Text Analysis of Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation in President George W. Bush’s Speech Trying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... i

ABSTRACT ... iii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Statements of the Problem ... 4

1.3 Purpose of the Study ... 4

1.4 Method of Research ... 4

1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 5

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Representation ... 6

2.2 Discourse Analysis ... 7

2.2.1Macrostructure Analysis ... 8

2.2.2Microstructure Analysis ... 8

2.2.3Superstructure Analysis ... 11

CHAPTER THREE: TEXT ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE SELF- PRESENTATION AND NEGATIVE OTHER-PRESENTATION IN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S SPEECH TRYING DETAINEES: ADDRESS ON THE CREATION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS 3.1 Macrostructure Analysis ... 12

3.2 Microstructure Analysis ... 15

3.3 Superstructure Analysis ... 31

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 44

APPENDICES: Speech of George W. BushTrying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions ... 46

ii

Table 2. Description of the Terrorists ... 65

Table 3. Strategies in Overall Interaction ... 66

Figure 1. Schematic Structure of Bush’s Speech ... 68

Figure 2. Schematic Structure of Argument I ... 69

Figure 3. Schematic Structure of Argument II ... 70

iii

ABSTRACT

Manusia dapat berkomunikasi dengan cara yang berbeda-beda. Salah satu cara berkomunikasi adalah dengan penyampaian pidato yang dilakukan oleh orang-orang tertentu kepada para hadirin. Pidato berjudul Trying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissionsyang disampaikan oleh George W. Bush pada tanggal 6 September 2006 merupakan data yang dianalisis dalam skripsi saya ini.

Penelitian ini menggunakan teori Critical Discourse Analysisdari van Dijk. Dalam teorinya, disebutkan bahwa analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan micro-level analysis, yang dibagi menjadi tiga bagian analisis, yaitu

macrostructure analysis, microstructure analysis, dan superstructure analysis.

Secara singkat, ketiga bagian analisis ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui bagaimana George W. Bush, sebagai pembicara, membangun presentasi positif tentang Negara Amerika dan presentasi negatif tentang teroris.

Hasil dari analisis ini menunjukkan bahwa George W. Bush dalam penyampaian pidatonya lebih menonjolkan sisi positif dari Amerika, sebaliknya ia juga memberikan pernyataan-pernyataan yang membangun presentasi negatif dari teroris. Hal ini dikarenakan tujuan Bush dalam menyampaikan pidato ini adalah untuk memberitahu masyarakat Amerika dan orang-orang di seluruh dunia bahwa Amerika mempunyai sebuah program yang dapat digunakan untuk

iv

mencegah serangan teroris dan menangkap para teroris. Bush juga meminta dukungan dari orang-orang di seluruh dunia agar program tersebut dapat terus digunakan demi keadilan dan keamanan di seluruh dunia.

1 Universitas Kristen Maranatha

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Humans, as social beings, cannot live on their own. They need others in this life. It means that they should socialize with one another and this can be done by communicating. Socializing and communicating help them to get what they need, which cannot be fulfilled by themselves alone.

People communicate in two ways, i.e. by verbal communication and non-verbal communication. Verbal communication is communication which involves words; while non-verbal communication is communication by using body language, facial expressions, or the tone of voice.

People can use text as a medium in communicating. Texts can be categorized into various types of genre, such as narrative, descriptive, and recount. Which genre a text is depends on its purpose.

Persuasive text is an interesting type of genre. According to one definition, persuasive (adjective) means “able to persuade somebody to do or believe something” (Hornby, 2010, p. 1094). Therefore, a persuasive text is powerful, as it draws the attention of the readers or the hearers of the topic being delivered and it persuades people to agree with the arguments in it.

2 Universitas Kristen Maranatha An example of a persuasive text is speech, which I would like to analyze in this thesis. Speech (noun) is “a formal talk that a person gives to an audience”

(Hornby, 2010, p. 1431). A speech is usually delivered by people who have power or are in a higher level than the audience, who hear the speech. The speaker tries to influence the audience to think or behave in a particular way (Watt & Barnett, n.d.).

In this thesis I choose a speech by George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America, who is also called the wartime President in the aftermath of the airborne terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I choose his speech because I wonder how he, as a wartime President, could persuade the American citizens to put hopes on the government under his power and to believe that the attacks by the terrorists can be stopped and that the American citizens can be relieved when his government brings the terrorists to justice.

George W. Bush’s speech that I choose for this thesis is his speech delivered on September 6, 2006 in Washington DC entitled Trying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions. The purpose of this speech is to persuade people to support the program that the United States has in facing the terrorists. I think this speech is interesting because as we know, the terrorists’ attack on America on September 11, 2001 has shocked the American people and made them realize that they have to face a new enemy. Therefore, after reading this speech, I want to learn more about what program it is that Bush explains in this speech, how this program can save lives and face the terrorists, and how Bush persuades the American citizens to support the program.

In this thesis I would like to analyze Bush’s speech in the form of written text, which is easier to analyze than in the form of audio text because in analyzing a written text, we can go back to the text repeatedly anytime we need

3 Universitas Kristen Maranatha to take a closer look at any part of the speech. To analyze this speech, I have decided to apply Discourse Analysis by using van Dijk’s theory of Critical Discourse Analysis.

Van Dijk is “one of the most prolific and influential writers in critical discourse studies” (Tileaga, 2011). There are three approaches to van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis, which I will discuss further in Chapter Two. In this thesis, I will use Micro-Level Analysis approach in van Dijk’s theory. I will focus on getting the positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation from Bush’s speech by using Micro-Level Analysis. It can be seen from how George W. Bush conveys the speech so that I can draw the positive self-presentation and the negative other-presentation.

The speech that I choose for this thesis involves two sides, which are the United States of America and the terrorists. In this speech, besides giving his arguments about the program the United States has, Bush also describes the two sides differently. He describes the United States of America positively; while the terrorists negatively. This final result of this analysis is the representation of the self, in this case the United States of America, and other, the terrorists. From my analysis about the presentation of the United States of America and the terrorists, people who read my study will know how to analyze a speech so that they will see the presentation of self and of other. This study also will help them to increase their sensitivity in critical thinking, which is the first reason why the topic of this thesis is significant.

The second reason is that by reading my thesis, the readers will learn more about speech. In delivering a speech, elaborating information or arguments, and persuading the audience, the speaker also has an opportunity to tell the hearers about his positive image. Therefore, the readers will become more aware

4 Universitas Kristen Maranatha and develop their critical thinking while listening to or reading a speech.

(851 words)

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The problem in this study is formulated in the following questions:

1. How does the macrostructure analysis reveal the presentation of the self and other in Bush’s speech?

2. How does the microstructure analysis reveal the presentation of the self and other in Bush’s speech?

3. How does the superstructure analysis (schemata) reveal the presentation of the self and other in Bush’s speech?

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The following is the purpose of this study:

1. to analyze how the macrostructure analysis reveals the presentation of self and other in Bush’s speech.

2. to analyze how the microstructure analysis reveals the presentation of self and other in Bush’s speech.

3. to analyze how the superstructure analysis (schemata) reveals the presentation of self and other in Bush’s speech.

1.4 Method of Research

In writing the thesis, the first step I took is choosing the linguistic area to discuss, which is Discourse Analysis. After that, I selected the data sources and I decided to analyze a speech. I chose George W. Bush’s speech, entitled Trying

5 Universitas Kristen Maranatha

Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions which was delivered on September 6th, 2006. Then, to analyze the speech, I used Micro-Level Analysis as the approach and I related the theory of Van Dijk’s Discourse Analysis to the speech. The next step is I did the analysis. It starts with doing the macrostructure analysis, the microstructure analysis, and the superstructure analysis. Finally, I wrote the research report.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis consists of four chapters. It starts with Chapter One, which is Introduction. Introduction itself consists of Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two is Theoretical Framework, which explains the linguistic area and the approach used in writing this thesis. Chapter Three is the presentation of the data analysis. This Chapter includes the macrostructure analysis, the microstructure analysis, and the superstructure analysis of the speech. Chapter Four, Conclusion, contains personal comments on my findings. Finally, the thesis ends with Bibliography and Appendices.

40 Universitas Kristen Maranatha

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

In this chapter I would like to draw some points of conclusion on the positive self-presentation about the United States of America and the negative other-presentation about the terrorists. The concluding points are based on the result of the analysis in Chapter Three, which covers the macrostructure analysis, the microstructure analysis, and the superstructure analysis.

The macrostructure analysis reveals that the speech is an analytical exposition text, the function of which is “to persuade the audience that something is the case”. This speech is categorized as analytical exposition because in this speech, Bush asks the US Congress to pass the legislation on handling the terrorists. Having studied the speech carefully, I draw a conclusion that Bush believes that there is no other way to stop the terrorists except by using the program they have.

Another finding in the macrostructure analysis is that the presentation of the US and the terrorists cannot be seen clearly. The important parts of the speech, which are the thesis statement and the reiteration, do not give a clear presentation about the US or the terrorists. Bush just says that the US

41 Universitas Kristen Maranatha government and the CIA have a program which has been set up in order to face the terrorists and stop them from attacking innocent people. Bush asks for support from the people around the world so that the US government and the CIA can continue to run the program. In my opinion, Bush’s intention in delivering this speech is not to show the positive self-presentation about the US or negative other-presentation about the terrorists, but to emphasize more about the program that the US government and CIA have and he wants people around the world to support it. That is why there is no clear statement about the presentation of the self and other that can be found in the macrostructure analysis.

In doing the microstructure analysis, I find there are three dominant tools used in the speech. The tools are lexicon, overall interaction strategies, and implicitness. From all of the tools used in this analysis, it is concluded that the self-presentation about the US is positive, while the other-presentation about the terrorists is negative.

The lexicon analysis discloses that there are fourteen words and one phrase that describe the US positively and twenty-three words and three phrases which suggest negative other-presentation about the terrorists. The number of the words and phrases that represent the terrorists is more than the number of the words that represent the US, although the difference in number is not very significant. Besides, the negative words are not really strong words. In my opinion, these words are used because Bush just wants to show people around the world that all the terrorists do is intolerable and he wants to persuade people to agree with his idea that the program can stop the terrorists.

The second tool is overall interaction strategies. From the analysis, I discover that out of forty-five paragraphs, twenty-five paragraphs emphasize positive things about the self, five paragraphs de-emphasize negative things

42 Universitas Kristen Maranatha about the self, six paragraphs emphasize negative things about the other, and two paragraphs de-emphasize positive things about the other, while seven paragraphs do not use any of the strategies in overall interaction strategies (Table 3, Appendix). The number of paragraphs Bush uses to emphasize positive things about the US is very significant. This is because Bush creates positive images about the US that can stop the terrorists’ attacks. The fact that the US government has a useful program to help the government face the terrorists, as elaborated in the speech, also presents a positive image about the US. I think using the strategy of emphasizing positive things about the US also helps Bush to persuade people to consider all of the positive things about the US.

The implicitness used in the speech is aimed to reach Bush’s intention in pushing through the legislation on the program. Bush wants to give the actual situation during the time that the attacks happened, but he does not want the US to be seen negatively. Therefore, he uses implicitness. In my opinion, the implicitness in this speech can persuade the audience to find that it is necessary to run the program in handling the terrorists so that the attacks like the September 11th, 2001 attacks will never happen again.

In doing the microstructure analysis, I think of the three tools used, the overall interaction strategies is more effective than the other two tools. This is because, in my opinion, by stating positive things about the US, people will see that they can depend on the US to fight the terrorists and Bush’s aim can be reached since the people and the US Congress will support the program.

The superstructure analysis reveals that the schematic structure contains the three parts of the analytical exposition, which are thesis statement, arguments, and reiteration, with opening and closing statements. However, the schematic structure does not follow the conventional order. The use of this order

43 Universitas Kristen Maranatha is meant to draw the audience’s attention to Bush’s first and second arguments which are considered important. Bush wants them to see how beneficial the program is, so that they will have confidence in this program which is organized to fight against the terrorists.

The speech contains three arguments. There are two complicated schemas and one simple schema. Argument 1 and Argument 3 have complicated schemas. In Argument 1, Bush elaborates the explanation and gives the examples in detail on how the program has saved lives, so that people can know the program is really useful; while in Argument 3, the schema is even more complicated because Bush explains in detail why the program deserves support from the American citizens as well as from people around the world. He also gives some proofs to show that the program is worth running. I think giving detailed explanation about the program is an effective way to persuade people. This analysis shows that Argument 2 has the simplest schema as it is presented to show that this program is a vital tool to the security of the nations. If the program is not operated, the terrorists can attack the nations whenever they want.

Lastly, I would like to give some suggestions to other researchers who will

take van Dijk’s Discourse Analysis as the approach of research in their theses. I

suggest that they should read the text they choose carefully until they really understand what the topic is about. In addition, they should read other sources related to the topic of the text so that they can get more information and understanding about the topic being analyzed.

44 Universitas Kristen Maranatha

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Text

Bush, G. W. (September 6, 2006). Trying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions. Retrieved from https://georgewbushwhitehouse. archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

References

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Hall, S. (2007). The Work of Representation. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub. com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/55352_Hall_ ch_1.pdf

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited Edition.

Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary – Eighth Edition.

New York: Oxford University Press.

McKee, A. (2003). Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. Retrieved from

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/sbenus/Teaching/APTD /McKee_Ch1.pdf Tileaga, C. (2011). Context, Mental Models and Discourse Analysis. Retrieved

from https://www.academia.edu/1470244/ Context_mental_models_ and_discourse_analysis

45 Universitas Kristen Maranatha van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Analyzing Racism Through Discourse Analysis. Retrieved

from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Analyzing %20racism%20 through%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from http://www. discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Discourse and Manipulation. Retrieved from http://www.

discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20manipulation.pdf van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). News Schemata. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.

org/OldArticles/News%20Schemata.pdf

van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved October 12, 2015, fromhttp://discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20 critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

Watt, S. S., & Barnett, J. T. (n.d.). Persuasive Speaking. Retrieved from http://publicspeakingproject.org/PDF%20Files/persuasion% 20web%201.pdf

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

In this chapter I would like to draw some points of conclusion on the positive self-presentation about the United States of America and the negative other-presentation about the terrorists. The concluding points are based on the result of the analysis in Chapter Three, which covers the macrostructure analysis, the microstructure analysis, and the superstructure analysis.

The macrostructure analysis reveals that the speech is an analytical exposition text, the function of which is “to persuade the audience that something is the case”. This speech is categorized as analytical exposition because in this speech, Bush asks the US Congress to pass the legislation on handling the terrorists. Having studied the speech carefully, I draw a conclusion that Bush believes that there is no other way to stop the terrorists except by using the program they have.

Another finding in the macrostructure analysis is that the presentation of the US and the terrorists cannot be seen clearly. The important parts of the speech, which are the thesis statement and the reiteration, do not give a clear presentation about the US or the terrorists. Bush just says that the US

41 Universitas Kristen Maranatha government and the CIA have a program which has been set up in order to face the terrorists and stop them from attacking innocent people. Bush asks for support from the people around the world so that the US government and the CIA can continue to run the program. In my opinion, Bush’s intention in delivering this speech is not to show the positive self-presentation about the US or negative other-presentation about the terrorists, but to emphasize more about the program that the US government and CIA have and he wants people around the world to support it. That is why there is no clear statement about the presentation of the self and other that can be found in the macrostructure analysis.

In doing the microstructure analysis, I find there are three dominant tools used in the speech. The tools are lexicon, overall interaction strategies, and implicitness. From all of the tools used in this analysis, it is concluded that the self-presentation about the US is positive, while the other-presentation about the terrorists is negative.

The lexicon analysis discloses that there are fourteen words and one phrase that describe the US positively and twenty-three words and three phrases which suggest negative other-presentation about the terrorists. The number of the words and phrases that represent the terrorists is more than the number of the words that represent the US, although the difference in number is not very significant. Besides, the negative words are not really strong words. In my opinion, these words are used because Bush just wants to show people around the world that all the terrorists do is intolerable and he wants to persuade people to agree with his idea that the program can stop the terrorists.

The second tool is overall interaction strategies. From the analysis, I discover that out of forty-five paragraphs, twenty-five paragraphs emphasize positive things about the self, five paragraphs de-emphasize negative things

about the self, six paragraphs emphasize negative things about the other, and two paragraphs de-emphasize positive things about the other, while seven paragraphs do not use any of the strategies in overall interaction strategies (Table 3, Appendix). The number of paragraphs Bush uses to emphasize positive things about the US is very significant. This is because Bush creates positive images about the US that can stop the terrorists’ attacks. The fact that the US government has a useful program to help the government face the terrorists, as elaborated in the speech, also presents a positive image about the US. I think using the strategy of emphasizing positive things about the US also helps Bush to persuade people to consider all of the positive things about the US.

The implicitness used in the speech is aimed to reach Bush’s intention in pushing through the legislation on the program. Bush wants to give the actual situation during the time that the attacks happened, but he does not want the US to be seen negatively. Therefore, he uses implicitness. In my opinion, the implicitness in this speech can persuade the audience to find that it is necessary to run the program in handling the terrorists so that the attacks like the September 11th, 2001 attacks will never happen again.

In doing the microstructure analysis, I think of the three tools used, the overall interaction strategies is more effective than the other two tools. This is because, in my opinion, by stating positive things about the US, people will see that they can depend on the US to fight the terrorists and Bush’s aim can be reached since the people and the US Congress will support the program.

The superstructure analysis reveals that the schematic structure contains the three parts of the analytical exposition, which are thesis statement, arguments, and reiteration, with opening and closing statements. However, the schematic structure does not follow the conventional order. The use of this order

43 Universitas Kristen Maranatha is meant to draw the audience’s attention to Bush’s first and second arguments which are considered important. Bush wants them to see how beneficial the program is, so that they will have confidence in this program which is organized to fight against the terrorists.

The speech contains three arguments. There are two complicated schemas and one simple schema. Argument 1 and Argument 3 have complicated schemas. In Argument 1, Bush elaborates the explanation and gives the examples in detail on how the program has saved lives, so that people can know the program is really useful; while in Argument 3, the schema is even more complicated because Bush explains in detail why the program deserves support from the American citizens as well as from people around the world. He also gives some proofs to show that the program is worth running. I think giving detailed explanation about the program is an effective way to persuade people. This analysis shows that Argument 2 has the simplest schema as it is presented to show that this program is a vital tool to the security of the nations. If the program is not operated, the terrorists can attack the nations whenever they want.

Lastly, I would like to give some suggestions to other researchers who will take van Dijk’s Discourse Analysis as the approach of research in their theses. I suggest that they should read the text they choose carefully until they really understand what the topic is about. In addition, they should read other sources related to the topic of the text so that they can get more information and understanding about the topic being analyzed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Text

Bush, G. W. (September 6, 2006). Trying Detainees: Address on the Creation of Military Commissions. Retrieved from https://georgewbushwhitehouse. archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

References

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Hall, S. (2007). The Work of Representation. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub. com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/55352_Hall_ ch_1.pdf

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited Edition.

Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary – Eighth Edition.

New York: Oxford University Press.

McKee, A. (2003). Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. Retrieved from

http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/sbenus/Teaching/APTD /McKee_Ch1.pdf Tileaga, C. (2011). Context, Mental Models and Discourse Analysis. Retrieved

from https://www.academia.edu/1470244/ Context_mental_models_ and_discourse_analysis

45 Universitas Kristen Maranatha van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Analyzing Racism Through Discourse Analysis. Retrieved

from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Analyzing %20racism%20 through%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from http://www. discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Discourse and Manipulation. Retrieved from http://www.

discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20manipulation.pdf van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). News Schemata. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.

org/OldArticles/News%20Schemata.pdf

van Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved October 12, 2015, fromhttp://discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20 critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

Watt, S. S., & Barnett, J. T. (n.d.). Persuasive Speaking. Retrieved from http://publicspeakingproject.org/PDF%20Files/persuasion% 20web%201.pdf