CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter covers the
elaboration on background of the study, problem statements, objectives of the study,
significance of the study, scope and limitation, and operational definitions of the key terms.
1.1 Background of the Study Since
language has a vital role in human‘s life, some studies in the field are continuously carried out. Some linguists
try to dig up more deeply in analyzing
linguistic phenomena or even find innumerable new approaches and perspectives to study language. One of
linguistic studies is Discourse Analysis.
Discourse Analysis is an
interdisciplinary study of language in use. This study is concerned with the analysis of the
relationship between Discourse and social practice (Fairclough: 1989). Furthermore, Cook
stated the term of discourse is the language
in use for communication (1989; p. 36). Meanwhile, according to Widowwson, discourse is an area of language
study is concerned with how people make
meaning, and make out of meaning in texts and as social practice, whether simple or complex, all texts are uses of
language which are produced with the intention
to refer to something for some purposes (2007; p. 104).
Since the social sciences always
keep their dynamic changes, recently, linguists
develop a new perspective of discourse analysis called Critical Discourse Analysis that attracts me to employ this
research.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a
perspective which studies the relationship
between discourse event and power manifested in the texts (spoken and written). In addition, a text, according
to van Dijk (1997) '' is merely the tip of the iceberg'' and it is the responsibility of
the discourse analyst to uncover the hidden
meaning of the text. In other words, it studies how people use language to reach their goals or interests related to
power. Literally, ―Critical‖ means not taking things for granted, opening up
complexity, challenging reductionism, dogmatism,
and dichotomies (Kendall: 2007). Therefore, CDA tries to unveil the hidden power and manipulation of texts or
discourses including the way how people
victimize others and positively represent themselves. More specifically, a critical discourse analyst is supposed to know
what structures, strategies, or other properties of text or talk that play
important role in those modes formation (Dijk: 1993).
CDA is distinct from DA in two
major differences (Davies and Elder: 2004). First, CDA aims to indicate the
―hidden effects of power,‖ the kind
of effects which may stigmatize
the vulnerable, exclude the marginal, naturalize privilege and, through the simple contrivance
of presenting ideology as common sense,
define the terms on the basis of a discourse maker‘s interests. Second, CDA concerns itself with issues of identity,
dominance and resistance, and with seeking out evidence in text – especially from media
and advertising texts, and political documents
and speeches – of class, gender, ethnic and other kinds of bias.
There are, basically, some CDA
concepts proposed by various experts.
Here, I employ the theory
proposed by Teun A. van Dijk because it provides an obvious elaboration on positive
self-representation (Euphemization) and negative other representation (Derogation) (Dijk:
2004b). However, the inspiration of doing this research emerges from the
reality that euphemization and derogation have proved to be common in the ideological
manipulations of the texts leading to the
intended positive self-representation and negative other-representation. These are discursive structures applied to enhance,
mitigate, avoid or worsen an issue.
As the result, researching the
tactics of derogation and euphemization in the texts has played important roles in today‘s context
to help people recognize the form of positive
in-group representation or negative out-group representation in each text either written or spoken since it is common
that language has been an effective weapon
employed by media, politicians, and people to instill and reflect their ideologies. Therefore, the research on this
field might suggest that people do not see
any texts as a take for granted product of discourse, but there should be any critical inspection through relevant theories
that may lead them to understand the possible
latent power struggle and domination brought by any texts. Eventually, through this research, I scrutinize what
discursive strategies that Ahmadinejad has used to reach his communication goals through
euphemization and derogation (positive
and negative representation).
In this research, I analyze the
strategies of 'positive self-representation' and 'negative other- representation' (the
polarization of ―US‖ and ―THEM‖) in Ahmadinejad‘s
speeches at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2008 and Durban Review Conference 2009 in
Geneva, Switzerland. There are some
reasons that make the topic is worth researching. First, in those forums, Ahmadinejad as the President of the Iran
Republic made all nations especially those
attended both forums aware of any inhumane invasions and other humanitarian cases committed by super-power
states (e.g. US and its allies) and soon
find any problem solving of them. Therefore, to be more persuasive and convincing, he must deliver speeches
displaying the derogatory sense of the authoritarian
super-power states and euphemistic tone for those who struggle against them. Indeed, Ahmadinejad certainly
delivered such much more tangible, interesting,
and vivid application of derogatory or euphemistic tactics in those assemblies rather than in his speeches at the
other occasions, such as in 2006 and 2007
editions of UNGA and in other international forums (e.g. the forum of Islamic scholars in Egypt) or even compared to
other national leaders‘ speeches, such
as Obama and Erdogan.
Basically, to come to that goal,
Ahmadinejad must employ what is in Linguistics
known as ―discursive strategies‖ to
materialize his interests in the texts.
Second, the content of those speeches are really fraught or full of derogatory and euphemistic strategy practices which make
them relevant to the present research.
Since the selected speeches are rich of the data needed, therefore, it enables me to maximally analyze how the
application of derogatory and euphemistic
strategy in the texts is. Therefore, his speeches have been a relevant
object of the research on the application
of derogation or euphemization because he always delivers flammable and strongly critical speeches to convey any
criticism and ideas which, in its nature,
urges him to employ such tactics of representation in his texts.
Some researchers have done researches in this
theme, even though CDA is relatively a
new perspective in analyzing discourse. Santoso (2001) analyzed the variance of political language entitled
Political Discourse and Choice of Words of Politicians. Then, Siddik (2008) analyzed
Obama‘s speeches in presidential campaign
using van Dijk theory of micro structure. He found that Obama uses micro-structural level strategies to enhance
the cohesion and coherence of his political
discourse. Furthermore, he uses those strategies to ensure the audiences that he is eligible to lead the American
people and government for the better future.
In addition, Nugroho (2009) analyzed Word-Choice of Headline News on Muslim Issues Used in The Jakarta Post in that
he found The Jakarta Post Used lexicons
to create classification, to limit the view, to clash the discourse, and to marginalize those countries (Palestine and
Israel) involving in the conflicts.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar