CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Chapter 2 concerns with some theories and ideas related to the study. It is made of review of previous studies, review of theoretical background and framework of the present study.

2.1.

Review of Previous Studies

The analysis of ideology using critical discourse analysis in several disciplines has created some reliable literature. There have been many researchers who discuss ideology using critical discourse analysis such as Teun A. Van Dijk, a linguist whos very famous of his study about racism ideology. He discussed racism and xenophobic as the current grown rapidly

ideologies in Europe and North America which has to be studied using multidisciplinary science (van Dijk, 2000: 9). Van Dijk underlined that ideology and discourse require analysis in all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences (ibid). Second example is Norman Faircloughs study on ideology and power using critical discourse analysis. It is a good example. Fairclough (1992) wrote that everyone will be familiar with one domain of ideological diversity: political ideologies. On his Language and Power (1992: 87), Fairclough gave an example about the discourse of a people and about the relationship between people and leader in Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf: It is assumed (and this is an ancient rhetorical device) that a people is a sort of composite individual with the attributes of a single person (attention, will, strength, bitterness, having enemies), and the capacity to act as one, but these attributes can sapped by disease (paralysis) as a result of weakness and instability. Since the people cannot sustain unity and clarity of objectives for itself (the masses are wavering), it falls to a leader to do so to prevent division and concentrate attention. It is assumed that

the leadership of a people or nation is lodged in (the genius of) a single person, rather than collective.

Fairclough then concluded that this assumption about the relationship between people and leader may seem extreme, but the idea of a people as a composite individual, for example, is actually quite common (ibid). Furthermore, Halliday (1985: 3) thought that general ideology is indicated by the term social-semiotic. By operating the term semiotic as s ystem of meaning, he intends to concern particularly with the relationship between language and social structure, considering social structure as one aspect of social system (Halliday, 1985: 4). There are a lot of current studies using critical discourse analysis from around the world as well. Given Ferdows Aghagolzadeh and Sahar Bahramis CDA to Mc Cains and Obamas Speech on Iraq War (2009). Qing Cao, a senior lecturer of Liverpool John Moored University, has done a critical analysis on British Presss Signification of Hongkongs handover (1999). And Andreas Fruensgaard, Anne Kaehne, and Gorjan Dimitrov, students of Roskilde University, also using critical discourse analysis to compare two articles from TIME Magazine about George W. Bush on Pre and Post Katrina. The above various example of critical discourse analysis are various and interesting, likewise this paper will conduct a critical discourse analysis on Bushs speech ideology at Annapolis Conference.

2.2.

Ideology and Discourse

This subchapter will explain the term ideology to understand its basic concept and discuss the structure of ideology. Then at the last subchapter, ideology will be discussed on how this mental aspect can be related to discourse.

2.2.1. Basic Concept of Ideology Van Dijk (2000: 6) wrote about the concept of ideology as following: Ideologies have something to do with system of ideas, and especially with the social, political or religious ideas shared by a social group or a movement. Communism as well as anti communism, socialism and liberalism, feminism and sexism, racism and anti racism, pacifism and militarism, are examples of widespread ideologies. Group members who shared such ideologies stand for a number of very general ideas that are the basis of their more specific beliefs about the world, guide their interpretation of events, and monitor their social practices. By concluding van Dijks concept above, the term ideology is defined as fundamental beliefs of a group and its members. Fairclough, then, suggested that ideology be regarded as essentially tied to power relation (Fairclough, 1992: 84). A fundamental belief always carried by the most powerful group or group members so as being exist and followed by another group or group members. Organizations that strive for power will try to influence the ideology of a society to become closer to what they want it to be (Wodak and Meyer, 2008: 8). In the social power relation, there are always the stronger and the weaker that it is very common if the stronger delivers speech towards political purpose, whether to afford both its power and ideology. President George W. Bush, in this case, was the commander of this centurys most powerful state, United States of America. Bush has undertaken the Middle East peace talk as the first Palestine and Israel international negotiation forum in the US. It was significantly strengthen Bushs political position in the front of the world regarding to the

negotiation. Moreover, Bush speech in this forum will be investigated to reveal his fundamental ideology correlated with Palestine Israel conflict.

2.2.2. The Structure of Ideology After defined as fundamental beliefs, now the ideology structure will be explained. This study structured ideology as units of meaning, which called proposition. As van Dijk description: Propositions are units of meaning, traditionally defined as those meanings that express a complete thought, or in philosophy as something that can be true or false. Propositions are typically expressed in simple clauses, such as women and men are equal or Harry and Sally are friends. Such a simple proposition may then further be modified in various ways, for instance by modalities (it is possible that, it is known that) (van Dijk, 2000: 16). Van Dijk also explained that although propositions are not an ideal format to represent mental representations, they make it easier to speak or write about beliefs in some natural language (ibid).

2.3.

Critical Discourse Analysis

This subchapter is going to discuss critical approach to discourse analysis, which in this paper defined as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and associates CDA with ideology to framing the methodology of analyzing Bushs speech.

2.3.1. Critical Approach to Discourse Analysis Wodak and Meyer (2006: 9) marked the notion critique to be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data in the social, taking a political stance explicitly, and a focus on self

reflection as scholars doing research. For language, the notion critique opens the field of linguistic study to be specifically linked with empirical data, permit specific ways of interpretation and thus reconnect the empirical with the theoretical field (see Wodak and Meyer, 2006: 14), this is named critical linguistic (CL). The terms Critical Linguistic (CL) and Critical Discourse Anlysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably (Wodak and Meyer, 2006: 1). CL and CDA see discourse as a form of social practice. It is mediating the link between text and society. CDA is not interested in investigating a linguistic per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a multidisciplinary and multi-methodical approach (Wodak and Meyer, 2008: 2). As van Dijk wrote, this discourse approach is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other approaches in discourse studies (2006: 353). Rather, it aims to offer a different mode or perspective of theorizing, analysis, and application throughout the whole field (ibid).

2.3.2. Critical Discourse Analysis and Ideology Ideology, for CDA, is seen as an important aspect of establishing and maintaining unequal power relations (Wodak and Meyer, 2006: 10). People are not only influenced by ideology but they actually construct it in what they say, and in ways that are most likely to persuade others to comply with it (Widdowson, 2011: 71). The task that CDA sets itself is to discover traces of ideological bias in texts and put its ideological agenda up front (ibid). How more powerful group or group member uses discourse to do ideological mind control of public discourse and action of less powerful group or group member is the field of critical discourse analysis.

2.4.

The Theoretical Framework of Analysis

This subchapter is very important that it is written as the basic framework to construct the method of critical discourse analysis of present study. Before discuss the approach of this studys CDA, it has to be well understood that CDA should be essentially diverse and multidisciplinary. It doesnt mean that CDA is only directed to one sub discipline study such as psychology of discourse, transformational grammar, or systemic functional grammar (van Dijk, 2006: 96). Van Dijk said, I dont want my colleagues or students to follow me a form of academic obsequiousness that I find incompatible with a critical attitude. (2006: 95). In other words, the critical study of discourse analysis demands critical attitude and cannot be limited to only one experts method. Critical Discourse Analysis also needs a solid linguistic basis such as detailed structures, including grammatical, pragmatic, semiotic, or verbal and paraverbal structure, but does not provide a ready-made, how to do approach to social analysis ( see van Dijk, 2006: 9798). So that, for doing CDA, scholars should write down the linguistic basis of the analyzed text, integrate several methods of discourse analysis and conduct the analysis to be combined with different disciplines and relate them to social structures.