POWER AND SOLIDARITY REFLECTED IN THE USE OF PRONOUNS PORTRAYED IN HYBRID POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Muh Fajar

Abstract


This research examined power and solidarity reflected in the use of pronouns in President Barrack Obama’s presidential speech at the University of Indonesia by applying critical discourse analysis. The speech can be called as a hybrid political discourse individual because he was a hybrid, an ex-Indonesian. Power and solidarity  in hybrid political  discourse  can  be  explored  by analysing language usage in speech and wordings in speech texts.    Furthermore, the analysis of language usage to examine power and solidarity has a close relation to ideology. Power and solidarity are like two sides of a coin. There will be an ambiguity of determing power or solidarity used by one participant to another  in delivering utterances. Power and solidarity were linguistically expressed by President Obama in his speech at University of Indonesia in the use of pronouns. He used power  to show America’s hegemony toward Indonesia and solidarity to to minimize the gab between America and Indonesia. President Obama used power and solidarity in order that Indonesian people will accept him (America) as friend, to show that there is no fight between America (western people/christian) and Indonsia (moslem world).  Moreover, Obama applied these expressions are to secure the America’s politics against for terrorism, America wanted that Indonesia will be its friend to fight terrorism and moslem radicals, and Indonesia will be a big new markets for the American’s goods. Thus, the phenomenon of solidarity, in this sense, cannot be meant only that President Barrack Obama was familiar and close with Indonesia people, but he has another agenda in order that the US interests in Indonesia will be accepted by The Indonesian People. Furthermore, Obama has any concessions that he should do this in order to ‘demonstrate’  that America would like to teach their moral, their ideas, their values and political leadership in the general public, particulary their central claim to political legitimacy.


Keywords


power and solidarity, a hybrid political discourse, critical discourse analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References


Atkins, Andrew. (2002). “Critical Discourse Analysis: A letter to expatriates from the Rt. Hon. Sir Norman Fowler MP”. (www.cels.bham.ac.uk) retrieved in February 2007)

Batstone, R. (1995). Grammar in Discourse: attitude and deniability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bakhtin, Mikhael. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. M. Holquist, trans. V. W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barron, Colin. et. al. (2002). Knowledge and Discourse: Towards an Ecology of Language. Essex. PearsonEducation Limited

Batubara, Amrin. (2001). Ideology of Power Relations Embedded in Barrack Obama’s Electoral Speeches: A Pragmastylistic Apprach. Dissertation.UNESA: Unpublished.

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. Cambridge, Mass. M.l.T. Press.

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. (1972). Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Muria, Marianne & Olshtain, Elite. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London:Routledge.

Collins, C (1990) English Grammar. London: Collins ELT

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Pinter: London.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough & Wodak. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. London. Sage.

Fiske, J. (1994). Media matters: Everyday culture and political change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gramsci, Antonio. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith. New York: International Publishers.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hassan R. (1985). Language Text and Context: Aspects of Language in Social Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985a). Systemic background. In J. D. Benson, & W. S. Greaves, Eds. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1. Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (pp. 1 15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Halliday, M. A. K.(1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985b). An Introduction To Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. UK: Biddles Ltd.

Halliday, M.A.K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 246-256.

Irimiea, S. A. Rhetorical and Comparative Study of the Victory Speeches of Barack Obama and Mircea Geoana. (2010). Jolie 3. Babes Bolyai University. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Kress, Gunther. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kristeva, Julia. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 24-33.

Martin, JR. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Jhon Benjamin Publishing Co.

Miles, Matthew. B. and Hubermann, Michael A. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publication.

Parmer and Cox. (2010). Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives. Routledge. London and New York.

Richardson, Jhon E. (2007). Analysing Newspaper: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Santosa, R. 1994. Analisis Tajuk Rencaa Kompas ( Sebuah studi Sistem Semiotika dengan pendekatan Linguistik Sistemik Fungsional ). Fakultas Sastra UNS: Surakarta.

Tannen, Deborah. (1993). Gender and Discourse. New York & Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., et al. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE

Thompson, Neil. Communication and Language. New York: Palgrave macmillan.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Van Djik, T. (1997). Critical discourse Analysis (online). http://www.hum.uva.nl.

Wodak, Ruth and Meywer, Michael. (2006). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Woods, L.A and Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage




DOI: https://doi.org/10.32682/jeell.v5i2.991

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 JEELL (Journal of English Education, Linguistics and Literature)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Published by English Department of STKIP PGRI Jombang

Jl. Pattimura III/20, Jombang, East Java, Indonesia

Currently, JEELL (Journal of English Education, Linguistics and Literature) is indexed by:

   
    
     
     
     
     

Dedicated to:

Print ISSN 2356-5446, Online ISSN 2598-3059

 Flag Counter

View My Stats

Published by STKIP PGRI Jombang || http://stkipjb.ac.id/


Creative Commons License
JEELL (Journal of English Education, Linguistics and Literature)  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.