Critical discourse analysis of ideology and power in Barack Obama`s first and second inaugural addresses.

(1)

xiii

ABSTRACT

Jonathan Irene Sartika Dewi M. 2014. Critical Discourse Analysis of Ideology and Power in Barack Obama’s First and Second Inaugural Addresses. Yogyakarta: Graduate Program on English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University

Critical Discourse Analysis theories support the idea that the meaning produced in discourse also exerts power because it transfers the knowledge that refers to all kinds of content that makes up all kinds of meanings that people use to interpret and shape the context. Through the discourse, ideology is observable because only in discourse, it is expressed and formulated by reproducing or combining discursive elements.

Supported by Systemic Functional Linguistic, this thesis reveals the ideology and power exercise through the meaning produced in Obama‘s first and second inaugural adresses by seeing the constructing of discourse and shows how language is structured to support the political purpose of the addresses. Two research questions are developed to reach this aim. They are (1) What discourses does Obama ideologically employ to exercise his power? and (2) How does the language structure represent his discourse?

The methodology used in this thesis is the Fairclough‘s approach to CDA that has three dimenssions of analysis. They describe the properties of textual elements, examine the role of language and the greater social structure it reflects and supports, and explain the larger cultural, historical, and social discourse surrounding the data interpretation.

The power exercise and political ideology are represented in the reproduction and the combination of discourse elements. In the addresses, the discourse of Nationalism, American Creed, Democracy, Liberalism, Equality, Utilitarianism, Patriotism and Self-help, Pluralism, Collectivism, Action and Responsibility, Time and Change, and Optimism are inserted in the discourse of Remaking America, Rebuilding Economy, and Handling Political Affairs. The beliefs Obama puts in his discourse, when accepted by the Americans, will support mostly on the economy growth of America.

The transitivity analysis shows that the ideational function built mostly in material process shapes the context of situation that is produced from Obama‘s

concern of America‘s politics and economy where Actor and Goal are set to

define who are the doers and the targeted common goals. In the relational process he combines the discursive elements where the America/American is identified and attributed with applicable values. Seen in the MOOD, modality, and the pronouns, the interpersonal function shows that he establishes the powerful position of a president where such role is influential to the audience making his beliefs accepted as the way to reshape America. The textual function stemmed from the textual theme, the interpersonal theme, and the marked circumstantial adjunct sets the frame on how common goal is gained in his term of office and only through the offered manners and system.

(2)

xiv

ABSTRAK

Jonathan Irene Sartika Dewi M. 2014. Critical Discourse Analysis of Ideology and Power in Barack Obama’s First and Second Inaugural Addresses. Yogyakarta: Program Pasca-Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Teori Analisa Wacana Kritis mengusung ide bahwa pembangunan makna dalam wacana mengandung unsur kekuasaan karena wacana mentransfer pengetahuan yang mengacu pada segala macam konten yang membangun berbagai macam makna bagi orang untuk menginterpretasikan dan membentuk konteksnya. Melalui wacana, ideologi dapat diobservasi karena hanya dalam wacana ideologi diungkapkan dan diformulasikan melalui pengulangan dan penggabungan elemen-elemen wacana.

Didukung dengan teori Fungsi Sistemik Linguistik, tesis ini bertujuan untuk mengungkapkan praktek kuasa dan ideologi melalui produksi makna teks pada pembangunan wacana dan menjelaskan struktur bahasa yang dipakai untuk mencapai tujuan politis dari pidato inagurasi Obama. Dua pertanyaan dibuat guna mencapai tujuan ini yaitu, (1) Wacana apa yang secara ideologis dibentuk untuk menjalankan kekuasaan? dan (2) Bagaimana struktur bahasa membangun wacana?

Tesis ini mengikuti metode pendekatan Fairclough yang menggunakan tiga dimensi analisa. Metode ini menjelaskan properti-properti pada elemen tekstual, menguji peran bahasa dan struktur sosial yang direfleksikan dan yang didukungnya, dan memaparkan wacana yang lebih luas mengenai budaya, sejarah, dan sosial yang melingkupi proses interpretasi data.

Praktek kekuasaan dan ideologi politik Obama tercermin dari reproduksi dan kombinasi wacana melalui struktur bahasa pada teks. Wacana nasionalisme, Kredo Amerika, Demokrasi, Liberalisme, Kesetaraan, Utilitarianisme, Patriotisme dan Kemandirian, Pluralisme, Kolektifisme, Aksi dan Tanggung jawab, Waktu dan Perubahan, dan Optimisme digabungkan ke dalam wacana perubahan Amerika, pembagunan ekonomi, dan politik luar negeri AS.

Analisa transitivitas menunjukkan bahwa fungsi ideasional yang terbentuk dalam proses material mewujudkan konteks situasi berdasarkan pengamatan Obama pada kondisi politik dan ekonomi Amerika dimana Aktor dan Tujuan diatur guna menunjuk pelaku dalam usaha mencapai tujuan bersama. Pada pemilihan MOOD, modalitas, dan kata ganti, fungsi interpersonal menunjukkan bahwa Obama memposisikan diri sebagai pemegang kuasa kepresidenan dimana peran tersebut berpengaruh besar terhadap keberterimaan ide-idenya dalam merekonstruksi Amerika. Fungsi tekstual yang terangkai melalui tema tekstual, tema interpersonal, dan keterangan tertanda membentuk kerangka tentang bagaimana tujuan bersama hanya dapat dicapai sepanjang masa jabatannya dan hanya melalui cara-cara dan sistem yang ditawarkan.

(3)

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGY AND

POWER IN BARACK OBAMA‟S

FIRST AND SECOND

INAUGURAL ADDRESSES

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora(M.Hum.) Degree

in English Language Studies

Jonathan Irene Sartika Dewi M. Student Number: 126332011

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2015

(4)

(5)

(6)

STATEMENT OF WORK„S ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that all ideas, phrases, sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences of the thesis writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if she took somebody else‘s ideas, phrases, sentences without proper references.

Yogyakarta, 10 November 2014

(7)

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN

AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Jonathan Irene Sartika Dewi M.

NIM : 12 6332 011

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGY AND POWER IN BARACK OBAMA‘S FIRST AND SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESSES

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 10 November 2014

Yang menyatakan

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It will be a delightful opportunity for me to express my deepest gratitude to all of those who have supported and facilitated me in accomplishing this thesis. Firstly, my greatest gratitude is presented to Jesus Christ for leading me through the up and down during the process so I can finish this study.

I present a humble gratitude to my advisor Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M. A. for his guidance and patience. He has been an outstanding person to share ideas and whose opinions contribute the development of my thesis writing. I am also grateful for being taught by Dr. Fr. Borgias Alip, M. A. whose teaching was so pleasant and really inspiring. A great thank I present also to FX. Mukarto Ph.D., Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D,, and Dr. Ignatius Harjanto for the suggestion that improves my writing.

This thesis is truly dedicated to my parents, FM. Max Johansyah R. Jonathan and Fransis Samitri. I am thankful for their encouragement and the endless love they have shown. I also thank my sister, Sinta Dewi, for her advice.

Many thanks are also addressed to my friends who cannot be mentioned one by one. I thank you for the liveliness you all have given around me and for making Yogyakarta a home for me. I specially thank Georgius Benardi Darumukti who has compassionately supported me and whose presence has made my world a more bearable place to live.

(9)

vii

PAGE OF DEDICATION

“Live simply so others may simply live.”

―

Mother Teresa

(10)

viii

COVER PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK„S ORIGINALITY ... iv

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS ... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi

PAGE OF DEDICATION ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii

LIST OF TABLES ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii

ABSTRACT ... xiii

ABSTRAK ... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. Background of the Study ... 1

B. Research Questions ... 9

C. Objectives of the Study ... 9

D. Benefits of the Study ... 10

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL REVIEW ... 13

A. Review on Related Theories ... 13

1. Ideology ... 14

2. Power ... 19

3. Critical Discourse Analysis ... 22

4. Systemic Functional Linguistics ... 32

5. Review on the Theoretical Aspects of Spoken Political Speeches ... 39

B. Review on Political Background of the United States of America ... 46

1. American Political Culture ... 47

2. Profile and the Ideology of Barrack Hussein Obama... 53

3. The Recent Issues and Global Challenge faced by American ... 56

(11)

1. Liberty, Freedom, and Equality ... 58

2. Democracy ... 60

3. Nationalism ... 62

D. Review on Related Studies ... 63

1. Study on President Barack Hussein Obama‘s Address ... 64

2. Study on Systemic Functional Linguistics ... 65

3. Study on the Presidents‘ Ideology ... 67

4. Study on Film‘s Ideology and Domination ... 68

E. Theoretical Framework ... 69

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ... 73

A. Object of the Study ... 73

B. Type of the Study ... 74

C. Procedures of Data Selection... 75

D. Procedures of Data Analysis ... 76

1. Critical Discourse Analysis ... 77

2. Systemic Functional Linguistic Analysis ... 78

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 82

A. Discourse Analysis of Texts ... 82

1. Discourses in the First Inaugural Address ... 83

2. Discourses in the Second Inaugural Address ... 101

3. Significant Discourses in Both Inaugural Addresses ... 116

B. The Linguistic Representation of Power and Ideology ... 128

1. Ideational Function... 128

2. Interpersonal Function ... 139

3. Textual Function ... 150

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 161

A. Conclusion ... 161

1. Political Interest and the Potential Power Abuse ... 161

2. Language as the Representation of the Ideology and Power ... 164

B. Suggestion ... 167

(12)

ONLINE REFERENCES ... 175

APPENDIX ... 177

A. First Inaugural Address of Obama in 2009 ... 177

B. Second Inaugural Address of Obama in 2013 ... 182

C. Discourses as Social Practices from the First Inaugural Address ... 186

D. Discourses as Social Practices from the Second Inaugural Address ... 191

E. Theme and Mood Analysis in the First Inaugural Address ... 197

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Fairclough‘s Concept of Language and Social Levels………… 30 Table 2.2. Fairclough‘s Views Discourse as an Element of Social Practice. 30 Table 2.3. Fairclough‘s Concept of Types of Meaning Compared

with Hallidayan SFL.………. 31

Table 2.4. Components of Theme ……….. 39 Table 4.1. Discourses as Social Practices from the First

Inaugural Address……… 84

Table 4.2. Discourses as Social Practices from the Second Inaugural

Address……….……… 102

Table 4.3. Discourse as Social Practices Comparison from Both

Addresses ……….. 117

Table 4.4. Transitivity in the first and second Inaugural Addresses …….. 129 Table 4.5. Material Process in the first and second Inaugural Addresses... 130 Table 4.6. Mental Process in the first and second Inaugural Addresses…. 131 Table 4.7. Relational Process in the First and second Inaugural

Addresses ………... 133

Table 4.8. Sample Sentences Containing Relational Process in the First and Second Inaugural Addresses ………... 134 Table 4.9. Mood Types in Obama‘s First Inaugural Address ……… 140 Table 4.10. Mood Types in Obama‘s Second Address ……… 141 Table 4.11. Imperative moods in Obama‘s First and Second Inaugural

Address ……… 143

Table 4.12. Modals in the First and Second Inaugural Addresses ………….145

Table 4.13. Modality Analysis of Sample Addresses ……… 146 Table 4.14. Personal Pronouns from the First and Second Address ……… 147 Table 4.15. The Distribution of Pronoun ‗We‘ from the First and

Second Address……… 148

Table 4.16. The Distribution of Pronoun ‗Our‘ from the First and

Second Address ……… 150

Table 4.17. Theme in Obama‘s First Inaugural Address ………….………151

(14)

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 First Inaugural Address of Obama in 2009 …………....177 APPENDIX 2 Second Inaugural Address of Obama in 2013 …………182 APPENDIX 3 Discourses as Social Practices from the First

Inaugural Address ………..…. 186 APPENDIX 4 Discourses as Social Practices from the Second

Inaugural Address ………. 191 APPENDIX 5 Theme and Mood Analysis in the First Inaugural

Address ………. 197

APPENDIX 6 Theme and Mood Analysis in the Second Inaugural

(15)

xiii

ABSTRACT

The transitivity analysis shows that the ideational function built mostly in material process shapes the context of situation that is produced from Obama‘s concern of America‘s politics and economy where Actor and Goal are set to define who are the doers and the targeted common goals. In the relational process he combines the discursive elements where the America/American is identified and attributed with applicable values. Seen in the MOOD, modality, and the pronouns, the interpersonal function shows that he establishes the powerful position of a president where such role is influential to the audience making his beliefs accepted as the way to reshape America. The textual function stemmed from the textual theme, the interpersonal theme, and the marked circumstantial adjunct sets the frame on how common goal is gained in his term of office and only through the offered manners and system.

(16)

xiv

ABSTRAK

(17)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The first chapter of this study is to give a direct sight on what the study is going to be. Reasons and grounds of this study are included describing the current social situation and the development of the theories that follow. There are also the research questions and the objectives of the study which shows what this study is to achieve in the end of the analysis. This study has been conducted to give a contribution to the science of language and the society that will be explained in the last part of the chapter.

A. Background of the Study

The social-political condition of a nation cannot be separated by the presence of influential people whose thought and ideas are accepted throughout the people. An address is a weapon exploiting aspect of language that is used to maintain unity of a nation. It works through the spreading of the discourse to the public as a social awareness that becomes a mutual consideration. The position of language, as a tool of communication can be powerful only if it is used by person who knows how to properly apply it in the right place and time i.e. context which Van Dijk refers to the social situation (Van Dijk, 2009). Language, however, is not powerful on its own as it gains power by the use powerful people make of it (Wodak and Meyer, 2001). Since language is used to communicate, its character must be communally applicable among people where it is used, spread, and

(18)

shared. Language appears in the spoken and written forms. Language is one of the ways to communicate ideas to the minds that perceive it. This idea lies in the head of the speaker or writer and with language it is transmitted to the listener or reader through the linguistic choice constructed in texts.

Verdonk (2002) argues that linguistic choices in texts are consciously and unconsciously motivated by particular value systems and beliefs so that the resulting discourses are presented by some ideological perspective. There are no private languages so there are no private or personal ideologies. Hence these belief systems are socially shared by the members of a collectivity of social actors (Van Dijk, 2006). Fairclough also says that ideologies are closely linked to language because using language is the commonest form of social behavior, and the form of social behavior where we rely most on 'common-sense' assumptions (1989). What happens here is the reproduction of ideology within a discourse and what is needed to be further understood is how discourse is involved in the reproduction of ideology in society. Ideology has been placed as the ways of thinking of an individual in order to achieve his goals. The main purpose of each individual is to survive a living and its manifestations constitute a lot of things. So, ideology is understood as the importance behind one‘s action.

In this context, language is used in social interaction to help humans fulfilling the needs which can only be achieved by socializing, and in that case, language is used to persuade others to do things for someone‘s benefit. Therefore, an understanding about the ideological positioning in the language that they speak or hear will be great for individuals to know where they stand on.

(19)

This study is therefore a discourse study so that a description of discourse which is used in this writing should be provided before moving on to the relation among discourse, language, and power. Foucault (1926-1984) was convinced that the world we live in is structured by knowledge, or in other words: certain people and social groups create and formulate ideas about our world, which under certain conditions turn into unquestioned truths and start to seem normal. For him, one cannot simply know something based on binaries and static relationship so that it is important for pointing out the complexity of social construct of language that constructs and represents such constructs (Foucault, 1972). Foucault‘s argument very useful that discourse affects social relations through the very real, often physical effects it has on our environment (Foucault, 1977). Weedon (1987) provides her interpretation to the Foucault‘s definition of discourse as ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practice, forms of subjectivity and power relations which is in such knowledge and relation between them. The discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. It constitutes the ‗nature‘ of the body, conscious and unconscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern. This definition gives at least basic understanding of discourse in general and specifically its relation to power.

Foucault (1977) further says that discourse presupposes all forms of knowledge and truth. For example, certain discourses shared in certain contexts have the power to persuade people to approve statements as truth. Discourse also exposes something about the people who say it making speaker‘s social class, gender, ideology and ethnicity are identified. So, discourse is not only a matter of

(20)

language, but it is also about the person who speaks it. To sum up, discourse which is usually involved with recognized socially networks of power affect the whole social practice, even the world that is perceived, and the behavior toward the world. In short, discourse can abstractly mean the language in use and concretely mean a particular way of representing part of the world. Discourse plays an important role in the social construction of the world because discourse enables social communication.

However, Verdonk (2002) also adds that people have lost the awareness to the ideological positions in texts due to the convention uses of language. The awareness is now lost due to the constant exposure to dominant norms, value systems, and belief which are linguistically mediated in the discourse of, for example, powerful political, social, and cultural institution.

The writer takes two President Barack Hussein Obama‘s inaugural addresses. These are two of many political addresses he has delivered in his term of office. The main reason for taking these two addresses is that they are the chance a president could have to build public support and confidence toward to his terms for the first time. An inaugural addresses must be presented by those who already hold the power as a leader, in this case is President Obama. So, any ideological aspects mentioned in the address texts must carry the way Obama uses his power. As said by Bracher (1993), that political campaign rhetoric is another form of discourse that can produce quite obvious and fairly immediate psychological and social effect.

(21)

The writer assumes that Obama has used his power to control the citizens within the language structure that is ideologically accepted. He emphasizes on the issue of economy crisis and motivates the people to change their attitude toward the social condition with the notion of nationalism and liberty as the power source of the country to fight the crisis. He stated in the first inaugural address,

―Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met (VI, a).‖

The purpose of his address in general is to invite all citizens to create the economy stability together by taking risk in the entrepreneurship which will be supported by regulations. For that, he wishes that the citizens trust the government and put aside the negative issue about America. He believes that with a better economy condition, the nation will gain the liberty and equality for all. This act is called as ‗a politics of economic activism‘ (Rose, 2004: 144), which happens due to the desocialization of government in the name of the maximation the individual entrepreneurial behavior.

He puts also in his address the thing that reminds the people about past experience that has contributed the negative impact to the recent social condition for instances are the issue of war and terrorism. This is represented in the second inaugural address when Obama says,

―We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty (XVII, b).‖

(22)

However, Obama invites people to look further back to the principles of the nation that has been fought by their predecessors. This is represented in the fourth paragraph of the second inaugural address, he says:

―Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together (IV, b).‖

He tries to straighten out what is worth fighting for by the nation for the community as a whole. On the basis of this vision, the people are promised a better life that includes equal rights, freedom, and prosperity. However, for a state leader, no matter how fine the things he says, the values and norms offered are just part of his skill in reasoning and persuading the citizens to agree on his command.

He also mentions about the pride in work and labor which are linked to the value of independency and liberty. He says,

―We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship (29, XI, b).‖

Then he adds Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which for him will back up the citizens and handle the coming risks from the social and the economy engagement. In the second inaugural address, he says,

―The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great (XIV, b).‖

What can be inferred from his speech is that Medicare and Medicaid as well as the Social Security are programed to strengthen America where the people can contribute in the economy development while government provides the insurance and security. In the contrary, Rose (2004) states that citizens cannot rely upon the

(23)

state to provide you with unconditional security against risks and to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. Rose, further, emphasizes that government‘s political responsibility is to provide training, combat discrimination, help with child care for lone parents, even to improve individual rights and protections as a worker and at work. Nevertheless, citizen‘s political responsibility as a citizen is to improve your own lot through selling their labor on the market. Therefore, Obama as the representation of government does not provide all the good thing citizen can imagine. In fact, he implicitly commands the citizens to get employed in order to benefit themselves and the country.

As implied in Obama‘s addresses, there are other countries‘ cynical responses to the U.S. with its political issues and wars that happens in recent times. It shows that no matter what, a state leader is just part of social system. Even more, a leader would not necessarily refer himself as a leader and be free to do his will over others. A leader can easily be ousted from his position when his policy goals found to be not in line with the community. A leader needs support in order to run the power and do the mandate of the public. Thus, the phenomenon which is highlighted here is Obama's political approach to the society. The reciprocity of Obama‘s approach is not merely to get the material things but for the trust and legitimate support for the continuity of government in the name of the state‘s integrity.

Therefore, there are numerous aspects in the circumstances in where a text is produced. The heterogeneity of the texts is examined to explore the value systems and sets of beliefs which reside in texts; to explore, in other

(24)

words, ideology in language (Simpson, 2005). A CDA framework used in this study will reveal the use of power on any aspects it is subjected to and see how language works to represent and reconstruct ideology in order to support President Obama‘s political goals.

It is true that Critical Discourse Analysis is an interdisciplinary study of language. Fairclough states that CDA is analysis of the dialectical relationship between semiosis (including language) and other elements of social practice (1995). It involves both external situation of which the text is produced and also the internal element of the text itself which is called as intertextuality. Concrete language use, as Jorgensen (2002) explains on Fairclough‘s intertextuality, always ties on earlier discursive structures as language users build on already established meanings. The reproduction of discourses where no new elements are introduced and discursive change through new combinations of discourse is investigated through the intertextuality analysis. Therefore, the discourse analysis cannot only be done outside the text, but it must put the same proportion to the structure of that language appear in the text.

In this study, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory developed by M. A. K. Halliday is used to analyze the language structure in the text. SFL, for Fairclough (2003) intensely concerns with the relationship between language and other elements and aspects of social life, and its approach to the linguistic analysis of texts is always oriented to the social character of texts. Young and Harrison (2004) see three similarities between SFL and CDA. First, both view language as social construction. Second, both view the dialectic process in language where

(25)

language influences the contexts and the contexts influence the language production. Third, SFL and CDA emphasize the cultural and historical acts of meaning making. In other words, the SFL approach to the text will provide the language data right from the text. By assessing the internal linguistic structure and applying the SFL approach, the relation between text and the social circumstances in which it is produced will be relatable accordance to each other.

B. Research Questions

There are two questions formulated as the leading questions so that this study can achieve its aims. They are:

1. What discourses does Obama ideologically employ in exercising the power? 2. How does the language structure represent his discourse?

C. Objectives of the Study

The event of inauguration for a newly inaugurated president is the most decisive starting point to gain public confidence and support to the government. Here, language as a code is a tool employed for making meaning in the address. This study firstly aims to explain the discursive practice in the delivery of the Obama‘s first and second inaugural address. It is meant to see how Obama reproduces and combines the existing discursive elements to produce his discourse in governing. It is firstly done by presenting the issues faced by the U.S. public in the contemporary situation in any aspects of life that become the public‘s main concern and also be the concern of the President in his addresses to use his

(26)

power. This explanation will include the question about whom the President addresses his power to and who will benefit and become the victims of the power. Secondly, this study purposes to figure out the way language is structured in both inaugural addresses to shows the President‘s use of ideology in corresponding the current issues and by those is able to use his power. As the ultimate goal of this study, the writer wants to show how power and ideology are impregnated in the language of the text in order to influence the citizens to do things as directed by the government.

Critical Discourse Analysis allows us to understand more deeply about the use of power wherein its implementation may have real social impacts in relation to the socio-political and cultural life, such as inequality, dominance, and discrimination. This study is conducted to see the way language is structured as the best choice in making meaning that support the power relation. The linguistic choices in the addresses are analyzed to see how the texts are made to enable the production and reproduction of value systems and beliefs and change how the reality is created to be perceived by the people in control. The production and the reproduction of value systems and beliefs will result in the power dominance upon others.

D. Benefits of the Study

There are number of advantages in applying Critical Discourse Analysis on text analysis. One is taking an interest in social and cultural issues and how these issues affect society as a whole, looking at how social injustice is portrayed,

(27)

and how certain social groups may be misrepresented in discourse. That is meant by Fairclough as to promote more egalitarian and liberal discourses and for further democratization. It is also to create critical language awareness that give people perception when they participate in a discursive practice by the way texts are consumed and in the social structures and power relations that discursive practice is shaped by and takes part in shaping and changing. Fairclough states, ―People can become more aware of the controls on their practice and of the possibilities for resistance and change (1992: 239)‖. Finally, looking at CDA in more depth will give a new insight with which to study language, not just academically, but in everyday life too, for examples are in reading newspapers or magazines and watching the news.

As it is known that an address is one of the discursive events that describe how a discourse that contended with power and ideology can represent social situations as well as establishing a common sense. Thing like a common sense is then infused into a shared agenda to achieve the objectives of political, social, and cultural rights in U.S. society to shape a social behavior that supports the political objective. This practically teaches us to be more critical to language used by the authority whose tendencies are sometimes concealed and mislead the interpretation.

For the local context of Indonesia, this study will enrich the critical attitudes toward American‘s possible intervention in the Indonesia‘s political life. Admitted or not, America‘s policies have influenced many aspects in the Indonesia‘s internal and international political affairs by its global domination on

(28)

the capitalist system. In The Dialectics of Discourse, a journal written by Fairclough it is stated that:

―Capitalism is being restructured and re-scaled on the basis of important new technologies, new mode of economic coordination, and the increasing subsumption of extra-economic relation under the logic of capital accumulation…The dominance of American multinationals and the US imperialist state has placed neo-liberalism at the top of the global agenda…Neo-liberalism has resulted in the disorientation and disarming of economic, political, and social force committed to radical alternatives. This in turn has contributed to a closure of public debate and a weakening of democracy‖

(Fairclough, 2001: 5)

For the most part is the free market policies introduced by Obama which will have greater effects since Indonesia is considered as the most potential market in the global economy. The free market system, as Fairclough (2001) emphasizes, potentially leads an increasing division between rich and poor, increasing economic insecurity and stress even for the ‗new middle‘ classes, and an intensification of the exploitation of labor. Therefore, by possessing critical language awareness, Indonesian should show some resistance toward capitalist ideology which is tried to be infused in Indonesia‘s economy and political discourses to avoid the negative impact of free market system which threats the politics and economy security.

(29)

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

This chapter provides the supporting theories and former studies that will help the study to arrive at its aim. It is also explained later in the chapter about how and where the theories will be helpful for the analysis. In short, this part mostly deals with the relational concepts and theories which make this study works in a reliable way.

A. Review on Related Theories

This part presents the theories that support the study on Obama‘s inaugural addresses. The definitions of power and ideology, the theory of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and the concept of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) are presented in order to inform what concept of each theory that the writer uses in the analyzing the data and discussing the findings. The order of the theories is made in its way to ease the flow of thought, and hoped to enable the comprehension of the cooperation among the three theories. Thus, the conclusion made in the end of the study will comprehend all the theories and concept related to the ideology and power, their realization in discursive practice, and how meaning is structured through language system that operates as the production and the reproduction of ideology and power in an ideological society.

(30)

1. Ideology

Humans live with a natural necessity to fulfill the need whether it is for physically needs or the socially needs. To fulfill the needs, humans will follow the rational ability to maintain what they have perceived in the world as the sources of living hood. This is the idea (ideology) which is possessed by human to control themselves in accordance to how the world and the society work. The world existed as a thing in itself. The human mind had its own structure which crucially influenced the way in which humans understood and interpreted the world. Thus, humans must make themselves able to fulfill the needs even by the persuasive way to make the personal needs become the mutual need among the members of society where they live. So, when it comes to the matter of mutual relation there must be a system that controls the relation. Marx (1977) notices a kind of structure that relates individuals to each other. Gee (2008) cited Marx as Follows:

―Marx believed that human knowledge, beliefs, and behavior reflected and were shaped by the economic relationships that existed in society (Marx, 1977). By ―economic relationships‖ he meant something fairly broad, something like the relationships people contracted with each other in society in order to produce and consume ―wealth.‖ (―Wealth‖ originally meant ―well-being‖ and in the economic sense is still connected to the resources in terms of which people and institutions can sustain their well-being, at least materially.)‖

(Gee, 2008: 27-28)

The condition of ―well-being‖ is a natural process of what human being seeks for survival. The material is there around him to support. This is why Marx sees that ideology has close relation to the economy. However, it is the mind the mind that processes the idea which drives human to do something to reach what he thinks as ideal. Ideology is then an illusion about the best guidance leading to best way of living. This comes from the ability of human to think and find the

(31)

relation between his existence and the other things in pursuing the dignity. The way Marx puts as emphasis is only part of the economy relational system where the reality of economy becomes the base of the less tangible aspects in society like its laws, its beliefs, and its ideology. In Foucault‘s view as studied by McHoul (1993), however, the classical Marxist model seems ineffectual to deal with with the new kinds of struggle developing in so-called post-industrial society.

The term ideology then remains in frequent use as a plural noun, a near-synonym of ‗belief system‘. It binds the member of a society together by providing them with collectively shared value and norms (Thomson, 1984). Political parties, pressure groups of various persuasions, social classes and even individuals are said to act according to their separate, often mutually opposed, ideologies, which inform and influence their behavior and modes of expression, and which reflect the conditions under which people live. Since any sane person behaves in accordance with a more or less coherent set of beliefs, everyone has an ideology, in this sense of the term, and scholars who embrace this ‗neutral‘ conception of ideology (Thompson, 1990).

―In studying ideology we may be concerned with the ways in which meaning sustains relations of class domination, but we may also be concerned with other kinds of domination, such as the structured social relations between men and women, between one ethnic group and another, or between hegemonic nation-states and those nation-states located on the margins of a global system.‖

(Thompson, 1990: 56)

Thus for Thompson, ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which can be shown to contribute to establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation. This critical view of ideology, seeing it as a modality of power, contrasts with various descriptive views of

(32)

ideology as positions, attitudes, beliefs, perspectives, etc. of social groups without reference to relations of power and domination between such groups. Fairclough (1989) links the ideology and power as follows:

―Ideologies are closely linked, to power, because the nature of the ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions, and so the nature of those conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the conventions; and because they are a means of legitimizing existing social relations and differences of power, simply through the recurrence of ordinary, familiar ways of behaving which take these relations and power differences for granted.‖

(Fairclough, 1989: 2)

Fairclough emphasizes that the relation between ideology and power lies in the specific conventions which can be seen in the society‘s ordinary ways of behaving. Therefore, along with the development, human keeps enlarging the idea and the method to survive not only for himself but also for the rest of bound society he lives in which are the family, the race, and the nation. The relations which are shaped in a long range of time, for example the nationality where the belief and value shared together will be the new source of power to expand the scope of defense and the supporting aspects.

Ideology is therefore a set of attitude, value, and perception where with it humans can understand and make contact to the world. So, that people are no longer seeing the worldly reality objectively neutral, instead that the world is determined by a set of attitudes that naturally received and taken for grant (somehow this is the result of ideological hegemony). The social point of view toward the reality is determined by this ideological belief. Ideology is absorbed and distorted under human consciousness and appearing on the way a society act among the others or to act upon phenomena happen around them. Bourdieu (1991) states that ideology does not only represent the characteristic of group or

(33)

class but also serves the specific interest of those who produce them to the specific logic of the field of production. So, an ideological society can value and decide how to respond phenomena, how to support, or how to reject them. Ideology influences the ideological society attitudes because in an ideology, there is a principle about what to do or not to do for making the good for the most of an ideological society members.

Ideology is also accepted as overall political view that helps people to make sense of the political world (Shalom, 2007). It provides the way to organize political issues and a framework to make political judgment. It helps people to process political information and formulate their political positions on different issues. Jones and Peccei (1999) states that politics is matter of power, the power to make decision, to control resources, to control other people‘s behaviors, and often to control their values. Long before it, Marx (1977: 192) claims that the social and political ideas of those groups with the most power, status, and wealth ―are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships‖

The questions are who decide what is good for all does, how to make all members agree to this idea and how will the ideological members hold the idea as common interest for all. In an ideological society, there must be a control group which has the legitimate power to represent a whole members and the duty is to reproduce and sustain the mechanism to achieve the common objectives. Therefore, the existence of ideology in a group of people cannot be parted from the dominance of the authority, for instance, government, law institution,

(34)

churches, etc. Paul Simpson (1993) explains the relation between the ideology and the power as follows:

―An ideology therefore derives from the taken-for-granted assumptions, beliefs and value-systems which are shared collectively by social groups. And when an ideology is the ideology of a particularly powerful social group, it is said to be dominant. Thus, dominant ideologies are mediated through powerful political and social institutions like the government, the law and the medical profession. Our perception of these institutions, moreover, will be shaped in part by the specific linguistic practices of the social groups who comprise them.‖

(Simpson, 1993: 5)

In other words, Simpson expresses that ideology which is shared among the society comes into a dominant conception which will be followed by the rest of the society. This dominant belief is then maintained by a group whose power is given by the society for instance, the government who serves the country. Member of the society gives the legitimating of the ideological practice to the government and the law enforcement to sustain the whole aspects of life in the society. Now it is clear that the authority comes from the legitimate institutions. This group is usually authorized by mutual agreement among the ideological society members. Thus, it can be concluded that ideological representations can be identified in texts since text in its wide meaning are form of communication in the society. The ideology is formulated in the arrangement of language features that lies in words, sentences, and discourse which is embedded in the way member of society interacting with others.

Simpson adds significance remark of language and the ideology as world-view as follows:

―Special attention was given to the problem of making explicit and direct connections between features of language and aspects of world-view. Textual meaning, it was argued, is not rigidly fixed and a particular linguistic form may have a number of functions, depending on its context of use.‖

(35)

For Simpson, the functions of chosen linguistic form must be seen on its context of use in order to explicate the connections between features of language and the aspects of world-view. The world-view is the reality that can happen on anybody. Reality includes event and things that empirically happens outside the body of human. It means that everybody can have the same reality whether in the same time or in different time of occurrences. However, the way or how a person internalizes the reality into experience is personal and different from one to another. It is, therefore, the reason behind the differences in how individual expressing the idea, feeling, or experience in the form of utterance. The process of internalization is different from a person to the other because of many different factors that belong to each personality. Thus, reality can be shared but an experience is not a common thing. If an experience is articulated it becomes an expression. The expression is the representation of somebody‘s experience which has been influenced by so many factors such as family background, moral values in the cultural society, and other factor that is influential to the way a person perceive the reality to be their experience. A person expresses or articulates their experience through language as the benefit of being a human that enable a person to make meaning of the reality with language. This process can be said as the nature of ideology.

2. Power

Legitimated authority results in the circulation of power. Pels (2002) notes that there is no separation between power and the cognitive relatives like control, influence, or authority. In other words, there is no society without the regulation

(36)

of power. The power itself is many sided and ambiguous, and that it is some sort of active property or capability of being able to control or influence others.

Power is then the capability of the actor or the agent. Locke (1690) identifies the will as power ‗in the Mind to direct the operative Faculty of a Man‘. Locke also adds that the Mind that does that Action, it is the Agent that has this power (Yolton, 1993). In other words, power is derived from the will of a man. This will is articulated by the one with the authority and become power. This power influences the relation of men in the civil society. The abstraction of power is different in each society based on the pattern of social interaction. Power source is heterogeneous since the social interactions have variations of relations. Power has no self-limiting and therefore it is morally ambiguous. This is not the final remark of defining power. Since the concept of power is not all about the western way of thinking, we should consider other concept of power existing in other part of the world. This consideration is taken because of the fact that power related issues are no longer about who has the most dangerous weapons to defeat other nations in wars or which country owns the modals to be at economically higher position than the others. Instead, the power and the ability to gain the global confidence are now placed on the way a leader be able to speak in the name of her/his nations in gaining national credibility and to represent her/his country‘s contribution to the global society.

Anderson (1992) also introduces the concept of power from other point of view. He points out the contradiction between the European concepts of power and the concept of the power in eastern nations, especially in the Javanese point of

(37)

view. Power in Javanese is described as something concrete, homogeneous, constant in total quantity, and without inherent moral implications (Anderson, 1992). In the era of colonization, those two aspects were seen contradictory and could not walk along together. However, in this so-called post-modern era, materialized forms of power (wealth, weapon, social status, etc) are not the main modals for a country to maintain its role in the global society but knowledge about this will make those as power sources too. Power, then, is inextricably linked with knowledge: ―power and knowledge directly imply each other … there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations‖ (Foucault, 1977: 27). Gee (2008) adds that what people in power believe is simply an expression of their controlling and powerful positions in the social hierarchy, and their desire, whether conscious or not, to retain and enhance their power.

Bourdieu also notes that power does not lie in the symbolic system as words and slogans. ―It is defined in and through a given relation between those who exercise power and those who submit to it i.e. the very structure of the field in which belief is produced and reproduced (1991: 88).‖ Power is implied not only by grammatical forms within a text, but also by a person‘s control of a social event by means of the genre of a text. Therefore, the words alone cannot create the belief to subvert the social order but what does is the belief in the legitimacy of words and of those who utter them.

(38)

3. Critical Discourse Analysis

In this part, the writer is going to refer to some theories that show the relation among ideologies, power, discourse and language. Many theorists present the general principles of CDA in their own terms.

a. Major Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis

The most widely cited view is Fairclough and Wodak‘s (1997) principles of CDA. The first principle which will be used in this study is by Fairclough and Wodak (1997) is that CDA addresses social problems. Fairclough and Wodak are very clear in giving the boundary of CDA study. CDA follows a critical approach to social problems in its endeavors to make explicit power relationships which are frequently hidden. It aims to derive the results which are of practical relevance to the social, cultural, political and even the economic contexts.

The second principle is that power relations are discursive. That is CDA explains how social relations of power are exercised and negotiated in and through discourse (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

The third principle is that discourse constitutes society and culture. This means that every instance of language use makes its own contribution to reproducing and transforming society and culture, including relations of power. Discourse also does ideological work. In other words, ideologies are often produced through discourse. To understand how ideologies are produced, it is not enough to analyze texts; the discursive practice (how the texts are interpreted and received and what social effects they have) must also be considered (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

(39)

The fourth principle is that discourse is history. Thus discourses can only be understood with reference to their historical context. In accordance with this CDA refers to extralinguistic factors such as culture, society and ideology in historical terms (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996, 2001).

The fifth principle is that the link between text and society is mediated. CDA is concerned with making connections between socio-cultural processes and structures on the one hand, and properties of texts on the other (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 2001; Meyer, 2001; Scollon, 2001). CDA does not take this relationship to be simply deterministic but invokes an idea of mediation. Fairclough studies this mediated relationship between text and society by looking at ‗orders of discourse‘ (Fairclough, 1992, 1995). Wodak (1996), like van Dijk (1997), introduces a ‗sociocognitive level‘ to her analysis, and Scollon (2001) studies mediation by looking at ‗mediated action‘ and ‗mediational means‘. CDA then sees language use in address and writing as a form of ‗social practice‘. Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s). What follows is a summary of these principles.

The sixth principle is that CDA is interpretative and explanatory. CDA goes beyond textual analysis. It is not only interpretative, but also explanatory in intent (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak, 1996). These interpretations and explanations are dynamic and open, and may be affected by new readings and new contextual information. Meyer (2001) calls this process a hermeneutic process and maintains that compared with the analytical-inductive process

(40)

employed in some other fields, hermeneutics can be understood as a method of grasping and producing meaning relations by understanding the meaning of one part in the context of the whole. He further argues that hermeneutic interpretation in particular requires detailed documentation such as an explicit linguistic analysis of texts. Discourse from the point of view of CDA, then, is a form of social action. The principle aim of CDA is to uncover opaqueness and power relationships. CDA is a socially committed scientific paradigm. It attempts to bring about change in communicative and socio-political practices (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

b. Van Dijk‟s View of Ideologies, Power, Discourse and Language.

Van Dijk‘s theory of discourse analysis is found to be helpful also to understand the seemingly vague relationship among ideologies, power, discourse and language. Van Dijk explains that ―discourse is not always ideologically transparent, and discourse analysis does not always allow us to infer what people's ideological beliefs are. This always depends on the definition of the communicative situation by the participants, that is, on context.‖ (2006: 124) In other words, the concept of ideology is non-deterministic. It is not a must for the members to always express or enact the beliefs of the groups they identify with. Ideological discourse is always personally and contextually variable. However, this does not mean that ideologies are increasingly less important in a globalized world. Just it is only in some contexts they are not being manifest so that conflicts can be resolved more easily.

(41)

―In group talk, ideological beliefs may be presupposed, and in talk with out-group members ideological beliefs may be censored or modified, e.g. in `politically correct' discourse. In both cases, the relation between ideology and discourse needs special, indirect or other unobtrusive methods to be studied empirically.‖

(Van Dijk, 2006: 124)

Van Dijk more or less expresses that ideology is not to be mention directly in texts. Ideology is implied within the interaction of the member of society that is in the way or what they talk to each other. Ideology is manifested into the real action or materialized in action. Moreover, ideology controls what and how things are talked or done.

Ideology is then absorbed in the social interactions. No interactions may happen without communicating ideas and this must be run through language. Here, concept of discourse appears in the matter that language is as social practice determined by social structures. Van Dijk (2006) explains the relation among ideology, language, and discourse as follows:

―We have assumed that ideological discourse structures are organized by the constraints of the context models, but also as a function of the structures of then underlying ideologies and the social representations and models controlled by them. Thus, if ideologies are organized by well-known ingroup–outgroup polarization, then we may expect such a polarization also to be `coded' in talk and text.‖

(Van Dijk, 2006: 126)

Critical Discourse Analysis is a form of discourse analysis that studies the relationship between discourse and ideology (a set of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that constitute a perspective on the world). It focuses on critiquing social injustice, and has strong links to the study of language and power. Most critical discourse analysts approach a text with a political goal or agenda of some kind, and are often advocates for social justice and social change, seeking to show how a text could be biased towards a particular ideology. Van Dijk (1995) emphasizes that CDA specifically focuses on the strategies of manipulation,

(42)

legitimation, the manufacture of consent and other discursive ways to influence the minds and indirectly the actions of people in the interest of the powerful.

Van Dijk (1995) adds that CDA is part of wide scope of critical studies in the humanities and the social sciences such as sociology, law, literature, and political science. CDA also pays attention to all levels and dimension of discourse which can be the grammar, style, rhetoric, text organization, speech acts, pragmatic strategies, and those interactions among others.

CDA therefore addresses broader social issues and attends to the external factors, including ideology, power, inequality, etc. and draws on social and philosophical theory to analyze and interpret written and spoken texts. The discourse is there to be structured in language use since language is where words, grammatical, and context are chosen in making meaning for the idea that is need to be transferred to the society and control the interactions among members in an ideological society. The discourse is to be coded on talk and text and beyond this, social belief, public interest, and histories are the supporting background in which context is made and to be understood making the members of ideological society stand on the same perception for the common righteousness.

C. Fairclough‟s Approach of Critical Discourse Analysis

For Fairclough (1989), CDA aims to examine how the ways in which we communicate are constrained by the structures and forces of those social institutions within which we live and function. Jorgensen tries to explain Fairclough‘s conception by mentioning that CDA is the investigation of change. Fairclough wants to show that while language in use is based from already

(43)

established meaning, the process of reproducing and combining the elements happens in discourse. This process results in the change of social and cultural world. Fairclough‘s intertextuality analysis may ―investigate both the reproduction of meaning where no addition of new elements and the discursive change where new combinations exist in the discourse (Jorgensen, 2002: 7)‖.

In his view, however, the term ideology is used in a ‗critical‘ sense. Fairclough (1992) defines ideologies to be:

―significations/constructions of reality (the physical world, social relations, social identities) which are built into various dimensions of the forms/meanings of discursive practices, and which contribute to the production, reproduction or transformation of relations of domination.‖

(Fairclough, 1992: 87)

Thus, ideologies are constructed inside the discursive practices to serve the domination. This critical conception of ideology, which is based on Gramsci‘s (1971) concept of hegemony (domination by consent), links it to the process of sustaining asymmetrical relations of power and inequalities – that is to the process of maintaining domination. In the words of Fairclough (1995), ideology is meaning in the service of power. Critical discourse analysts, therefore, see ideologies as serving the interests of certain groups with social power, ensuring that events, practices, and behaviors come to be regarded as legitimate and common-sense. Ideologies do this elusively, because they inform the way people interpret the world around them, hence hegemony.

The most influential theory of language in CDA that is socially oriented and informed is Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). As Chouliaraki and Fairclough state: ―It is no accident that critical linguistics and social semiotics arose out of SFL or that other work in CDA has drawn upon it SFL theorizes

(44)

language in a way which harmonizes far more with the perspective of critical social science than other theories of language (1999: 139).‖ SFL theorizes language in harmony with the critical society perspective in same way CDA wants to achieve the notion of social action. While there are undoubtedly other theoretical models that are also critical, SFL is useful for CDA precisely because it sees language as meaningful behavior and interprets language as a process of making meanings means that it is not only text (what people mean) but also the semantic system (what they can mean) that embodies the ambiguity, antagonism, imperfection, inequality and change that characterize the social system and the social structure (Halliday, 1978). It is because SFL provides insights into the ways in which language is socially constructed and embedded in culture that it becomes useful for its application in CDA. Fairclough (1995) adds also that the multi-semiotic character of texts and adds visual images and sound using the example of television language as other semiotic forms which may be simultaneously present in texts.

Discourse, used as an abstract noun, refers to the language use conceived as social practice but hen discourse is used as a countable noun, it refers to a way of signifying experience from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1993). Fairclough further points out the question of discourse is that the question of how text figure (in relation to other moments) in how people represent the world, including themselves and their productive activities. Different discourses are different ways of representing associated with different positions (Fairclough, 2000). Discourse as an abstract noun, is not only concerned with language in use,

(45)

but also the pervasive and often invisible sets of values, beliefs and ideas in that social circumstance.

A discursive event is an instance of language use, analyzed as text, discursive practice, and social practice (Fairclough, 1993). Discursive event, thus, refers to text, discursive practice (production and interpretation of the text), and social practice (including situational, institutional and societal practice). Orders of discourse concern on the ―totality of discursive practices of an institution and relationship between them‖ (Fairclough, 1993). They are usually associated with particular institutions or domains of social life.

Fairclough sees the relationship between language and society being dialectical. This means that the relationship between language and society is two-way: on the one hand, language is influenced by society; on the other hand, society is shaped by language. Social life is made up of various kinds of Social Events that involves texts. The Social Events has two mind causes which are Social Structure and Social Practices and Social Agents (Subjects) (Fairclough, 2003).

The social structures are abstract entities that set limits to what is possible, what kinds of events can happen and what cannot. Social practices then mediate between social structures and social events. They filter out which events actually happen and which do not. Language as system of sign is part of the social world at all levels. Languages are social structures which define the potential possibilities of texts. Orders of discourse mediate between the abstract level of language and

(46)

the concrete level of texts (Fairclough, 2003). The following table explains the relation among languages and three social levels of organization.

Table 2.1. Fairclough‟s Concept of Language and Social Levels

Abstract, Long-lived,

Stable Concrete, Transient, Variable

Level of Social Organizations

Corresponding Semiotic Element

Social Structures Languages

Social Practices Orders of Discourse

(Discourse, Genres, Styles)

Social Events Texts

(Adapted from Fairclough, 2003: 23-24)

Describing discourse as social practice implies that language and society bears a kind of dialectical relationship. Social practices are articulations of different types of elements of the social world which are associated with particular areas of social life. Discourse (in the abstract, non-countable noun, sense) appears in three ways in social practice (Fairclough, 2003). The relation among them can be seen in the following table.

Table 2.2. Fairclough‟s Views Discourse as an Element of Social Practice

Discourse as an Element of Social Practice

Genres Ways of (inter)acting

Discourse Ways of representing

Style Ways of being

(Adapted from Fairclough, 2003: 26)

Genre is ‗part of the action‘ of social practice while discourses represent the world in different styles which include bodily behavior and involves social and personal identities. CDA for Fairclough is concerned with the investigation of the relation between two assumptions about language use: that language use is both socially shaped and socially shaping. Fairclough operationalizes the theoretical assumption that texts and discourses are socially constitutive:

(47)

―Language use is always simultaneously constitutive of (i) social identities, (ii) social relations and (iii) systems of knowledge and beliefs‖ (Fairclough, 1995). The ideational function of language constitutes systems of knowledge; the interpersonal function creates social subjects or identity and the relationship between them; and the textual function creates discourse. This implies that every text contributes to the constitution of these three aspects of society and culture.

Fairclough claims that these three aspects are always present simultaneously and one may take precedence over the others (Fairclough, 1995). This is however similar to Halliday‘s systemic functional linguistics (SFL) through the notion of multifunctionality of language in texts. They are ideational (representing the world), interpersonal (enacting social relations and showing attitude), and textual (connecting parts of texts together and connecting texts to their contexts). In the other hand, Fairclough divides the functions of texts in slightly different way to SFL and he prefers to talk about text meaning rather than function. The relation of Fairclough‘s types of meaning and SFL can be seen in the table below.

Table 2.3. Fairclough‟s Concept of Types of Meaning Compared with Hallidayan

SFL

Major Types of Meaning

Type of Meaning Corresponding Aspect of

Discourse

Corresponding Function in SFL

Actions Genres Interpersonal (and Textual)

Representations Discourse Ideational

Identifications Styles Interpersonal

(Adapted from Fairclough, 2003: 27-28)

This analytical framework informs the present study in the following ways. First, the multi-layered analysis incorporates textual, processing and social

(48)

levels of discourse analysis. Second, text is at the core of the analysis. Texts are analyzed for linguistic evidence for claims made out of the discourse analytical work.

In short, Jorgensen concludes that Fairclough‘s emphasis is on the character of cultural and social processes and structure as partly linguistic discursive that makes discourse is both constitutive and constituted. Therefore, an empirical analysis of language use is needed to show how discourse functions ideologically in a form of critical research which politically committed to social change (2002: 61-64).

4. Systemic Functional Linguistics

Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is an approach to language developed mainly by M.A.K. Halliday in the U.K. during the 1960s, and later in Australia. The approach is now used world-wide, particularly in language of education, and for purposes of discourse analysis. While many of the linguistic theories in the world today are concerned with language as a mental process, SFL is more closely aligned with Sociology: it explores how language is used in social contexts to achieve particular goals. The goal is seen from how a text structure conveys the three functions that can be inferred from language choice in text.

Simultaneous meanings can be identified in linguistic units of all sizes: in words, phrases, clauses, sentences and texts. They are not there accidentally, according to Halliday, they are there because those are the three types of meaning people need to make with each other and they are related to a particular

(49)

grammatical system. These three metafunctions of language are realized in three more or less independent systems at the sentence or clause level.

Fairclough (1992) also argues that every instance of language use has three dimensions: it is a spoken or written language text; it is an interaction between people involving processes of producing and interpreting the text; and it is a piece of social practice. In terms of data, speech does not address how language is processed or represented within the human brain, but rather looks at the discourses which is produced (whether spoken or written), and the contexts of the production of these texts. Because it is concerned with language use, SFL places higher importance on language function (what it is used for) than on language structure (how it is composed).

When describing language, two important kinds of relations can be addressed. First is the syntagmatic relation which is concerning the ordering of linguistic elements within a larger unit. Second is a paradigmatic relation which is concerning which language elements can be substituted for each other in a particular context. (Eggins, 2004)

SFL takes a ―functional‖ orientation on several levels. Firstly, it is function labels for syntactic elements where Grammar is organized not only in terms of classes of units, but also in terms of functions (Subject, Actor, etc.). Secondly, it puts attention on orientation towards the functions each utterance serves (‗speech functions‘). Thirdly, it views texts as a whole as serving distinct social functions: conveying information, and establishing/maintaining social relations. Fourthly, language is functional. It means that language is not primarily

(1)

not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends -- and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

+ Additive

- - -

58. De

We will defend our people

- - - -

and (S) uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law.

+ Additive

- - -

59. De

We will show the courage to try

- - - -

and (S) resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.

+ Additive

- - -

60. De

America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe.

- - - -

61. De

And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.

+ Additive

- - -

62. De

We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our

(2)

conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.

63. De

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice –- not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: toleranc e and opportunity, human dignity and justice.

+ Additive

- - -

64. De

We, the people,

‗declare today that‘ the most

evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still;

- +

Projecting

(Projected) +

Location, Time (Multiple)

just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall;

Comparativ e

- - -

just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on

Comparativ e

(3)

Earth.

65. De

It is now our

generation‘s task to

carry on what those pioneers began.

- - - -

66. De

For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

+ Causal

- - -

67. De

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

- - - -

68. De

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

- - - -

69. De

Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

- - - -

70. De

Our journey is not complete until all our children, from

(4)

the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

71. De

That is our

generation‘s task -- to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American.

- - - -

72. De

Being true to our founding

documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life.

- - - -

73. De

It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness.

- - - -

74. De

Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time,

- - - -

but it does require us to act in our time.

Adversative

- - -

75. De

For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay.

+ Causal

- - -

76. De

We cannot mistake absolutism for principle,

- - - -

or (S) substitute spectacle for politics,

+ Additive

(5)

Or (S) treat name-calling as reasoned debate.

+ Additive

- - -

77. De

We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.

- - - -

78. De

We must act, knowing that

today‘s victories

will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

- - - -

79. De

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction.

- +

Vocative

(Extended) -

80. De

And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.

+ Additive

- - -

81. De

But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty or an immigrant realizes her dream.

Adversative

- -

(Extended) -

82. De

My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that

(6)

waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

83. De

They are the words of citizens

- - - -

and they represent our greatest hope.

+ Additive

- - -

84. De

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this

country‘s course.

- - - +

Role, Guise

85. De

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time -- not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

- - - +

Role, Guise

86. Im

Let us, each of us, now embrace with solemn duty and awesome joy what is our lasting birthright.

- - - -

87. Im

With common

effort and

common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

- - - +

Manner, Means

88. Thank you. - + - - 89. God bless you, - - - -

and may He forever bless these United States of America.

+ Additive

Critical discourse analysis of ideology and power in Barack Obama`s first and second inaugural addresses.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGY AND

POWER IN BARACK OBAMA‟S

FIRST AND SECOND

INAUGURAL ADDRESSES

STATEMENT OF WORK„S ORIGINALITY

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN

AKADEMIS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PAGE OF DEDICATION

“Live simply so others may simply live.”

―

Mother Teresa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL REVIEW

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION OF BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA’S INAUGURAL SPEECH

conteptual methapor analysis in george W. Bush and barack obama inaugural addres

DOMINANT IDEOLOGY DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN THE 2008 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

INTRODUCTION DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

Discourse Analysis of The First Presidential Debate Over Financial Issue Between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Power And Ideology In Advertisement Texts Of Anti-Aging Products In The Glamour British Magazine: Critical Discourse Analysis.

Analysis of Power Struggle used by President Barack Obama on Barack Obamaâs Interviews (A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach).

An analysis of persuading strategies in barack obama weekly addresses year 2012 (a critical discourse analysis approach) COVER

A STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA’S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Dukungan

Links

Critical discourse analysis of ideology and power in Barack Obama`s first and second inaugural addresses.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGY AND

POWER IN BARACK OBAMA‟S

FIRST AND SECOND

INAUGURAL ADDRESSES

STATEMENT OF WORK„S ORIGINALITY

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN

AKADEMIS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PAGE OF DEDICATION

“Live simply so others may simply live.”

―

Mother Teresa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL REVIEW

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL COHESION OF BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA’S INAUGURAL SPEECH

conteptual methapor analysis in george W. Bush and barack obama inaugural addres

DOMINANT IDEOLOGY DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN THE 2008 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

INTRODUCTION DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN HIS OWN WORDS: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.

Discourse Analysis of The First Presidential Debate Over Financial Issue Between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Power And Ideology In Advertisement Texts Of Anti-Aging Products In The Glamour British Magazine: Critical Discourse Analysis.

Analysis of Power Struggle used by President Barack Obama on Barack Obamaâs Interviews (A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach).

An analysis of persuading strategies in barack obama weekly addresses year 2012 (a critical discourse analysis approach) COVER

A STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA’S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan

Analysis of Power Struggle used by President Barack Obama on Barack Obamaâs Interviews (A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach).