis mikrostruktur, khususnya melalui stilistika dan sintaksis, diperoleh hasil bahwa Netanyahu memberikan representasi negatif tentang PBB.
(5)
55
APPENDICES
The speech by The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu to the UN delegations.
24 September 2009
<http://www.haaretz.com/news/prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-s-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-1.7254>
1. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
2. Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.
3. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
4. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.
5. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium,
(6)
56
spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
6. Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews.
7. Is this a lie?
8. A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?
9. This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?
10.And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
11.Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I
(7)
57
commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
12.But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
13.A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.
14.What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!
15.Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.
16.History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.
17.This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.
18.In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.
19.Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.
(8)
58
20.It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.
21.The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.
22.It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.
23.What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.
24.I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.
25.But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.
(9)
59
26.The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?
27.Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?
28.Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?
29.The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side? 30.Ladies and Gentlemen,
31.The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted. 32.For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars
and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing? Absolutely nothing?
(10)
60
From the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
33.In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
34.Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians? Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
35.That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.
36.We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never
(11)
61
has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.
37.Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
38.By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.
39.Delegates of the United Nations, 40.Will you accept this farce?
41.Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.
42.If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.
43.When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?
(12)
62
44.The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us? My people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!
45.Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?
46.We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
47.Ladies and Gentlemen, 48.All of Israel wants peace.
49.Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples, a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation
(13)
63
state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.
50.Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.
51.We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity. But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.
52.That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.
53.We want peace.
54.I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
55.Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.
(14)
64
56.Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."
57.I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. 58.In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let
us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.
Table 1. Data of lexicon about The UN delegations’ attitudes in responding to the President of Iran’s speech
NO
The UN delegations’ attitudes
in responding to the President of Iran’s speech
1.
(12) But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
2.
(14) What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!
3.
(15) Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.
(15)
65
Table 2. Data of Lexicon about The UN delegations’ attitudes in the Gaza affair
NO The UN delegations’ attitudes in the Gaza affair
1.
(31) The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.
2.
(31) That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating
the terrorists with those they targeted.
3.
(32) We heard nothing? Absolutely nothing? From the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
4. (33) Again, the UN was silent.
5.
(37) Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
6.
(38) By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals.
7. (38) What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice. 8. (44) What a travesty!
(16)
66 Table 4. Data of Active Sentences
No Sentence Actor
1. …, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place... (paragraph 13)
You = the UN delegations
2. …, some here have condemned their victims.(paragraph 31)
Some here = some of the UN delegations 3. …, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide
to condemn? Israel. (paragraph 37)
(+) the UN Human Rights Council decided to condemn Israel
The UN Human Rights Council
4. …, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. (paragraph 38)
The UN Human Rights Council
5. The same UN that cheered Israel … now accuses us? My people, my country - of war crimes? (paragraph 44)
(17)
67
Figure 1. The schematic structure of Netanyahu’s speech
Salutation (Paragraph 1)
Argument I: Iranian President’s Speech
(Paragraphs 2-15)
Argument IV: The Good Attitude of Israel (Paragraphs 48-51)
Argument III: The Gaza Affair (Paragraphs 31-46) Salutation (Paragraph 30)
Thesis statement:
The challenge to the UN to do some action to the Iranian regime. (Paragraphs 26-29)
Salutation (Paragraph 47)
Recommendation:
Some actions to be taken by the UN delegation about the Iranian regime (Paragraphs 52-58)
Argument II: The Threat of the Iranian Regime (Paragraphs 16-25)
(18)
68
Figure 2. The schematic points of argument I
The recognition of the Jews by the UN
(Paragraphs 2-3)
The purpose of the UN foundation (paragraph 4)
The speech by the President of Iran about the Holocaust
(Paragraphs 5-15)
The UN delegations’ attitudes to the speech by the President of Iran
- Bad attitude
(Paragraphs 11,13,14 and 15) - Good attitude
(Paragraph 12)
Real facts that Holocaust is not a lie
(Paragraphs 6-10) President of Iran has undermined the UN’s central
mission (Paragraph 5)
(19)
69
Figure 3. The schematic points of argument II
The threat of the Iranian regime
(Paragraphs 16-25)
The result of civilization: - From printing press to the PC to internet
- Humans will do a fast progress to improve their lives - Israel is the forefront of the many innovations
(Paragraphs 22-24) It is barbarism that pits
civilization (Paragraphs 20-21) The Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism
(paragraphs 16-19)
Iranian regime with its marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of
mass destruction is the greatest threat (Paragraph 25)
(20)
70
Figure 4. The schematic points of argument III
The bad attitude of the UN related to the Gaza
affair (Paragraphs 31-46)
The UN has given an unfair trial to boot and decided to
condemn Israel (Paragraph 37) The UN did nothing to the Hamas who has deliberately
missiled the Israelis cities for 8 years
(paragraphs 32-36) The UN has falsely equated the terrorists with
the target (Paragraph 31)
The UN has done a perversion of truth and
justice by its twisted standards (Paragraphs 38-46)
(21)
71
Figure 5. The schematic structure of argument IV
Figure 6. The Schematic Flow of the Arguments Presented in Netanyahu’s Speech
The response to the President of Iran's speech
The threat of the Iranian regime
The bad attitude of Gaza affair
The good attitude of Israel
The good attitude of Israel (Paragraphs 48-51)
Jerusalem is Israel’s homeland and Israel wants
to live peacefully with Palestinians (Paragraph 49) Israel always wants peace
with every country (Paragraphs 48-50)
(22)
72
Figure 7. The percentage of interactions about the UN
Accusing the UN 20%
Asking rhetorical questions
35% Attacking the UN
20% Praising some of the UN delegations
5% Reminding of the
UN foundation purpose
5%
Mocking the UN 15%
(23)
1 Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
In everyday life, to say whether a thing or a person is good or bad is expressed by giving our opinion or judgment about that particular thing or person. Yet, we will not convince others, especially those with opposite opinions to ours, that our opinion is right and reliable without being supported by some convincing facts and arguments. When we are trying to convince other persons to take our side, we should make a good argumentative discourse.
Making an argumentative discourse is not an easy task because we not only give information to the hearers but also present arguments about the particular subject we are discussing. We have to take a clear position and try to persuade the hearers to do things they do not want to do or to change the opinion they do not want to change. In short, we try to persuade our target hearers to do something according to our interest. That is exactly what the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, does in his argumentative speech in front of the United Nations, which is the data of this study. This speech was delivered on the 64th
(24)
2 Maranatha Christian University anniversary of the UN General Embassy, on September 24, 2009, the day after President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, delivered a speech about the Holocaust.
Globally speaking, in his speech, Netanyahu gives some arguments to the United Nations delegations about the negative things of the Iranian regime and the positive things of Israel so that the United Nations delegations will take some actions according to Netanyahu’s interest. Interestingly, Netanyahu also presents some negative judgments about the United Nations for the purpose of making them realize that they have been wrong all this time.
For the reason explained above, I finally decide to do a text analysis of Netanyahu’s speech. Text analysis is a subfield of Linguistics which is very useful and helpful to examine how language is arranged in a particular way to make the text meaningful and unified. Specifically, I am going to do a text analysis which is based on van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine whether Netanyahu gives a positive or negative representation of the United Nations. As van Dijk (263) states, in discourse analysis, there are two strategies used in order to justify the inequality between self and other, namely the positive self – representation (face-keeping) and the negative other – representation (derogation). van Dijk (354) also adds that in order to show which strategy(ies) is(are) used in a discourse, we can conduct three levels of analysis, namely the macro, meso and micro levels. In this thesis, I am going to analyze only the micro level analysis. This level constitutes the macrostructure, superstructure and microstructure analyses which deal with how language use, discourse, verbal interaction and communication are arranged in a particular way to give a certain presentation of a person or a thing.
(25)
3 Maranatha Christian University The topic of my thesis is “Text Analysis of the Representation of the United Nations in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech”. I choose to do a text analysis or the micro level analysis instead of the whole Critical Discourse Analysis because I only want to focus on the text itself so that my analysis will be more focused. In this micro level analysis, I will do three analyses, namely the macrostructure, microstructure and superstructure analyses. By doing the three analyses, I can make a very thorough and clear analysis because they help me to examine the text from various perspectives.
I decide to analyze the representation of the United Nations in my thesis. I am interested in the fact that Netanyahu in his speech challenges the United Nations to do something about the Iranian regime for the UN is an international legitimacy, whose main purpose is “to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security” (“The History of the United Nations”). At a glance, Netanyahu gives the impression that the United Nations has been wrong all this time for supporting the Iranian regime. For that reason, I want to know more how Netanyahu gives this representation of the United Nations in a more academic way. I choose to analyze a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu because he is known for his excellence in polishing and crafting good speeches by his own style and language characteristics (Avineri). I choose this particular speech because in this speech, the arguments given by Netanyahu are so clearly stated and interestingly organized, which makes the arguments in this speech undeniable for the hearers and worth studying for me as a researcher.
The topic is significant because a text analysis requires close reading that is important for students of any fields, especially for students of the English
(26)
4 Maranatha Christian University Department, in order to get the deep understanding of a text meaning. It can also sharpen our critical way of thinking, which is important not only for academic life but also for everyday life. Therefore, a text analysis becomes worth studying and worth conducting even though it is not a simple thing to do because we have to choose and apply the right theories to get the best and most accurate analysis.
Total words: 856 words
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In this thesis, I would like to discuss the following problems:
1. Based on the macrostructure analysis, how do the global topics of the speech show the representation of the United Nations?
2. Based on the microstructure analysis, how do lexicon, local syntax and interactions help reveal the representation of the United Nations in the speech? 3. Based on the superstructure analysis, how is the information of the United
Nations representation organized in the speech?
1.3 The Purpose of the Study
The purposes of this analysis are as follows:
1. To find out how the global topics show the representation of the United Nations, based on the macrostructure analysis.
2. To find out how lexicon, local syntax and interactions help reveal the representation of the United Nations, based on the microstructure analysis. 3. To find out how the information of the representation of the United Nations is
(27)
5 Maranatha Christian University 1.4 Methods of Research
I began the research by searching and finding a suitable text to be the data of my research. After that, I read some books about Discourse Analysis and journals by van Dijk about Critical Discourse Analysis which were related to the topic discussed. Then I browsed some further explanation about the topic discussed in van Dijk’s electronic journals and other sources in the Internet. After that, I started doing the analysis. Finally, I wrote a research report.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
I divide the thesis into four chapters. The first chapter is the Introduction, which consists of five parts – Background of the Study, Statement of the Problems, Purpose of the Study, Methods of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two contains the Theoretical Framework, in which I elaborate the theories and approaches used to analyze the text. Chapter Three contains the text analysis of the text and Chapter Four is the conclusion of the analysis. At the end of the thesis, I put the Bibliography and Appendix.
(28)
47 Maranatha Christian University
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I am going to draw some concluding points about the representation of the UN found in the data based on the three analyses discussed in Chapter Three, which are based on the macrostructure, the superstructure, and the microstructure analyses.
In the macrostructure analysis, the UN is represented in a negative way in the important parts of the speech, the thesis statement and the recommendation. The UN
is described as having tendency to take the Iranian’s side which actually is a danger
to the international community. It is also described as not knowing what to do about the Iranian regime so that Netanyahu gives some recommendations to them about what they should do. As the macrostructure is what the discourse is all about and what is best remembered by the recipient, I am of the opinion that the UN delegations, as the audience of this speech, may also get the same message. If we relate to the purpose of the speech, which is to persuade someone to do something
about the speaker’s interest, I am of the opinion that Netanyahu arrange this speech
to make the UN delegations realize that they have been wrong all this time and now is the time for them to do as he recommends.
(29)
48 Maranatha Christian University In the superstructure analysis, the UN represented negatively as the legitimate institution which is unjust and wrong to support the Iranian regime. Based on the argument flow arranged in the speech, the UN keeps on supporting the Iranian regime even though it is clearly a threat for not only Israel but also the international community. The support can be seen from giving the Iranian president speech in the UN anniversary until condemning Israel for defending itself instead of Iran. In my opinion, this flow of arguments given by Netanyahu is neatly and carefully arranged by him to get the message successfully received by the hearers, in this case, the UN delegations. In my opinion, it is supposed to create the effect of guilt of the UN delegations for supporting the Iranian regime.
Another thing I find in the superstructure analysis is the form of the speech which is not obligatory also supports the message to be conveyed successfully. I am of the opinion that if Netanyahu used the conventional form which is thesis-arguments-recommendation, we might not find an implied message that the speaker wants to show.
In the microstructure analysis, there are several concluding points based on the tools used by the speaker. Based on the lexicon which is related to the President of Iran’s speech, the UN is represented negatively as wrong and disgraceful for giving a
hearing to the speech. I think Netanyahu’s response is a little too much because the UN is international community which should be fair to every country, including Iran and Israel. I do not think that letting the President of Iran deliver a speech in front of the UN delegations shows the UN supports towards Iran.
The next concluding point is based on the nine data of lexicon related to the Gaza affair that I find. I conclude that the UN is represented negatively as being
(30)
49 Maranatha Christian University unjust. Based on the proofs given by Netanyahu, the UN with its twisted standards has falsely condemned Israel which is actually the victim. I am of the opinion that Netanyahu is right for having such a thought. Yet, I think he should respect the UN. The UN probably has its own standards in deciding whether to take some actions or not about a conflict. Of course, Netanyahu feels it is unjust because it is his country, Israel, which he thinks becomes the victim.
The next concluding point is based on the syntactic element. In my analysis, I find some sentences in which Netanyahu uses active sentences to make the subject explicit. In talking about the UN and its negative actions, most of the time, Netanyahu explicitly mentions the UN as the subject which is followed by negative verbs. This finding results in a negative representation of the UN. Actually, there are two ways of how to represent something or somebody, explicitly and implicitly. However, in my opinion, Netanyahu chooses the explicit way to make the message have a better impact.
The next concluding point is based on the stylistic elements, the interactions. From as many as twenty data found in the speech, there are five big interactions employed by Netanyahu in talking about the UN. We can see them clearly in the pie chart as follows:
(31)
50 Maranatha Christian University Figure 7. The percentage of interactions about the UN
From the chart above, we can see that the most frequent interactions used are asking rhetorical questions (35%). In my opinion, asking rhetorical questions is an effective way to show our opinion and to manipulate the audience’s mind with a
greater effect than making statements. For instance, when Netanyahu says “Have you
no shame? Have you no decency?” I think it gives a more dramatic effect than if he
merely states it like “You have no shame. You have no decency.”
Another point worth mentioning is the other two kinds of interactions, attacking and accusing the UN. I differentiate this because in my opinion, they are two different things. To attack means to criticize, while to accuse means to say that somebody has done something wrong. I think these two interactions will be the most common interactions found in discourses with the same topic. When we try to convince somebody about the weakness of a person, we surely will attack and accuse that person to support our arguments.
Accusing the UN 20%
Asking rhetorical questions
35% Attacking the UN
20% Praising some of the UN delegations
5% Reminding of the
UN foundation purpose
5%
Mocking the UN 15%
(32)
51 Maranatha Christian University Thus, from the findings I find in the speech, I conclude that Netanyahu is giving a negative representation of the UN in order to show that the latter has been wrong all the time for supporting the Iranian regime. Netanyahu actually gives other representations in this speech, a positive representation of Israel and a negative representation of the Iranian regime to support his arguments. However, because of the word limit, I only focus on the UN. Another thing, as I have mentioned in the first chapter, this analysis only covers the micro level. It is only a small part of discourse analysis. There are two bigger levels which need to analyze, namely the meso and macro levels, which no longer focus on the text itself in order to get a unified analysis. In the future, if there are other students who want to take this speech as their data, they can analyze other representations or other level of discourse which have not been discussed in this paper.
(33)
52 Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Text
Haaretz.com. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly, 24 September 2009. Web. 3 March 2011.
Printed and Online References
Avineri, Shlomo. Netanyahu Owes Speech to Israelis, Not Americans, 20 April 2011. Web. 9 May 2011.
Burton, Gideon O. “Rhetorical Questions”. Silva Rhetoricae. n.d. Web. 26 October 2011.
Gerot, Linda and Peter Wignell. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises, 1994. Print.
The History of the United Nations, n.d. Web. 12 May 2011.
van Dijk, T.A. Discourse and Manipulation. n.d. Web. 10 March 2011. van Dijk, T.A. Critical Discourse Analysis. n.d. Web. 7 March 2011. van Dijk, T.A. Principle of Discourse Analysis. n.d. Web. 7 March 2011.
(34)
53 Maranatha Christian University van Dijk, T.A. Analyzing Racism through Discourse Analysis. n.d. Web. 7 March 2011.
Dictionary References
“Biased.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Decency.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Disgrace.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Encourage.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Equate.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Falsely.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Misname.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Mockery.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Perversion.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
(35)
54 Maranatha Christian University “Shame.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Silent.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Travesty.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Twisted.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Unfair.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Wrong.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
(1)
49 Maranatha Christian University unjust. Based on the proofs given by Netanyahu, the UN with its twisted standards has falsely condemned Israel which is actually the victim. I am of the opinion that Netanyahu is right for having such a thought. Yet, I think he should respect the UN. The UN probably has its own standards in deciding whether to take some actions or not about a conflict. Of course, Netanyahu feels it is unjust because it is his country, Israel, which he thinks becomes the victim.
The next concluding point is based on the syntactic element. In my analysis, I find some sentences in which Netanyahu uses active sentences to make the subject explicit. In talking about the UN and its negative actions, most of the time, Netanyahu explicitly mentions the UN as the subject which is followed by negative verbs. This finding results in a negative representation of the UN. Actually, there are two ways of how to represent something or somebody, explicitly and implicitly. However, in my opinion, Netanyahu chooses the explicit way to make the message have a better impact.
The next concluding point is based on the stylistic elements, the interactions. From as many as twenty data found in the speech, there are five big interactions employed by Netanyahu in talking about the UN. We can see them clearly in the pie chart as follows:
(2)
50 Maranatha Christian University Figure 7. The percentage of interactions about the UN
From the chart above, we can see that the most frequent interactions used are asking rhetorical questions (35%). In my opinion, asking rhetorical questions is an effective way to show our opinion and to manipulate the audience’s mind with a greater effect than making statements. For instance, when Netanyahu says “Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” I think it gives a more dramatic effect than if he merely states it like “You have no shame. You have no decency.”
Another point worth mentioning is the other two kinds of interactions, attacking and accusing the UN. I differentiate this because in my opinion, they are two different things. To attack means to criticize, while to accuse means to say that somebody has done something wrong. I think these two interactions will be the most common interactions found in discourses with the same topic. When we try to convince somebody about the weakness of a person, we surely will attack and accuse that person to support our arguments.
Accusing the UN 20%
Asking rhetorical questions
35% Attacking the UN
20% Praising some of the UN delegations
5% Reminding of the
UN foundation purpose
5%
Mocking the UN 15%
(3)
51 Maranatha Christian University Thus, from the findings I find in the speech, I conclude that Netanyahu is giving a negative representation of the UN in order to show that the latter has been wrong all the time for supporting the Iranian regime. Netanyahu actually gives other representations in this speech, a positive representation of Israel and a negative representation of the Iranian regime to support his arguments. However, because of the word limit, I only focus on the UN. Another thing, as I have mentioned in the first chapter, this analysis only covers the micro level. It is only a small part of discourse analysis. There are two bigger levels which need to analyze, namely the meso and macro levels, which no longer focus on the text itself in order to get a unified analysis. In the future, if there are other students who want to take this speech as their data, they can analyze other representations or other level of discourse which have not been discussed in this paper.
(4)
52 Maranatha Christian University
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Text
Haaretz.com. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the UN General Assembly, 24 September 2009. Web. 3 March 2011.
Printed and Online References
Avineri, Shlomo. Netanyahu Owes Speech to Israelis, Not Americans, 20 April 2011. Web. 9 May 2011.
Burton, Gideon O. “Rhetorical Questions”. Silva Rhetoricae. n.d. Web. 26 October 2011.
Gerot, Linda and Peter Wignell. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises, 1994. Print.
The History of the United Nations, n.d. Web. 12 May 2011.
van Dijk, T.A. Discourse and Manipulation. n.d. Web. 10 March 2011.
van Dijk, T.A. Critical Discourse Analysis. n.d. Web. 7 March 2011.
(5)
53 Maranatha Christian University van Dijk, T.A. Analyzing Racism through Discourse Analysis. n.d. Web. 7 March 2011.
Dictionary References
“Biased.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Decency.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Disgrace.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Encourage.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Equate.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Falsely.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Misname.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Mockery.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Perversion.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
(6)
54 Maranatha Christian University “Shame.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Silent.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Travesty.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition. 2005. Print.
“Twisted.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Unfair.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.
“Wrong.” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Sixth
Edition. 2005. Print.