REVEALING POWER AND SOLIDARITY REFLECTED IN THE USE OF LEXICALIZATION IN HYBRID POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A CASE STUDY IN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA
Abstract
This research was aimed at investigating how President Obama exercised lexicalization as part of their power and solidarity strategy in maintaining in his speech at the University of Indonesia to maintain his good social relations to Indonesian. It employed qualitative reserach by adopting the theory of critical discourse analysis to construct how President Obama constructed his power and solidarity to Indonesian by exercising lexicalization in his speech. The research, furthermore, related the examination of lexicalization and social analysis to get true data analysis of the research. Finally the research described the social relationship between President Obama and the audience. The result of this research showed how President Obama constructed his power to the audience by choosing positive lexis to his in-group and negative lexis to his out-group. The result showed that their relations are unequal to the opponent. Furthermore, he constructed his solidarity to the audience by exercising his personal experiences and expressing his sad feeling to the audience of the disaster happened in Indonesia. The result showed that their relations are equal.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns of Politics: the use of pronouns in the construction of “self” and “other” in political interviews. https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46225/5/01
Fernanda, Mistio Mesa, dkk. (2012). Hubungan Antara kemampuan Berinteraksi Sosial Dengan Hasil Belajar. Jurnal Ilmiah Konseling.
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.
Jumanto (2014). Phatic communication: How English Native Speakers Create Ties of Union. American Journal of Linguistics. 9-13.
Holmes, Janet. (2001). An introduction to sociolingcampusstics. 2nd Edition. Longman.
Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi. (2015). Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Riset, Tehnologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi No. 44 Tahun 2015. Jakarta.
Litosseliti, Lia. (2010). Research methods in lingcampusstics. London: Continum.
Malinowski, B. (1999 [1926]) in Urbanová, Ludmila. On Phatic Communion in: Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds) The Discourse Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 302-305. Retrieved from http://www.phil.muni.cz/angl/thepes/thepes_01_03.pdf on June, 20th, 2017.
Ng, Sik Hung. (1993). Power in language: verbal communication and social influence. London: Sage Publication.
Van Dijk, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. (2017). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse, on July 10th, 2017.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32682/jeell.v7i1.1556
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 JEELL (Journal of English Education, Linguistics and Literature) English Department of STKIP PGRI Jombang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.