A Critical Discourse Analysis of The Former President of the Republic of Indonesia

(Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) reporting of the bombings at JW Marriott and Ritz

Carlton Mega Kuningan Jakarta in 2009 by using Van Dijk Theory

INTRODUCTION
The domain of discourse analysis consists of the study of the relationship between
language and the contexts in which it is used. It was the focus of interest in different
disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology,
anthropology and sociology. Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the
description and analysis of spoken interaction, but also with printed materials such as
articles, letters, stories, instructions, and so on. The specialists in this field are interested
in levels beyond the linguistic forms.
Among the different types of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis (CDA)
is a type of research that primarily studies the way that social power and dominance can
be recreated by text and talk within the social and political contexts. In other words, it
focuses on the relations between language, power and ideology. Actually, CDA can be
defined as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views
“language as a form of social practice” (Fairclough 1989:20). That means language is
both socially constitutive as well as ’socially shaped’ (Fairclough & Wodak 1997:258).
It is needless to mention that, the belief originates from the school of socio
constructivism.
On the one hand, language is constructed not in isolation but within the social
context and on the other hand, language users think differently about the entities in the
world, based on their ideologies. Therefore, there exist powerful relationships between
language, thought and ideology.
Supporting this relation of language and ideology, Fairclough notes “that
language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology and
through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power” (1989:15). With regard
to the fact that the ideological bases are different not only across various languages and
cultures, but also across different users of the same language and culture, it is quite
evident that there is a need for clarifying the sources of these deviations. Therefore,
CDA tries to uncover the hidden aspects of discourse, which play a crucial role in

1
 2

shaping people’s ideologies as well as changing social realities. This is, for sure, a
supra-linguistic method beyond the grammatical structure as it deals with the
implications.
The CDA approach includes a vast body of fields such as political sciences, social
sciences and education. Among the sub-disciplines of CDA, critical linguistics aims to
consider the linguistic choices a text producer makes which show a particular
ideological stance towards a topic. The application of CDA in translation has enjoyed
the scholars’ interests for decades. Translational studies today are said to be at another
turn, i.e. ideological. This is obviously a turn which signifies the growth of trends
considering ideological issues within the field.
The act of translation is not purely linguistic, because it must consider social and
ideological backgrounds of the writer in order to be able to convey a message from the
source text to its target equivalent. The aspect of ideology in translation can be
investigated through analyzing deficiencies and redundancies of the translated texts so
as to see whether they are the results of the translator’s ideological point of view or not.
The critical examination of the ideological manipulations in the contents of the
source texts as well as the ideological orientations manifested in translation can show
the intentional or unintentional strategies chosen by translators to manipulate the exact
message and this will obviously influence the interpretation of the source text. As a
matter of fact, the concern in the present study is to show a possible existence of such
ideological manipulations and their effects on what the original text had tried to convey.
A discourse assumed a strategic function. The statement of a president by
assembling various words, phrases into sentences and paragraphs both oral and written
about the problems facing the nation are directed towards the public will have a variety
of interpretations. This is what happens when the President of the Republic of Indonesia
make a statement about the bombings at the JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton Mega
Kuningan Jakarta on July 17, 2009 at 7:45 and 7:47 PM.
Stepping back trail, polemics and terror bombings in the reform era began in 2000. Up
to 2009 there were 26 bombings in different times and places with different explosive
force. Government with the powers that (TNI and Police) in collaborate with the
community trying to drown out a terrorist act. There have been many terrorists also
were captured, tried, imprisoned, shot during the arrest were rewarded with even
 3

executions. As from Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) was elected President of the
Republic of Indonesia (2004) bombing activities by groups irresponsible otherwise
never exist again.
The condition is relatively safe and peaceful in Indonesia.
Under conditions of Indonesia declared safe from terrorist actions also coincide with
elections held legislative and presidential elections in Indonesia. Yudhoyono as a
presidential candidate (candidates incumben) in any campaign always said Indonesia in
safety and peace. It is said to be one of the achievements of his administration. But who
would suspect that after the presidential election held and almost certainly SBY as the
winner, the JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton Mega Kuningan Jakarta was rocked by a
bomb and killed 9 people and injured dozens more.
The incident was a variety of electronic media to preach the bombing of the JW
Marriott and Ritz Carlton Mega Kuningan Jakarta. Indonesia and the world gasped and
condemned the despicable acts bombers. The incident was very unfortunate for anyone
and for any country.
SBY as the head of state and head of government would not remain silent so that
on the same day (July 17, 2009) at 14.00 hrs, after a coordination meeting with Police,
Armed Forces Commander, and several cabinet, the President held a press conference in
front of the presidential office related bombings and was broadcast live by the mass
media (television and radio stations nationwide, and private). Post a press release in the
form of a statement the President's speech July 17, 2009 linked bombings at the JW
Marriott and Ritz Carlton Mega Kuningan Jakarta at 7:45 PM and 7:47 PM (hereinafter
called the President's speech Statement of July 17, 2009), and responses polemics
appeared. Among SBY considered: 1) do not reflect as a statesman, 2) too early to
accuse his political opponents as bombers, 3) has unraveled the secret state, 4) more
speech as a presidential candidate than a president.
A statement (discourse) delivered can not be separated from the goal. In order to
achieve that goal there are different strategies that do. If the delivery of the strategy
refers to the act of a party is against the law, especially human rights crimes (criminal)
will be different results if the production of discourse using political strategy. In view of
Van Dijk (2004a, 2004b), the strategy associated with the production of discourse
producing ideology discourse itself. Opinion Van Dijk is analogous to that produced if
 4

the whole discourse relating to succession of leadership in Indonesia, it means that

political ideology was behind the statement.
Based on the background above the writer is interested in reviewing the
President's speech Statement of July 17, 2009. Statement of the President's speech was
broadcast live by a variety of communications media (radio and television) on the day at
14.00 hrs from the courtyard of State (President's Office). This study sought to discover
the discourse in the President's speech Statement July 17, 2009 terkai bombings at the
JW Marriott and Ritz Carlton Jakarta, and the production strategies of ideological
discourse delivered. Demolition discourse can actually be done with text objects (verbal
and oral) and non-text (images and gestures). In this case it is just focused on the text
object spoken text above statement the President's speech July 17, 2009 which was
broadcast live on TV One. The authors recorded the spoken text and in-Transcribe into
written form.
To uncover issues that were examined, the authors use the view Van Dijk
(2004a, 2004b) as the blade analysis. As critical discourse analysis in general, begins
with a description of the analytical framework, then the macro proposition analysis
framework proposed by Van Dijk (2001), analyzes the ideological discourse production
strategy based on a view Van Dijk (2004a, 2004b), and a conclusion. Accordingly, the
approach of critical discourse analysis is a pre-assessment in the form of academic study
to refine the views that had been there before. Hope the results of this study can enrich
the literature on media discourse studies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How are ideology and power strategies used in SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009 in
responding to bomb incident happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton hotel?

OBJECTIVES
1. To find out how ideology and power strategies are used in SBY’s speech on 17th July
2009 in responding to bomb incident happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton
Hotel.
 5

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted,
reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such
dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to
understand, expose and ultimately to resist social inequality.
Teun van Dijk overview of the field of CDA where one can identify the
following developments: between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s, new, closely
related disciplines emerged in the humanities and the social sciences. Despite their
different disciplinary backgrounds and a great diversity of methods and objects of
investigation, some parts of the new fields/paradigms/linguistic sub-disciplines of
semiotics, pragmatics, psycho- and sociolinguistics, ethnography of speaking,
conversation analysis and discourse studies all deal with discourse and have at least
seven dimensions in common (Van Dijk, 2007;Wodak, 2008):
CDA is not so much a direction, school or specialization -- next to the many
other 'approaches' in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different 'mode' or
'perspective' of theorizing, analysis and application throughout the whole field. We may
find a more or less critical perspective in such diverse areas as pragmatics, conversation
analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media
analysis, among others.
Crucial for critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in
society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a 'value-free' science, they
argue that science, and especially scholarly discourse, are inherently part of, and
influenced by social structure, and produced in social interaction. Instead of denying or
ignoring such a relation between scholarship and society, they plead that such relations
be studied and accounted for in their own right, and that scholarly practices should be
based on such insights. Theory formation, description and explanation, also in discourse
analysis, are socio-politically 'situated', whether we like it or not. Reflection the on role
of scholars in society and the polity thus becomes inherent part of the discourse
analytical enterprise. This may mean, among other things that discourse analysts
conduct research in solidarity and cooperation with dominated groups. Critical research
 6

on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to effectively realize its

aims:
 As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to
be 'better' than other research in order to be accepted.
 It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on
current paradigms and fashions.
 Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually
multidisciplinary.
 Rather than to merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in
terms of properties of social interaction and especially social structure.
 More specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
According Fairclough & Wodak in Van Dijk (1998) summarize the main tenets of CDA
as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse Constitutes Society and Culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action.
Critical Discourse Analysis based on Van Dijk Theory to evaluate the image of
the media fnot only analyzes the texts but also examine the context of the process of
text. Using a theoretical model of van Dijk, may be shown the concept of analysis of
social cognition, which includes the production of the text so that the text is not only
seen as discourse, but also the structure of the discourse that developed social
phenomena, through access patterns at the macro level, meso level and micro level.
Van Dijk’s Critical discourse analysis (2001:354) described three levels in the
model analysis of the macro level (social analysis), meso level (analysis of cognition),
and the micro level (the analysis of aspects of language). At the micro level aspect
analyzed is the use of language, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication
 7

focused on aspects of language. At the meso level, the study is a process that involves
the production of the texts themselves. Further aspects are analyzed at the macro level
of power, domination, and inequality between social groups and analyze the social
problems associated with the discourse produced.
Critical Discourse Analysis theoretically has the objective to close the gap
between micro and macro approaches to achieve the integrity of the analysis. Analyze
the macro level of social issues related to the discourse, for example, the power (power),
access (access), inequality (inequality), dominance (dominance) and other social issues.
Discourse can be regarded as the exercise of power of certain parties. At the macro level
analysis was performed by analyzing the access of participants. That means that the
power, dominance, access other than through the macro level also analyzed at the micro
level.
1. Macro Level
Critical Discourse Analysis theoretically has the objective to close the gap
between micro and macro approaches to achieve the integrity of the analysis. Analyze
the macro level of social issues related to the discourse, for example, the power, access,
inequality, dominance and other social issues. Discourse can be regarded as the exercise
of power of certain parties. At the macro level analysis was performed by analyzing the
access of participants.
1.1 Power as Control
A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more
specifically the social power of groups or institutions. Summarizing a complex
philosophical and social analysis, we'll define social power in terms of control . Thus,
groups have (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and
minds of (members of) other groups. This ability presupposes a power base of
(privileged access to) scarce social resources, such as force, money, status, fame,
knowledge, information, 'culture' or indeed various forms of public discourse and
communication (of the vast literature on power. Different types of power may be
distinguished according to the various resources employed to exercise such power: The
coercive power of the military and of violent men will rather be based on force, the rich
will have power because of their money, whereas the more or less persuasive power of
parents, professors or journalists may be based on knowledge, information or authority.
 8

Note also that power is seldom absolute. Groups may more or less control other groups,
or only control them in specific situations or social domains. Moreover, dominated
groups may more or less resist, accept, condone, comply with or legitimate such power,
and even find it 'natural'. Indeed, the power of dominant groups may be integrated in
laws, rules, norms, habits and even a quite general consensus, and thus take the form of
what Gramsci called 'hegemony' (Gramsci, 1971). Class domination, sexism and racism
are characteristic examples of such hegemony. Note also that power is not always
exercized in obviously abusive acts of dominant group members, but may be enacted in
the myriad of taken-for-granted actions of everyday life. Similarly, not all members of a
powerful group are always more powerful than all members of dominated groups:
Power is only defined here for groups as a whole.
The relations between discourse and power, the access to specific forms of
discourse, e.g., those of politics, the media or science, are itself a power resource.
Secondly, as suggested earlier, action is controlled by our minds. So, if we are able to
influence people's minds, e.g., their knowledge or opinions, we indirectly may control
(some of) their actions. And, thirdly, since people's minds are typically influenced by
text and talk, we find that discourse may at least indirectly control people's actions, as
we know from persuasion and manipulation. Closing the discourse-power circle, finally,
this means that those groups who control most influential discourse also have more
chances to control the minds and actions of others.
CDA focuses on the abuse of such power, and especially on dominance , that is,
on the ways control over discourse is abused to control people's beliefs and actions in
the interest of dominant groups, and against the best interests or the will of the others.
'Abuse' in this case may be (very roughly) characterzied as a norm-violation that hurts
others, given some ethical standard, such as (just) rules, agreements, laws or human
rights principles. In other words, dominance may be briefly defined as the illegitimate
exercise of power.
Parts of Power
1. Planning
Planning of discourse already begins with taking the initiative, the preparation or
the planning of a communicate events. Such plans will usually imply decisions about
 9

the setting (time, place) and an agenda for talks, as well as the participants being invited
or ordered to appear.
2. Setting
There are many elements of setting of communicative events that may be
controlled by different participants. First of all, who is allowed or obliged to participate
and in what role, may be decided by the chairperson or by other powerful participants
who control the interaction and also other circumstances, such as distance, positioning,
and the presence of the power.
3. Controlling Communicative Events
The crucial form of access consists of the power to control various dimensions
of speech and talk itself which mode of communication may be used in spoken or
written which language may be used by whom dominant or standard language, dialect,
which genres of discourse are allowed, which types of speech act, or who may begin or
interrupt turns at talk or discursive sequences. Power and dominance may be enacted,
confirmed and reproduced by such differential patterns of access to various form
distance on different social situations. Thus, having access to the speech act of a
command presupposes as well enacts and confirms the social power of the speaker.
4. Scope and audience control
For dialogues such as formal meeting sessions or debates, participants may
allow or require specific participants to be presents (or absent) or to allow or require
these others to listen and or to speak. Beyond the control of the content or style, thus
speaker may also control audiences. This is discourse access, especially in public forms
of discourse, also and most crucially implies audience access. At public meetings
through the mass media, discourses on their speakers or authors may thus have a greater
or lesser power scope. Full access to a major newspaper or television network, thus also
implies access to a large audience. Although the scope of access, in terms of the size of
the audience of one’s discourse, is an important criteria of power, control is much more
effective if the minds of the audience can also be successfully accessed.

1.2 Access and discourse control

We have seen that among many other resources that define the power base of a
group or institution, also access to, or control over public discourse and communication
is an important 'symbolic' resource, as is the case for knowledge and information (Van
 10

Dijk, 1996). Most people only have active control over everyday talk with family
members, friends or colleagues, and passive control over, e.g., media usage. In many
situations, ordinary people are more or less passive targets of text or talk, e.g., of their
bosses or teachers, or of the authorities, such as police officers, judges, welfare
bureaucrats or tax inspectors, who may simply tell them what (not) to believe or what to
do. On the other hand, members of more powerful social groups and institutions, and
especially their leaders (the elites), have more or less exclusive access to, and control
over one or more types of public discourse. Thus, professors control scholarly
discourse, teachers educational discourse, journalist media discourse, lawyers legal
discourse, and politicians policy and other public political discourse. Those who have
more control over more --and more influential-- discourse (and more discourse
properties) are by that definition also more powerful. In other words, we here propose a
discursive definition (as well as a practical diagnostic) of one of the crucial constituents
of social power. These notions of discourse access and control are very general, and it is
one of the tasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power. Thus, if discourse is defined
in terms of complex communicative events, access and control may be defined both for
the context and for the structures of text and talk itself.

1.3 Dominance
Dominance is on the ways control over discourse is abused to control people's
beliefs and actions in the interest of dominant groups, and against the best interests or
the will of the others. 'Abuse' in this case may be (very roughly) characterzied as a
norm-violation that hurts others, given some ethical standard, such as (just) rules,
agreements, laws or human rights principles. In other words, dominance may be briefly
defined as the illegitimate exercise of power.

1.3.1. Context Control

Context is defined as the (mentally represented) structure of those properties of
the social situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of discourse
(Duranti & Goodwin, 1992; Van Dijk, 1998). It consists of such categories as the
overall definition of the situation, setting (time, place), ongoing actions (including
discourses and discourse genres), participants in various communicative, social or
institutional roles, as well as their mental representations: goals, knowledge, opinions,
 11

attitudes and ideologies. Controlling context involves control over one or more of these
categories, e.g., determining the definition of the communicative situation, deciding on
time and place of the communicative event, or on which participants may or must be
present, and in which roles, or what knowledge or opinions they should (not) have, and
which social actions may or must be accomplished by discourse.

1.3.2. The Control of Text and Talk

Crucial in the enactment or exercise of group power is the control over the
structures of text and talk. Relating text and context, thus, we already saw that
(members of) powerful groups may decide on the (possible) discourse genre(s) or
speech acts of an occasion. A teacher or judge may require a direct answer from a
student or suspect, respectively, and not a personal story or an argument. More
critically, we may examine how powerful speakers may abuse of their power in such
situations, e.g., when police officers use force to get a confession from a suspect, or
when male editors exclude women from writing economic news (Van Zoonen, 1994).
Similarly, genres typically have conventional schemata consisting of various categories.
Access to some of these may be prohibited or obligatory, as when opening or closing a
parliamentary session is a prerogative of the Speaker, and some greetings in a
conversation may only be used by speakers of a specific social group, rank, age or
gender (Irvine, 1974). Vital for all discourse and communication is who controls the
topics (semantic macrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide what news
topics will be covered (Gans, 1979; Van Dijk, 1988a, 1988b), professors what topics
will be dealt with in class, or men may control topics and topic change in conversations
with women (Palmer, 1989; Fishman, 1983; Leet-Pellegrini, 1980; Lindegren-Lerman,
1983). As with other forms of discourse control, such decisions may be (more or less)
negotiable among the participants, and depend very much on context, that is on how
participants interpret the communicative situation. Although most discourse control is
contextual or global, even local details of meaning , form or style may be controlled,
e.g., the details of an answer in class or court, choice of lexical items or jargon in
courtrooms, classrooms or newsrooms (Martin Rojo, 1994). In many situations volume
may be controlled and speakers ordered to 'keep their voice down' or to 'keep quiet',
women may be 'silenced' in many ways (Houston & Kramarae, 1991), and and in some
cultures one need to 'mumble' as a form of respect (Albert, 1972). The public use of
 12

specific words may be banned as subversive in a dictatorship, and discursive challenges

to culturally dominant groups (e.g., white, western males) by their multicultural
opponents may be ridiculed in the media as 'politically correct' (Williams, 1995). And
finally, action and interaction dimensions of discourse may be controlled by prescribing
or proscribing specific speech acts, and by selectively distributing or interrupting turns
(see also Diamond, 1996). Across levels, what we may conclude from many critical
studies is the prominence of overall strategy of Positive Self-Presentation of the
dominant ingroup, and Negative Other-Presentation of the dominated outgroups (Van
Dijk, 1993a, 1998b). The polarization of Us and Them that characterizes shared social
representations and their underlying ideologies is thus expressed and reproduced at all
levels of text and talk, e.g., in contrastive topics, local meanings, metaphor and
hyperbole, and the variable formulations in text schemata, syntactic forms,
lexicalization, sound structures and images. In sum, virtually all levels and structures of
context, text and talk can in principle be more or less controlled by powerful speakers,
and such power may be abused at the expense of other participants. It should however
be stressed that talk and text do not always and directly enact or embody the overall
power relations between groups: It is always the context that may interfere, reinforce or
otherwise transform such relationships. Obviously not all men are always dominant in
all conversations (Kotthoff & Wodak, 1997; Tannen, 1994a), nor all whites or
professors, for that matter.

Mind control
If controlling discourse is a first major form of power, controlling people's
minds is the other fundamental way to reproduce dominance and hegemony. Note
though that 'mind control' is merely a handy phrase to summarize a very complex
process. Cognitive psychology and mass communication research have shown that
influencing the mind is not as straightforward a process as simplistic ideas about mind
control might suggest (Britton & Graesser, 1996; Glasser & Salmon, 1995; Klapper,
1960; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Recipients may be quite autonomous and variable in
their interpretation and uses of text and talk, also as a function of class, gender or
culture (Liebes & Katz, 1990). But although recipients will seldom passively accept the
intended opinions of specific discourses, we should on the other hand not forget that
most of our beliefs about the world are acquired through discourse. Within a CDA-
 13

framework, 'mind control' involves more than just acquiring beliefs about the world
through discourse and communication. The element of power and dominance in this
case enters the picture in various ways, e.g., as follows:
(a) Unless inconsistent with their personal beliefs and experiences, recipients tend to
accept beliefs (knowledge and opinions) through discourse from what they see as
authoritative, trustworthy or credible sources, such as scholars, experts, professionals or
reliable media (Nesler, el al. 1993). In this sense, powerful discourse is (contextually)
defined in terms of the perceived power of its authors; for the same reasons, minorities
and women may often be perceived as less credible (Andsager, 1990; Khatib, 1989;
Verrillo, 1996).
(b) In some situations participants are obliged to be recipients of discourse, e.g., in
education and in many job situations. Lessons, learning materials, job instructions, and
other discourse types in such cases may need to be attended to, interpreted and learned
as intended by institutional or organizational authors (Giroux, 1981).
(c) In many situations there are no other public discourses or media that may provide
information from which alternative beliefs may be derived (Downing, 1984).
(d) And, closely related to the previous points: Recipients may not have the knowledge
and beliefs needed to challenge the discourses or information they are exposed to
(Wodak, 1987). These four points suggest that discursive mind control is a form of
power and dominance if such control is in the interest of the powerful and if the
recipients have 'no alternatives', i.e., no other sources (speakers, writers), no other
discourses, no other option but to listen or read, and no relevant other beliefs to evaluate
such discourses. If freedom is defined as having the opportunity to think and do what
one wants, then such lacking alternatives are by definition a limitation of the freedom of
the recipients. And limiting the freedom of others, especially in one's own interest,
happens to be one of the definitions of power and domination. Whereas these conditions
of mind control are largely contextual (they say something about the participants of a
communicative event), other conditions are discursive , that is, a function of the
structures and strategies of text or talk itself. In other words, given a specific context,
certain meanings and forms of discourse have more influence on people's minds than
others, as the very notion of 'persuasion' and a tradition of 2000 years of rhetoric may
show.
 14

MICROSTRUCTURES OF DISCOURSE
Under microstructures of discourse we understand in this section all those
structures that are processed, or described, at the local or short-range level (viz., words,
phrases, clauses, sentences, and connections between sentences). In other words,
microstructures are the actually and directly ‘expressed’ structures of the discourse. We
use the term, however, mainly as a practical collective term and not as a theoretical
term, although such a term may have at least certain cognitive validity. The theoretical
terms we use are sentence and sequence of sentences. The first term is well-known from
classical grammars and the second term has been introduced mainly in socalled text
grammars2. Text grammars are grammars (of any kind) which are not limited to a
description of isolated sentences but which also account for structures beyond the
sentence level or structures characterizing discourses and conversations as a whole. By
a text we understand the abstract underlying structure of a discourse. Hence, discourse
is an observational notion, whereas text is a theoretical notion. In principle, discourses
should normally exhibit sentential and textual structures to be acceptable in a language
community, but this does not mean that they actually always do have these structures.
As soon as we talk about language use and cognitive processing, we therefore
use the term ‘discourse’ and not the term ‘text,’ which is only used in the abstract
grammatical reconstruction of natural language discourses. A similar distinction would
in fact be in place for the notion of sentence, which is also used ambiguously either as a
theoretical term or as an observational term. In this chapter we use the term ‘sentence’
only as a theoretical term, unless otherwise indicated. The same holds for the notion of a
sequence, which is an ordered n-tuple of sentences. One of the more specific tasks of a
text grammar is to specify what the rules are determining which sequential orderings of
sentences are grammatical and which are not. In other words, a text grammar must
indicate what the nature of the specific ordering relations is. This analysis takes place
both at the local and the global level, as we have seen before. In this section we are
briefly concerned with the textual description at the level of microstructures (viz., that
of sentences and sequences of sentences).
Since we are concerned here with discourse and not with individual sentence
structures, we shall be very brief about these. Above all sentences are expressions of
certain syntactic structures; that is, although there are certain semantic differences
 15

between composite sentences and sequences of sentences, it is hard to find

straightforward semantic definitions of sentences, although it has been suggested that
sentences may well correspond to the cognitive notion of a FACT. Besides these
semantic underlying structures of syntactic and morphonological surface structures of
sentences, there are also pragmatic constraints on sentences and sentence boundaries.
Syntactic structures are analyzed categorially; that is, words and phrases combine to
more complex structures according to the various syntactic categories to which they
belong (Noun, Noun Phrase, etc.). This categorical analysis is hierarchical:
Superordinate categories may be further analyzed into subordinate categories. Finally,
these hierarchical syntactic structures are linked with the actual sequential (word-) order
of the sentence, which is expressed by morphophonological structures.
Since discourse relations and especially those we need in order to derive
macrostructures are primarily semantic, we further abstract from syntactic and
morphophonological, or ‘surface’ structures, of sentences and focus attention on their
semantic or ‘underlying’ structures. Sentential semantics has much in common with the
semantics of textual sequences of sentences. Essentially, categorially analyzed
sentences are semantically interpreted; that is, the respective expressions (words,
phrases, etc.) and their (categorial) structures are assigned meanings. The interpretation
rules must be such that: (1) the sentence meaning is a function of the meaning of its
parts: and (2) the structure of the sentence meaning is a function of the syntactic
structures. Meanings-in a linguistic grammar-as specified in the lexicon of the language,
are associated with each word, and sometimes (fixed) phrases, of the language. The
semantic interpretation rules compute on the basis of these word meanings and the
semantic structures whether the meaning of the whole sentence is ‘wellformed’ or the
sentence is meaningful.
This kind of meaning interpretation, which has been the usual kind in linguistics,
is called intensional, because expressions are assigned intensions by the interpretation
rules. Under the influence of logic and philosophy, however, such intensionally
interpreted sentences may also be assigned an extensional interpretation. In that case,
expressions (with a certain meaning) are related to certain aspects of reality (viz., the
referents or denotata of those expressions). Different categorial expressions are thus
interpreted as different semantic (referential) types (e.g., noun phrases or terms as
 16

individuals and verbs as properties or relations of individuals). It has been stressed that
such referential assignments, unlike in classical logical semantics, go ‘via’ their
intensions or meanings. In fact, such intensions or meanings may even roughly be
described as specifications of the ‘range’ of concepts that may be actualized by the
various types of referents. Hence, meanings or intensions are conceptual abstractions,
conventionally associated with expressions of a natural language, either in the lexicon
(which is part of the knowledge of the world of language users) or by semantic rules. In
more formal terms we say that intensions are functions that for certain values of other
arguments (e.g., the possible world in question; see the following) are assigned
extensions. Thus, the intension ‘table’ is a conceptual function that may have all actual
tables, in the actual possible world or in other possible worlds-or situations, as its
extensional values.
As soon as we want to analyze the semantic structures of sequences of
sentences, we no longer have to do with the interpretation of and relations between
individual words and phrases, but we need intensional and extensional units that
combine these interpretations at the level of whole clauses and sentences. Thus, we say
that the intensional unit, that is, the meaning, of a clause or sentence is the proposition,
and the extensional unit is the fact. We have seen before that a proposition may be taken
as a possible fact, which has actual facts as values in different possible worlds. A fact is
an event, action, state, or process in some possible world. Hence a possible world is a
set of facts. Conversely, a proposition or possible fact is a set of possible worlds, viz.,
the set of those worlds where the proposition has values (‘is true’). A proposition may
be said to be true (or more generally satisfied) with respect to a world if it denotes a fact
of that world. Truth, however, is usually a notion that, outside modern philosophical
logic, attaches to facts in our ‘own,’ real world. Moreover, it is often used not of
propositions but of sentences or even of uttered or asserted sentences. In our discourse
semantics, therefore, we provisionally avoid the notion, and we use the more general
concepts of satisfaction and reference.
The brief survey we have given in this section of the major semantic properties
of text structure at the local level could only touch upon the basic principles. In fact, the
‘real’ linguistic work starts where we have left off: Specify which syntactic structures
are conventionally interpreted as which semantic structures; formulate the detailed
 17

conditions under which propositions may be combined and expressed by either

composite sentences or sequences; enumerate the morphonological and syntactic means
for expressing the various kinds of coherence relations discussed previously; etc.
Next, semantic information may be variously distributed over clauses and
sentences of a text: We distinguish between the topic and comment of a sentence
according to textual conditions of earlier introduction or cognitive conditions of prior
knowledge of the speech participants, together defining what the relevant concept is that
a sentence or sequence is ‘about.’ Some aspects of this notion of ‘aboutness’ are made
explicit in terms of macrostructures. The same holds for all kinds of presuppositional
phenomena in texts. Presuppositions also involve prior introduction and knowledge,
though not of terms but of full propositions, with which ‘new’ propositions are being
linked. Sentence structure, relative clauses, uses of words like also and even, or certain
particles depend on these presuppositional structures of text bases.
Finally, an appropriate linguistic semantics would need the formulation of
explicit interpretation rules and a model theory specifying what kind of abstract world
structures (types of individuals, properties, etc.) are involved in interpretations. All this
has been ignored in this section in order to be able to focus attention on macrostructures.

SUPERSTRUCTURES
Both in classical rhetorics or poetics and in current theories of discourse it has
been assumed that certain types of discourse exhibit conventional structures that go
beyond those usually accounted for in a grammar. Such structures may characterize
several levels of discourse. Well known, for instance, is the metrical organization of
phonological, graphical, and morphological structures, as accounted for in separate
metrical theories. In part, such structures are abstract and even language independent.
Similarly, we may have rhetorical structures grafted onto the syntactic structures of
sentences and sentence sequences or onto semantic structures, as in metaphor,
metonymia, irony, or other figures of speech.
Such additional organizational patterns may also be relevant at the level of the
discourse as a whole. That is, certain parts of the discourse may have specific functions
which are conventionalized in well-known categories. Even in everyday, nontechnical
language a discourse may have an introduction and a conclusion.
 18

Classical tragedy was thus partitioned into five acts, whose respective theatrical or
narrative functions were described as early as Aristotle’s Poetics. Rhetorics similarly
made distinctions between the parts of a public speech. Argumentational structures, as
we know from classical logic (dialectica), were distinguished in the theory of the
syllogism, namely, into different kinds of premises and a conclusion, distinctions which
later were further refined in the philosophical theory of argumentation (Toulmin, 1958),
and which in various forms reappear not only in everyday arguments, but also in
scholarly discourse such as psychological articles (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Perhaps
best known, both in current theory of discourse and in psychology, are the narrative
structures that characterize stories in our culture, namely the categories of Setting,
Complication, Resolution, Evaluation, and Coda (Labov & Waletsky, 1967), or
variations thereof. The pioneering work on narrative structures was that of Propp
(1968), with later developments due to Barthes (1966), Bremond (1973), van Dijk
(1972, 1976), and others. This work is surveyed in Gülich and Raible (1977) and van
Dijk (1980c).
Typical of all these structures is their schematic nature: They consist of
conventional categories, often hierarchically organized, that assign further structure to
the various levels of discourse. Sometimes the categories will only affect surface
structures, as in metrical or prosodic patterns, but semantic or even pragmatic units are
often schematically organized as well. As in all these cases the structures seem to go
beyond the usual linguistic or grammatical organization of discourse, that is, to be
somehow additional or grafted onto the linguistic structures, we call them
superstructures. For stylistic reasons, sometimes we will also use the term schematic
structures, although the term schema is much more general, and is also used for
linguistic patterns or knowledge organization. In order to distinguish the various kinds
of superstructures, we will add the respective adjectives, and speak of metrical,
rhetorical, argumentative, or narrative superstructures. We may similarly characterize
the level of linguistic description they operate on-for example, natrative schemata are
semantic superstructures. Finally, the scope of the structures may encompass a single
sentence, a sequence of sentences, or the text as a whole; thus, rhetorical alliterations
are mostly within the scope of sentences, whereas narrative structures are inherently
textual.
 19

The intent of this chapter is not to go into the intricate details of the various
theories about superstructures of discourse. Thus, we must refer to classical and modern
work in rhetorics, poetics, narrative theory, argumentation theory, and so on, for a
discussion of the different units, categories, and rules defining schematic structures.
Here our focus shall be on the cognitive properties of such postulated schemata. In
particular, this chapter will conclude our discussion of the strategic aspects of discourse
structure and the process involved in their comprehension. In other words, we must
investigate in what ways superstructure schemata actually can and do play a role in
comprehension, storage, and retrieval of discourse. A straightforward hypothesis, for
instance, would be that under certain circumstances superstructures may facilitate
comprehension, storage, and retrieval of discourse. This assumption is dictated by the
current paradigm in cognitive psychology, according which information processing
takes place in multiply organized chunks: Sentences and discourses are understood and
stored on the basis of their units, categories, and levels. Thus more structure often is
correlated with additional or more complex processing, which results in better
structured representations, and hence in better retrieval. Since the general principles,
rules or strategies, categories, and units, for each language and culture are learned by
the language users, these organizational patterns become preprogrammed, so to speak,
which also facilitates understanding. In this respect the two extremes may be, on the one
hand, arbitrary lists of nonsense words and, on the other, highly conventionalized
discourses, such as children’s stories or news stories. The highly complex task of
understanding, storing, and retrieving discourse necessarily requires that the language
user assign an optimal structure to the discourse, and that such structures be strategically
organized in known categories. Thus, the schematic categories of a story may function
as the conventionalized discourse functions for semantic macrostructures, namely, as a
possible form for the global content of the story. For this reason schematic
superstructures are sometimes compared to the syntax of sentences: They are, so to
speak, the macrosyntax corresponding to the macrosemantics we have discussed in the
previous chapter.
We have assumed that superstructures are not merely the theoretical constructs
of linguistic or rhetorical models of discourse, but that they should somehow also
feature in cognitive models of discourse processing. In other words, some principles,
 20

categories, or units are cognitively relevant. This cognitive relevance-which is a notion

with intended vagueness-may be specified in varying degrees of strength. It may mean
that all rules, categories, or units are known and used as such in processing. On the
other hand, the assumption might be made that some of them are merely constructs of
the theory and that only a few, in a specific format, are cognitively real. In this respect,
we can learn from the fate of generative transformational sentence grammar and the
early hypotheses about the psychological reality of its units, rules, and transformations.
A psychological model may get valuable suggestions from a more abstract structural
theory, but it should specify further why and how the processing principles, units, and
categories are learned and used, and what the specific memory constraints are that
require them, for instance, we have seen that the theoretical distinction of units and rules
of various levels of discourse may not always be respected by the strategies of
comprehension. Similarly, we should not assume that the strategic comprehension of
schematic structures necessarily follows the levels or categories of an abstract theory of
superstructures.
Finally, we assume that during comprehension superstructure categories are
assigned on the basis of the textual and, above all, the semantic information (i.e., from
the bottom up), while, at the same time, assumptions about the canonical structure of the
discourse, expectations, are generated from the top down about the plausible or possible
global semantic content of subsequent episodes in the discourse.

Van Dijk’s Approach

The basic conceptual and theoretical frameworks worked out and used by van
Dijk (2000) in his CDA studies are as follows: Macro v. Micro, power as control, access
and discourse control, context control, and the control of text and talk and mind control.
The micro level covers language, discourse, verbal interaction and so on, while macro
level has to do with power relation, such as inequality and dominance. CDA plans to
mix these two levels, since in actual interaction one cannot separate them from each
other; social power, in this approach, is viewed as a means of controlling the mind and
actions of other group(s). The social power by itself may not be negative, but what in
fact is of significance to CDA is the inappropriate use of power, which would bring
about inequality in the society. Van Dijk (2002) takes ideology as the attitude a group of
people hold about certain issues; hence the analysis of ideology is one of the main
 21

concerns of discourse analysis. In order to uncover ideology generated in discourse, van

Dijk resorts to socio-cognitive analysis and discourse analysis of the text. According to
van Dijk, socio-cognitive approach, which becomes his main brand approach in CDA, is
the discourse analysis which does not only cover the text structures; rather it also has to
do with the mental consciousness of the speaker or a discourse maker in its production
process (Dijk: 1993). Basically, socio-cognitive approach is made up of two main
elements of models or schemas and memory. Van Dijk explained that a discourse maker
tends to employ certain models or schemas in presenting either oral or written text.
Those schemas are as follow (Dijk: 1990):
a. Person schema; that is how a person portrays and views others as a
positive figure or negative one. Such condition affect the way how
someone designs and makes representation of others in the text.
b. Self schema; that is how a person views himself in the text which,
typically, is modified to meet the intended interest and has better
representation than he or she really is.
c. Role schema; that is how someone portrays others’ role played
personally or in group of society. Such portrait often affects the meaning
of a certain discourse in general.
d. Event schema; that is how someone depicts an event and, then, modifies
it on the basis of his/her ideologies or interests.
In addition, another element in the socio-cognitive approach is memory. Memory
is an element in human‘s mind through which they are able to recognize certain things
and have knowledge about them. In more detailed, memory in this perspective is made
up of two parts: short-term memory and long-term one. Short-term memory is a
memory used to remember or recall an event and occasion that recently occurred in the
past. For instance, we try to remember our friend‘s home address given in few minutes
ago. While, long-term memory is a memory used to remember or refer to an event or
object that took place in pretty longer past time.
For example, we try to remember or run the story of how the movement of PKI
occurred in 1965. As a matter of fact, typically, people tend to take for granted use their
long term memory to judge a certain event, for instance, of how people still judge the
descendants of PKI rebelled as a dangerous group in the society. This condition results
 22

from people‘s long-term memory of the badness of PKI rebellion and, hence, they
should be suspicious over them that they might do the same act as what their ancestors
did in the past. The exercise of such elements of socio-cognitive approach seemed to be
sharpened through his theory of derogation and euphemization.
In relation to derogation and euphemization, Van Dijk's (2004b) framework
consists of two main discursive strategies of 'positive self-representation' (strategy of in-
group favoritism) and 'negative other-representation' (strategy of derogation of out-
group) ''which are materialized through some discursive moves such as follows:
a. Actor Description
All discourse on people and action involves various types of actor description
(van Leeuwen: 1996). Thus, actors may be described as members of groups or as
individuals, by first or family name, function, role or group name, as specific or
unspecific, by their actions or (alleged) attributes, by their position or relation to other
people, and so on. For example, how labors’ demonstration demanding the rise of salary
given unfairly by the employer of a certain company described as an unrest and not
conducive event by a journalist against the labors which, hence, seems to place them as
the guilty in the event. Such description hardly ever be neutral since the employer has
more power to modify the reality by, for instance, bribing journalist of the media to hide
the reality. In addition, an inappropriate description of others might result from mental
memory of a text producer. For example, how someone‘s memory of labors’
demonstration mostly caused much traffic and street battle against security guards in the
past which make him/her easily judge any other similar movement may cause the same
condition in the present or future. Thus, such movements typically are always
represented inappropriately in a certain text.
b. Authority
Many speakers in an argument, also in parliament, have option to modify a
certain reality by mentioning authorities to support their case, usually organizations or
people who are parts of party politics, or who are generally recognized experts or moral
leaders (Dijk 2004b). Then, van Dijk elaborated that international organizations (such as
the United Nations, or Amnesty), scholars, the media, the church or the courts often
have that role. For example, media in producing texts or news of current celebrity-
related pornography issue have judged who is guilty in the case by presenting one of
 23

multimedia experts’ testimonies even the case is not yet investigated by the responsible
state law apparatus (e.g. court or police).
c. Burden
Burden is the way how a discourse maker describes a certain case (phenomenon)
in the text as a big problem unless it is solved and, thus, by doing so might gain support
from others to soon overcome the issue. In addition, such way also labels that burden as
a bad or negative entity; conversely, the one with proposal or its solvency, for instance,
gain positive reception and support. However, sometimes the criteria of measuring a
burden are premises that are taken for granted, as self-evident and as sufficient reasons
to accept the conclusion. For example, the main burden of illegal immigrants in the
European countries is financial problem. To make it clearer, van Dijk exemplified a
burden of immigrants in Holland as stated by one of the senators in that country (Dijk:
1997: p.6): Presumably, if those people are here for long enough under such terms, they
have to be provided with clothing, shoe leather andwho knows what else, (Gorman, C)
Note that mentioning burden is one of the safest- anti-immigration moves in discourse,
because it implies that we do not refuse immigrants for what they are (their color,
culture or origin), nor out of ill, or because of other prejudices, but only because we
cannot. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is widely used in the world of political
discourse.
d. Consensus
Consensus is one of the strategies that are often used in parliamentary discourses
on issues of national importance is often defined as such as the display, claim or wish of
consensus. In other words, in-group unification, cohesion and solidarity against
outsiders (them), should exist over various political backgrounds, beliefs, or races (Dijk:
2004b). In addition, real or apparent consensus used in the text is a means to persuade
others to support any common interest together, for instance George Bush, the former
US president, always euphemized his main goal of attacking Iraq and toppling down
Saddam Hussein, the former authoritarian Iraq president, was to stand up democracy
and free Iraqi people from inequality. Since the spirit of democracy becomes a common
goal and consensus of American people to uphold, he got great support in doing severe
attacks on Iraq.
 24

e. Empathy
The expression of empathy combined by a disclaimer tactic may be largely
strategic especially to manage the speaker‘s impression with the audience (e. g. I
understand that you have had many problems, but...) (Dijk 2004b). The apparent nature
of the empathy is supported by the fact that the part of the discourse that follows but"
does not show much empathy at all, on the contrary. Empathy can work well in in-group
members and out-group as well.
f. Evidentiality
The strategy of evidentiality means using hard facts to support one's ideas (Dijk:
2004b). Claims or points of view in argument are more reliable when speakers present
some evidence or proof for their knowledge or opinions. This may happen by references
to authority of certain figures or institutions, or by various forms of Evidentiality of how
or where the information is obtained. Thus, people may have read something in the
paper, heard it from reliable spokespersons, or have seen something with their own
eyes. By presenting the strategy of evidentiality, a discourse maker may easily instill
his/her ideologies the recipients (readers or audiences).
g. Illustration
Illustration is a discursive strategy that is more than general truths concrete
examples have not only the power to be easily imaginable and better memorable, but
also to suggest impelling forms of empirical proof. Rhetorically speaking, concrete
examples also make speeches livelier and, moreover, they are based on the direct
experiences. As such, then, they may also be part of populist strategies. Note also, that
the concrete example often also implies that the case being told about is typical, and
hence may be generalized. Therefore, it is very effective to build negative other
representation by presenting such technique in the discourse. In sum, giving examples
has many cognitive, semantic, argumentative and political functions.
h. Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism is the strategy of defending human rights, criticizing those
who violate or disregard such rights, and formulating general norms and values for a
humane treatment of people, especially, those who involve humanitarian conflict, such
war victims. There are many ways humanitarianism is manifested in a discourse (Dijk:
2004b). One basic way is to formulate norms, in terms of what we should or should not
 25

do. Secondly, recipients are explicitly recommended to pay more attention to human
rights, show empathy for the difficulty of victims, criticize policies that violate the
rights of them, making appeals to our moral responsibility, showing understanding for
and listening to their stories, fighting against human rights abuses, praising people who
stood up for human rights, reference to authorities, international bodies, agreements,
and laws that deal with human rights, and so on (Dijk: 2004b). For instance from the
most recent case of the Israeli capturing aid volunteers ship ―Flotilla, Tayyip Erdogan
praised all volunteers as the hero of humanitarian conflicts (retrieved from Dissident
Voice on June 2 nd
2010)
i. Implication
Implication is a discursive strategy which is largely employed in discourse to
result in implicit information, and such implicit information may be inferred by
recipients from shared knowledge or attitudes and thus constructed as part of their
mental models of the event or action represented in the discourse (Dijk 2004b). Apart
from this general cognitive-pragmatic rule of implicitness (Do not express information
the recipients already have or may easily infer), there are other, interactional,
sociopolitical and cultural conditions on implicitness, such as those monitored by
politeness, face-keeping or cultural norms or propriety. Or conversely, information may
be left implicit precisely because it may be inconsistent with the overall strategy of
positive self-presentation. A simple instance of this is such as: ―the majority of
Muslims are prevented from being senators in the parliament in many democratic
countries…. This statement basically has an implicit meaning that the democracy does
not really exist in the countries claiming as democratic, since there is still a kind of
discrimination on the basis of religious background.
j. Lexicalization
Lexicalization is a discursive strategy that works local level of analysis which
enables a discourse maker to express certain underlying concepts and beliefs in specific
lexical items (Dijk: 2004b). Similar meanings may thus be variably expressed in
different words, depending on the position, role, goals, point of view or opinion of the
speaker, that is, as a function of context features. Thus, the audience or readers may
typically find common expressions, for instance in an anti-racist discourse, that may
 26

focus on the negative presentation of totalitarian of certain regimes and their acts, such
as oppression, crush, torture, abuse or injustice depending on the political or ideological
perspective of the discourse maker (Dijk: 2004b). The example of this negative
lexicalization was how George Walker Bush called the leader of some nations opposing
his opinions (e.g. Iranian president, Ahmadinejad) as ―the axis of evil‖ stated in his
speeches at many occasions.
k. National self glorification
Self glorification of a certain group or nation is a device to create positive self
representation by glorifying a certain group‘s strength or superiority (Dijk: 2004b). van
Dijk further elaborated that such strategy, especially, political discourse of positive self-
presentation may routinely be implemented by various forms of national self-
glorification, such as positive references or praise for the own country, its principles,
history and traditions. An instance of this strategy as follows: Indonesia has gained 2 %
economic growth in 2009 mean while other nations kept struggling to block a global
recession. (SBY, the president of Indonesia, in his official annual mandatory speech)
l. Norm expression
Van Dijk explained that norm expression is a discursive tactic through
expressing what values should be advocated or which should be avoided (Dijk: 2004b).
Typically, any political discourse is, of course, strongly normative, and curses racism,
discrimination, prejudice and inhumane policies which are sometimes explicit norm-
statements about what we should or should not do. For instance, a typical politician
statement promising the mass during the campaign such as: We should lift up the
prosperity of labors…!or ―we should not let this humanitarian issue continuously
occurs!.
m. Number game
Much argument is oriented to enhance credibility that emphasizes objectivity.
Van Dijk in Yuwono stated that numbers and statistics are the primary means in our
culture to persuasively display objectivity (Yuwono: 2008). They represent the facts
against mere opinion and impression. This strategy can effectively function and build
both derogatory and euphemistic impressions. A simple example of this such as when I
say; since the victims of civil war in Northern Africa are more than a million people,
there is no a justifiable reason to continue the war‖. Here, the words a million might
 27

evoke the empathy and reaction of the audience that such severe bloody conflict must be
ended soon based on the number of innocent victims, and for me as the speaker, make
me appear as a credible speaker displaying a valid statistical data.
n. Hyperbole
It is a device for enhancing and exaggerating meaning. It can be done through
various ways, such as presenting intensifiers (e.g. very, really, absolutely) and using
superlative degree of negative words (e.g. the most dangerous, the scariest impact, etc.)
in the discourse (Dijk: 2004b). A brief example of this as following statement: the
Israeli attack over Palestine is absolutely disastrous (Ahmadinejad, 2009)
o. Polarization
It is a strategy of categorizing people as belonging to US with good
characteristic and THEM with bad attributes. Polarization may also apply to good and
bad, sub-categories of out-groups (as is the case for friends and allies on the one hand
and enemies on the other) (Dijk 2004b). Note that polarization may be rhetorically
enhanced when expressed as a clear contrast, that is, by attributing properties of US and
Them that are semantically each other‘s opposites.
p. Disclaimer
Disclaimer is presenting an idea as something positive and then rejecting it by
the use of certain terms, such as 'but' in the second sentence (Dijk 2004b). In other
words, the speaker acts as if admit the state or condition of the communicant either
badness or goodness (mostly about goodness admission), afterwards the speaker rejects
such information by presenting a statement that comes up after the conjunction but
which is actually the main emphasis in the sentence. An instance of such strategy as
follows: Indeed, they are not against weapons, but they oppose other nations’
progress… (Ahmadinejad’s speech at UNGA 2008)

Ideology Strategy
Van Dijk (2004a) defines ideologies are here within a multidisciplinary
framework that combines a social, cognitive and discursive component. As 'systems of
ideas', ideologies are socio cognitively defined as shared representations of social
groups, and more specifically as the `axiomatic' principles of such representations. As
the basis of a social group's self image, ideologies organize its identity, actions, aims,
norms and values, and resources as well as its relations to other social groups.
 28

Ideologies are distinct from the socio cognitive basis of broader cultural communities,
within which different ideological groups share fundamental beliefs such as their
cultural knowledge.
Ideologies are expressed and generally reproduced in the social practices of their
members, and more particularly acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through
discourse. Although general properties of language and discourse are not, as such,
ideologically marked, systematic discourse analysis offers powerful methods to study
the structures and functions of underlying' ideologies.
Ideology control and direct someone’s belief in social relationship, for example,
racism ideology control action in immigration sector, immigration staff tightens in
supervising particular people. In addition, as basic of sociocognitive social group, the
ideology gradually becomes stable, believed by most people, or it sometimes changes to
be disbelieved by people as the era goes. Van Dijk (2004b) then states that ideology is
as 'systems of ideas', ideologies is sociocognitively defined as shared representations of
social groups, and more specifically as the `axiomatic' principies of such
representations. As the basis of a social group's selfimage, ideologies organize its
identity, actions, aims, norms and values, and resources as well as its relations to other
social groups. Ideologies are distinct from the sociocognitive basis of broader cultural
communities, within which different ideological groups share fundamental beliefs such
as their cultural knowledge. In that case, it might be possible there are coordination,
competition, conflict and struggle. Facing to the context of President SBY’s speech on
17th July 2009 will be further discussed on this analysis where ideology is the high light
that will be revealed. Based on socioculture aspect, the tragic bomb by unresponsible
terrorist is the worst crime that run against human rights to live independent, save, and
peaceful.
It should be stressed that ideologies may only influence the contextually variable
structures of discourse. Obviously the obligatory, grammatical structures cannot be
ideologically marked because they are the same for all speakers of the language and in
that cense ideologically neutral. However, there may be some debate on whether some
general grammatical rules are really ideologically innocent, as is the case for
expressions of gender. Some variable structures are more ideologically `sensitive' than
others. For instance meanings are more prone to ideological marking than syntactic
 29

structures, because ideologies are belief systems and beliefs characteristically tend to be
formulated as meanings of discourse. Syntactic structures and rhetorical figures such as
metaphors, hyperboles or euphemisms are used to emphasize or de-emphasize
ideological meanings, but as formal structures they have no ideological meaning. Thus,
there is no specific racist or antiracist type of hyperbole, pronominalization, or
intonation—although there are preferences for racist or sexist metaphors—only the
meanings that are modified by them.
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 the
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. This may happen,
as suggested, by pronouns such as us and them, but also by possessives and
demonstratives such as our people and those people, respectively.
Thus, we assume that ideological discourse is generally organized by a general
strategy of positive self-presentation (boasting) and negative other-presentation
(derogation). This strategy may operate at all levels, generally in such a way that our
good things are emphasized and our bad things de-emphasized, and the opposite for the
Others whose bad things will be enhanced, and whose good things will be mitigated,
hidden or forgotten.
This general polarizing principie when applied to discourse affects both forms and
meanings. Thus, we may enhance the negative properties of terrorists by reporting
gruesome acts of them (a question of meaning or content), but then do so at great length,
on the front page, with big headlines, with grisly pictures, repeatedly so, and so on,
which are formal characteristics. We may also do this by syntactic means, for instance
by reporting their gruesome acts as being accomplished by active, responsible agents,
that is by referring to them in first, topical positions of clauses and sentences, and not as
implicit agents or in passive sentences in which agents are de-emphasized.

ANALYSIS
1. Macro Level
According Van Dijk, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is classified into three
levels: Macro level, Meso level, and Micro Level. In the micro level, the aspects of
 30

analysis are on language use, text, verbal interaction, and communication in which
concerned on language aspects. In the meso level, it is focused on analyzing the process
of producing the speech itself and social cognition. Furthermore, in the macro level, the
aspects of analysis concerned on power, dominance, and analyzing social problems
related to speech production.
Critical Discourse Analysis has a purpose theoretically to cover the distance
between micro and macro approach; hence, the unite analysis can be reached. On the
macro level, social issues related to text are analyzed, such as power, access, inequality,
dominance and other social issues. Text could be assumed as power practice from other
side. On the macro level analysis is done by analyzing access of participants. This is
based on Van Dijk explanation (1996:85) that someone’s power is based on the access
that she/he owns. The access patterns include:
1. Planning
Planning (Dijk, 1996:87) of discourse already begins with taking the initiative, the
preparation or the planning of a communicate events. Such plans will usually imply
decisions about the setting (time, place) and an agenda for talks, as well as the
participants being invited or ordered to appear.
Discussion:
In this case President SBY has full access in planning aspect in which he is the
Indonesian President and has responsibility of this country. On 17th July 2009 actually
at 07.45 and 07.47 WIB terrible bombs incident happened in JW Marriot and Ritz
Carlton hotel Mega Kuningan Jakarta, then in responding to it, SBY delivered a speech.
SBY has full power to plan in how delivering a speech, using his language and word
choice.
2. Setting
There are many elements of setting of communicative events that may be
controlled by different participants. First of all, who is allowed or obliged to participate
and in what role, may be decided by the chairperson or by other powerful participants
who control the interaction and also other circumstances, such as distance, positioning,
and the presence of the power.
Discussion:
 31

In setting aspect, the aspect of media really influence in delivering SBY’s speech in
which SBY has full access in order to determine appropriate source to broadcast his
speech. Actually Indosian people, many kinds of media such as TV and radio station are
involved in setting aspect of delivering SBY’s speech because he wants to emphasizes
not only his condolence to bomb victims but also there was also a tendency in
expressing statements about his accuse to his politic rival in President-Vice President
election for period 2009-2014.
3. Controlling and Communicative Events
The crucial form of access consists of the power to control various dimensions of
speech and talk itself which mode of communication may be used in spoken or written
which language may be used by whom dominant or standard language, dialect, which
genres of discourse are allowed, which types of speech act, or who may begin or
interrupt turns at talk or discursive sequences. Power and dominance may be enacted,
confirmed and reproduced by such differential patterns of access to various form
distance on different social situations. Thus, having access to the speech act of a
command presupposes as well enacts and confirms the social power of the speaker.
Discussion:
SBY has full access of controlling communicative events in delivering his spoken
speech, SBY used standard and formal language dominantly in which it showed his
power as good President. While he was delivering his speech, nobody can interrupt him
because it is a kind of one way communication in formal situation.

4. Scope and audience control

For dialogues such as formal meeting sessions or debates, participants may allow
or require specific participants to be presents (or absent) or to allow or require these
others to listen and or to speak. Beyond the control of the content or style, thus speaker
may also control audiences. This is discourse access, especially in public forms of
discourse, also and most crucially implies audience access. At public meetings through
the mass media, discourses on their speakers or authors may thus have a greater or
lesser power scope. Full access to a major newspaper or television network, thus also
implies access to a large audience. Although the scope of access, in terms of the size of
the audience of one’s discourse, is an important criteria of power, control is much more
effective if the minds of the audience can also be successfully accessed.
 32

Discussion:
However in scope and audience control aspect, SBY did not have full access of it since,
he could not control the spreading of his speech and any kind of response after
delivering of his speech because he rule the country in democratic where people can
state their opinions freely and also there are many kinds of media sources.

2. Micro level
a. Macro Structure
Global meaning of a discourse/text can be observed from topic and theme of text.
The topic shows dominant concept, central and the most important point from a text.
The topic of SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009 dominantly stated about his opinion
that this bomb incident happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton hotel related to the
unharmonious politic condition after the President-Vice-President election instead of
focused of maintaining human right.
b. Micro Structure
Semantic Aspect
Strategic processing of ideology discourse analysis
On the basis of the ideologically biased models and socially shared beliefs
discussed above language users strategically produce and understand talk and text, on
line, word by word, sentence by sentence, turn by turn.
All variable phonological, lexical or syntactic forms may thus be controlled by the
underlying representations, as is also the case for the local and global meanings and the
actions engaged in by the language users. Intonation, pronouns, nominalizations, topic
choice and change, level of specificity or precision of action or actor description,
implicitness, turn taking, interruptions, politeness, arguments and fallacies, narrative
structures, style or rhetorical figures, among a host of other discourse structures may
thus strategically `index' the ideology of the speaker or writer. As we shall see below,
the general strategy controlling these various structures and moves is based on the
underlying ingroup—outgroup polarization of ideologies: Our good things and Their
bad things will tend to be emphasized, as is the case for the mitigation of Our bad things
and Their good things.
Van Dijk (2004a) defines ideologies are here within a multidisciplinary
framework that combines a social, cognitive and discursive component. As 'systems of
 33

ideas', ideologies are socio cognitively defined as shared representations of social

groups, and more specifically as the `axiomatic' principles of such representations. As
the basis of a social group's self image, ideologies organize its identity, actions, aims,
norms and values, and resources as well as its relations to other social groups.
Ideologies are distinct from the socio cognitive basis of broader cultural communities,
within which different ideological groups share fundamental beliefs such as their
cultural knowledge.
Ideologies are expressed and generally reproduced in the social practices of their
members, and more particularly acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through
discourse. Although general properties of language and discourse are not, as such,
ideologically marked, systematic discourse analysis offers powerful methods to study
the structures and functions of underlying' ideologies.
Ideology control and direct someone’s belief in social relationship, for example,
racism ideology control action in immigration sector, immigration staff tightens in
supervising particular people. In addition, as basic of sociocognitive social group, the
ideology gradually becomes stable, believed by most people, or it sometimes changes to
be disbelieved by people as the era goes. Van Dijk (2004b) then states that ideology is
as 'systems of ideas', ideologies is sociocognitively defined as shared representations of
social groups, and more specifically as the `axiomatic' principies of such
representations. As the basis of a social group's selfimage, ideologies organize its
identity, actions, aims, norms and values, and resources as well as its relations to other
social groups. Ideologies are distinct from the sociocognitive basis of broader cultural
communities, within which different ideological groups share fundamental beliefs such
as their cultural knowledge. In that case, it might be possible there are coordination,
competition, conflict and struggle. Facing to the context of President SBY’s speech on
17th July 2009 will be further discussed on this analysis where ideology is the high light
that will be revealed. Based on socioculture aspect, the tragic bomb by unresponsible
terrorist is the worst crime that run against human rights to live independent, save, and
peaceful.
c. Superstructure
Superstructure according to Van Dijk (1983:242), superstructure or schematic
analysis has function to explain the plot or chronologies of a discourse. Superstructure
 34

itself contains of introduction, contents, closing and summary. Van Dijk (1993:119)
explains that the form and schema contains of summary with two elements, they are:
lead, main event, background (history+context) and comments
(evaluation+expectation). Actually the topic of SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009 was
about his response as President to incident of bomb in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton
hotel in order to maintain the human right against human crime; however, the dominant
topic from statements that he uttered was not concerning to supposed topic but he
explained about there was a conspiration or involvement of his politic rival in election
and he was a victim of his politic rival that must be saved and got simphaty from public.

Discussion on Ideology Critical Discourse Analysis

Text and Context: Speech of President SBY on 17th July 2009
On Thursday, 17th July 2009 at 14.00 WIB, President SBY held media conference
in Istana Negara yard. Pers conference held was very important thing; hence, National
and Private TV stations and radio stations cancelled their agenda setting (other event
program) in order to hold live event from Istana Negara yard. At that time, President of
Indonesia, SBY, delivered a speech to the Indonesian people. The delivered speech was
President SBY response to the tragic bomb happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton
Mega Kuningan Jakarta, on 17th July at 07.45 and 07.47 WIB. In addition, that cruel
bomb action had got lost 9 people’s lives and other tens people got injured. The script of
President SBY’s speech related to the bomb in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton Mega
Kuningan Jakarta is attached in the appendix of this paper.
The President SBY speech then was broadcasted repeatedly by most electronic
media unexceptionally internet media and this news was still broadcasted in the next
day from the delivered speech. The repetition of the broadcasted news about the
President SBY’s speech got many kinds of responses from any sides. Hence, The
Presidents SBY speech in Istana Negara yard contextually became part of public talk.
President SBY as the Indonesian country leader is full responsible to the country safety
any kind of terror of bomb and other kind of crime. Along SBY government from 2004
to the ending of his government, Indonesian country was relatively safe. Moreover, it
could be said that there was no bomb tragedy happened. Many kinds of terrorism effort
had been successfully cancelled during SBY government. Because of this reasonable
reason, President SBY as one of president candidates in the period of 2009-2014 in
 35

almost every party champagne confidently said that Indonesia was safe under his
government. SBY and his winner team also viewed the level of good Indonesian safety
then as one of SBY’s success in ruling Indonesia.
However, the bomb happened in JW Marriot Hotel and Ritz Carlton on 17th July
2009 was only seventeen days after Indonesia held Indonesian President Election on 8th
July 2009. At that time, the couple SBY-Boediono could be sure to become the winner
of Indonesian election based on Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) Indonesia and many
other survey organizations defeating the couple Megawati Soekarno Putri-Prabowo
Subijanto and Jusuf Kalla-Wiranto. They then celebrated their win as expression of
thankful. In the other side, the couples Megawati-Prabowo and Jusuf Kalla-Wiranto
criticized the win of SBY-Kalla and did a law effort because in their opinion the
president election was full of cheating and dishonest in order to get the win.
Consequently, many politicians gave their own arguments whether pro or cont to the
win of SBY-Kalla.
Closing to the end of counting the result of the President-Vice President
election, then suddenly an unexpected bomb happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton
hotel. Hence, in responding to the tragic bomb happened, speech was delivered by
President SBY on 17th July 2009 which was broadcasted in almost every TV station and
other mass medias. In SBY’s speech, he stated that the bomb happened was really
related to the public election of President-Vice President and he also added that based
on intelligent information, there was a hidden effort of a person to murder himself,
screw up KPU, and threaten the government if SBY won the election. The form of the
delivered SBY’s speech was only as a statement responding to the bomb, as he said
“Demikianlah pernyataan saya” or it means that is all of my statement; however, in the
speech content there was a pragmatic command to the security council (Polri, BIN,
TNI) to find the terrorists and punish them based on Indonesian law. Other pragmatic
command behind the speech was to ask all Indonesian citizens to be unity in order to
take the terrorist up and give them appropriate punishment. For further clearness
ideology behind SBY’s speech, it will be further explained using macro proportion
analysis by Van Dijk (2004b).
 36

Macro Proportion Analysis: SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009

Topic of text plays important and basic role in communication and interaction
(Van Dijk in Wadak and Meyer 2001:101). The topic in a speech globally could be
comprehended globally in which the topic of text is semantic macro structure which
appears in each information of text. Besides, the chain of topics which support a
particular text will create a unity of text. However, Van Dijk (2001:102) explained that
as global meaning, topic cannot be noticed directly. In order to examine a text in finding
global meaning should trough a kind of process. There are few marks could be used as
hints of topic in text such as title, sub title, and summary.
In addition, Van Dijk (2001: 102-103) suggests using macro proportion in order to
find the topic of text in which predicting every important statements contained in a text;
moreover, Semantic roles of propositional arguments (such as Agent, Patient, Object,
etc.) may be assigned depending on the ideologically attributed roles in a model. Thus,
in a social conflict different social groups may be attributed different types or degrees of
responsibility or involvement in positive or negative actions. The statements contained
in a text can show a chain of high light to be summarized in higher level; hence, the
higher summary itself is called the topic of text. In the SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009
actually did not show the title and sub title. This gives sign that the topic or theme was
delivered not openly or implicitly. Consequently, in finding the topic of the speech, it
must be used an analysis of every important statement in text. Those text proportions
can be seen clearly as follows:
1. Macro Proportion 1
Hari ini adalah titik hitam dalam sejarah kita, terjadi lagi serangan atau pemboman
yang dilakukan oleh kaum teroris di Jakarta.
2. Macro Proportion 2
Aksi yang tidak berkeprimanusiaan ini, juga menimbulkan korban jiwa dan luka-
luka bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa.
3. Macro Proportion 3
Aksi pemboman yang keji dan tidak berkeprimanusiaaan ini serta tidak
bertanggungjawab ini, terjadi ketika baru saja bangsa Indonesia melakukan
pemungutan suara dalam rangka pemilihan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, dan ketika
KPU sedang menghitung hasil pemungutan suara.
 37

4. Macro Proportion 4
Akibat aksi teror ini yang dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita ikim usaha kita,
kepariwisataan kita, citra kita dimata dunia dan lain-lain lagi.
5. Macro Proportion 5
Disamping kita pemerintah menjalankan kegiatan tanggap darurat untuk merawat
saudara-saudara kita yang menjadi korban dalam aksi pemboman ini investigasi
juga tengah dilakukan.
6. Macro Proportion 6
Pagi ini saya mendapat banyak sekali pertanyaan, atau saudara-saudara yang
mengingatkan kepada saya. Yang berteori paling tidak mencemaskan, kalau aksi
teror ini berkaitan dengan hasil pemilihan Presiden sekarang ini.
7. Macro Proportion 7
Bahwa dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan pemilihan Presiden dan pemilihan
Wakil Presiden tahun 2009 ini memang ada sejumlah inteligen yang dapat
dikumpulkan oleh pihak yang berwenang. Sekali lagi ini memang tidak pernah kita
buka kepada umum, kepada publik, meskipun kita pantau dan kita ikuti. Inteligen
yang saya maksud adalah adanya kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih
menembak dengan foto saya, foto SBY dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan tembak.
8. Macro Proportion 8
Masih berkaitan dengan inteligen, diketahui ada rencana untuk melakukan
kekerasan dan tindakan melawan hukum berkaitan dengan hasil Pemilu.... Adapula
rencana untuk pendudukan paksa KPU pada saat nanti hasil pemungutan suara
diumumkan. Ada pernyataan akan ada revolusi jika SBY menang.
9. Macro Proportion 9
Andaikata tidak terkait ancaman-ancaman yang tadi itu, dengan aksi pemboman
hari ini, tetaplah harus dicegah, harus dihentikan, karena anarki, tindakan
kekerasan, pengrusakan, tindakan melawan hukum bukan karakter demokrasi,
bukan karakter negara hukum.
10. Macro Proportion 10
Negara kita memiliki kehidupan demokrasi yang makin mekar, serta penghormatan
kepada Hak Azasi Manusia yang makin baik, negara yang ekonominya juga
tumbuh, dan negara yang berperan dalam percaturan global. Bahkan, ini yang
 38

sangat memilukan, sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini, klub Sepak bola
terkenal di dunia, Manchaster United, berencana untuk bermain di Jakarta.
11. Macro Proportion 11
Aksi-aksi teror yang keji dan tidak bertanggungjawab ini, apa yang telah kita
bangun hampir lima tahun terakhir ini, oleh kerja keras dan tetesan keringat seluruh
rakyat Indonesia, lagi-lagi harus mengalami goncangan dan kemunduran.
12. Macro Proportion 12
Kebenaran dan keadilan, serta tegakknya hukum harus diwujudkan. Saya
bersumpah, demi rakyat Indonesia yang sangat saya cintai, negara dan pemerintah
akan melaksanakan tindakan yang tegas, tepat, dan benar terhadap pelaku
pemboman ini, berikut otak dan penggeraknya ataupun kejahatan-kejahatan lain
yang mungkin atau dapat terjadi di negeri kita sekarang ini.
13. Macro Proportion 13
Polri, TNI, BIN, termasuk para Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota, saya minta untuk
terus meningkatkan kewaspadaan, terus berusaha keras mencegah aksi-aksi teror....
Barangkali ada diantara kita, yang diwaktu yang lalu melakukan kejahatan,
membunuh, menghilangkan orang barangkali, dan para pelaku itu barangkali masih
lolos dari jeratan hukum, kali ini negara tidak boleh membiarkan mereka menjadi
drakula dan penyebar maut di negeri kita.
14. Macro Proportion 14
Polri, BIN, TNI harus benar-benar bersinergi sikap lengah dan menganggap ringan
sesuatu harus dibuang jauh-jauh. Ini amanah kita kepada rakyat, kepada Negara.
15. Macro Proportion 15
Ke depan, saya mengajak seluruh rakyat Indonesia, seluruh komponen bangsa,
untuk marilah kita lebih bersatu dan sama-sama menjaga keamanan dan perdamaian
di negeri ini. Bangsa manapun, agama apapun, kita semua tidak membenarkan
terorisme.
16. Macro Proportion 16
Kita bangsa, negara, rakyat tidak boleh kalah dan menyerah kepada terorisme.
From 16 Macro proportions above, it can be seen that the stress of discussion in the
text is divided into two stresses. The first stress is on macro proportions 1, 2, 4, 5, 10,
 39

12, 14, 15, and 16. From combination of the whole macro proportions got two kinds
stresses:
(Macro Proportion 1) Hari ini adalah titik hitam dalam sejarah kita, terjadi lagi
serangan atau pemboman yang dilakukan oleh kaum teroris di Jakarta. (Macro
Proportion 2) Aksi yang tidak berkeprimanusiaan ini, juga menimbulkan korban jiwa
dan luka-luka bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa. (Macro Proportion 4) Akibat aksi teror
ini yang dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita ikim usaha kita, kepariwisataan kita, citra
kita dimata dunia dan lain-lain lagi. (Macro Proportion 5) Disamping kita pemerintah
menjalankan kegiatan tanggap darurat untuk merawat saudara-saudara kita yang
menjadi korban dalam aksi pemboman ini investigasi juga tengah dilakukan. (Macro
Proportion 10) Negara kita memiliki kehidupan demokrasi yang makin mekar, serta
penghormatan kepada Hak Azasi Manusia yang makin baik, negara yang ekonominya
juga tumbuh, dan negara yang berperan dalam percaturan global. Bahkan, ini yang
sangat memilukan, sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini, klub Sepak bola terkenal di
dunia, Manchaster United, berencana untuk bermain di Jakarta. (Macro Proportion 11)
Aksi-aksi teror yang keji dan tidak bertanggungjawab ini, apa yang telah kita bangun
hampir lima tahun terakhir ini, oleh kerja keras dan tetesan keringat seluruh rakyat
Indonesia, lagi-lagi harus mengalami goncangan dan kemunduran. (Macro Proportion
12) Kebenaran dan keadilan, serta tegakknya hukum harus diwujudkan. Saya
bersumpah, demi rakyat Indonesia yang sangat saya cintai, negara dan pemerintah akan
melaksanakan tindakan yang tegas, tepat, dan benar terhadap pelaku pemboman ini,
berikut otak dan penggeraknya ataupun kejahatan-kejahatan lain yang mungkin atau
dapat terjadi di negeri kita sekarang ini. (Macro Proportion 14) Polri, BIN, TNI harus
benar-benar bersinergi sikap lengah dan menganggap ringan sesuatu harus dibuang
jauh-jauh. Ini amanah kita kepada rakyat, kepada Negara. (Macro Proportion 15) Ke
depan, saya mengajak seluruh rakyat Indonesia, seluruh komponen bangsa, untuk
marilah kita lebih bersatu dan sama-sama menjaga keamanan dan perdamaian di negeri
ini. Bangsa manapun, agama apapun, kita semua tidak membenarkan terorisme. (Macro
Proportion 16) Kita bangsa, negara, rakyat tidak boleh kalah dan menyerah kepada
terorisme.
The combination of those macro proportions above result the higher level of
macro proportions which directly can be concluded as topic of the text:
 40

“Aksi pemboman di Jakarta merupakan kegiatan tidak berprikemanusiaan,

menimbulkan korban jiwa, berdampak luas pada kegiatan perekonomiaan, iklim usaha
kepariwisataan, swasembada pangan, investasi, perdagangan, sector riil dan merusak
citra Indonesia dimata dunia yang selama lima tahun semakin membaik, karena itu
tindakan tegas, tepat dan benar terhadap perilaku berikut otak dan penggeraknya yang
karenanya Polri, BIN, TNI dan masyarakat harus bersinergi dan tidak boleh kalah
menghadapi terorisme yang tidak disukai oleh bangsa apapun, agama apapun”
Translation in English:
“The bomb incident in Jakarta was unworthiness of a human being activity which
caused victims and affected widely to economic activity, tourism sector, invest, trade,
real sectors and also ruin Indonesian image on the world’s eyes which along five years
getting better; consequently, appropriate clear right act to the terrorist include the brain
and its mover must be applied. Since of thi, Polri, BIN, TNI and all citizen must be
unite and must not be defeated by terrorism act which is very hated by any country, any
religion.”
The second stress is on the macro proportions 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 and if
they are combined, they will be: (Macro Proportion 3) Aksi pemboman yang keji dan
tidak berkeprimanusiaaan ini serta tidak bertanggungjawab ini, terjadi ketika baru saja
bangsa Indonesia melakukan pemungutan suara dalam rangka pemilihan Presiden dan
Wakil Presiden, dan ketika KPU sedang menghitung hasil pemungutan suara. (Macro
Proportion 6) Pagi ini saya mendapat banyak sekali pertanyaan, atau saudara-saudara
yang mengingatkan kepada saya. Yang berteori paling tidak mencemaskan, kalau aksi
teror ini berkaitan dengan hasil pemilihan Presiden sekarang ini. (Macro Proportion 7)
Bahwa dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan pemilihan Presiden dan pemilihan Wakil
Presiden tahun 2009 ini memang ada sejumlah inteligen yang dapat dikumpulkan oleh
pihak yang berwenang. Sekali lagi ini memang tidak pernah kita buka kepada umum,
kepada publik, meskipun kita pantau dan kita ikuti. Inteligen yang saya maksud adalah
adanya kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih menembak dengan foto saya, foto SBY
dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan tembak. (Macro Proportion 8) Masih berkaitan dengan
inteligen, diketahui ada rencana untuk melakukan kekerasan dan tindakan melawan
hukum berkaitan dengan hasil Pemilu.... Adapula rencana untuk pendudukan paksa
KPU pada saat nanti hasil pemungutan suara diumumkan. Ada pernyataan akan ada
revolusi jika SBY menang. (Macro Proportion 9) Andaikata tidak terkait ancaman-
ancaman yang tadi itu, dengan aksi pemboman hari ini, tetaplah harus dicegah, harus
dihentikan, karena anarki, tindakan kekerasan, pengrusakan, tindakan melawan hukum
 41

bukan karakter demokrasi, bukan karakter negara hukum. (Macro Proportion 10)
Negara kita memiliki kehidupan demokrasi yang makin mekar, serta penghormatan
kepada Hak Azasi Manusia yang makin baik, negara yang ekonominya juga tumbuh,
dan negara yang berperan dalam percaturan global. Bahkan, ini yang sangat memilukan,
sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini, klub Sepak bola terkenal di dunia, Manchaster
United, berencana untuk bermain di Jakarta. (Macro Proportion 11) Aksi-aksi teror yang
keji dan tidak bertanggungjawab ini, apa yang telah kita bangun hampir lima tahun
terakhir ini, oleh kerja keras dan tetesan keringat seluruh rakyat Indonesia, lagi-lagi
harus mengalami goncangan dan kemunduran. (Macro Proportion 13) Polri, TNI, BIN,
termasuk para Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota, saya minta untuk terus meningkatkan
kewaspadaan, terus berusaha keras mencegah aksi-aksi teror.... Barangkali ada diantara
kita, yang diwaktu yang lalu melakukan kejahatan, membunuh, menghilangkan orang
barangkali, dan para pelaku itu barangkali masih lolos dari jeratan hukum, kali ini
negara tidak boleh membiarkan mereka menjadi drakula dan penyebar maut di negeri
kita.
The combination of those macro proportions for the second stress above result the
higher level of macro proportions which directly can be concluded as second topic of
the text:
“Adanya teori yang perlu dibuktikan ada atau tidaknya kaitan antara aksi
pemboman dengan hasil pemilu sebagaimana inteligen menginformasikan bahwa
adanya kegiatan teroris berlatih memihak dengan sasaran tembak foto SBY, rencana
tindakan kekerasan melawan hukum dengan cara pendudukan KPU, revolusi sekiranya
SBY menang, karenanya Polri, TNI, BIN, Gubernur, Bupati, Walikota harus terus
meningkatkan kewaspadaan dan berusaha keras mencegah aksi-aksi teror termasuk
kemungkinan adanya para pelaku pembunuhan yang selama ini masih lolos dari jeratan
hokum.”
Translation in English:
“There must be a theory which need to be proved about there is or there is no
correlation between the bomb incident and election result as the intelligent informed
that there was terrorist activity who did exercise on shooting using target of shot, the
picture of SBY, the planning of harshness against Indonesian law by positioning KPU if
SBY won the election. Hence, Polri, TNI, BIN, Governor, Regent and Mayor must keep
improving their awareness and effort to prevent terrorism act include the possibility of
murderer who is still out of law.
 42

In the SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009, it is not mentioned the speech title which
was delivered and only the strength of statements of text related to the bomb incident
17th July 2009 in Jakarta. However, in the SBY’s speech itself there is no detail
information specifically where the bomb located in which was JW Marriot and Ritz
Carlton, Mega Kuningan Jakarta.
Moreover, there is an ideology behind the delivered speech which based the text.
Along SBY delivered his speech, he showed some kinds of negative feeling resulted
from the bomb happened. Consequently, the listeners were directed to comprehend
word by word uttered by President SBY in the limit and stress of the negative feeling.
Negative other presentations statements found in his speech that the bomb incident/
terror is:
1) Titik hitam dalam sejarah kita, terjadi lagi serangan dan pemboman yang
dilakukan oleh kaum teroris di Jakarta (paragraph 1, sentence 2)
2) juga menimbulkan korban jiwa dan luka-luka bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa
(paragraph 2, sentence 1)
3) sangat merusak keamanan dan kedamaian di negeri ini (paragraph 3, sentence 2)
4) semua di antara kita merasa prihatin, berduka, prihatin dan menangis dalam hati
(paragraph 4, line 1)
5) dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita iklim usaha kita, kepariwisataan kita, citra
kita di mata dunia dan lain-lain lagi (paragraph 4, sentence 3)
6) sangat memilukan, sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini, klub sepak bola
terkenal di dunia, Manchaster United, berencana untuk bermain di Jakarta
(paragraph 14, sentence 5)
7) Aksi-aksi teror keji dan tidak bertanggungjawab ini, apa yang telah kita bangub
hampir lima tahun terakhir ini, oleh kerja keras dan tetesan keringat seluruh
rakyat Indonesia, lagi-lagi harus mengalami goncangan dan kemunduran. Lagi-
lagi dampak buruknya harus dipikul oleh rakyat Indonesia (paragraph 15, line 1)
The negative feeling showed dominantly from many definitions of the bomb
incident in Jakarta in the forms of words, phrases from the mentioned quotes such as:
titik hitam (black spot), serangan (attack), korban jiwa (victims), luka-luka (injure),
merusak keamanan dan kedamaian (destroy safety and peace), prihatin (anxious),
berduka (feel sorrow), menangis dalam hati (crying in heart) dampaknya luas bagi iklim
 43

(widely affected from sectors): usaha (business), citra dimata dunia (image on the
world’s eyes), memilukan, kalau tidak ada kejadian ini Manchester United bermain di
Jakarta, terorisme, dipikul, aksi teror, dan kerusakan.
To sum up, the definition from the bomb incident in Jakarta negatively is a global
function as a centre point in SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009. From textual side, the
effect of the bomb attack was given in the text while from contextual side of negative
statements about the incident is a strategy of producing text against the terror/ bomb act.
The effect resulted from negative definition of the bomb attack in Jakarta is to
make the listeners aware and become against to the terrorist. Making citizen awareness
about the bad effects of terrorism found on how SBY stated about the victims and many
kinds of effects from many sectors.

SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009

Negative Other Presentation (derogation)
The speech delivered by SBY on 17th July 2009 used several ideology strategies.
Ideology strategy itself describes point of view of producing text about the bombing.
The delivered speech in context of JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton Hotel bombing was
spread broadcasted to the society. The purpose of SBY’s speech in responding to the
bombing itself is in order to give information that calmed the condition of society;
hence, by this assumption, Indonesian society got certainty situation about the safety,
peace, and government act of the bomb terror.
Ideology behind the delivered speech itself can be seen thorough every words that
President SBY uttered. The ideology became against to the terrorism act happened. In
addition, it can be comprehended through strategy of ideology critical discourse
analysis.
The description about who got negative impact of the bombing act and who did
terrorism act which resulting negative impact called strategy of actor description. In the
strategy of actor description, the subject and object are clarified clearly in the speech
text. The use of strategy of actor description can be seen from the side who faced any
kind of the bombing negative result, as follows:
8. menimbulkan korban jiwa dan luka-luka bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa.
9. yang menimbulkan derita dan kesulitan yang dipikul oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia.
10. Kejadian ini yang sangat merusak keamanan dan kedamaian di negeri ini,
 44

11. akibat aksi teror ini yang dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita, iklim usaha kita,
kepariwisata-an kita, citra kita dimata dunia dan lain-lain lagi.
12. terjadilah musibah yang sangat merobek keamanan dan nama baik bangsa dan
negara kita.
13. ... sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini, klub sepak bola terkenal di dunia,
Manchaster United, berencana untuk bermain di Jakarta.

The subject based on actor description strategy is terrorist group. The intended
terrorist group could be possibly not as the terrorist group which has been recognized in
Indonesia; however, there is possibility that it was done by politician who is politic
opponent of SBY in the Indonesian president-vice president 2009. This is shown on
several quotes in SBY’s speech below:
14) Aksi teror ini diperkirakan dilakukan oleh kelompok teroris, meskipun belum tentu
jaringan terorisme yang kita kenal selama ini terjadi di bumi Indonesia...
15) ... bahwa dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan pemilihan Presiden dan pemillihan
Wakil Presiden tahun 2009 ini... kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih menembak
dengan foto saya, foto SBY dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan tembak.

In addition, the object of the terrorism act related to public election in Indonesia
can be seen clearly on quotes below:

16) ... kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih menembak dengan foto saya, foto SBY
dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan tembak.
17) ... diketahui ada rencana untuk melakukan kekerasan dan tindakan melawan hukum
berkaitan dengan hasil Pemilu.
18) Adapula rencana untuk pendudukan paksa KPU pada saat nanti hasil pemungutan
suara diumumkan.
In the quote 17), it gives vision to listeners that the object of terrorism act is SBY
whether as Indonesian President or the next Indonesian President in next five year-
period or even as personal person. Other object of terrorism act related to public
election is clearly seen on quote 18) and 19) in which doing an act against the law like
screwing up KPU. The strategy of actor description on the object level, there was
nothing else to be discussed out of the public election 2009. Moreover, JW Marriot and
Ritz Carlton hotel even more JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton as the bombing location was
less discussed. The word “terorisme/teror” (terrorism/terror) was uttered 14 times and
the word “pemboman” (bombing) was uttered 7 times. The use of the word
“terorisme/teror” (terrorism/terror) has a purpose to show there is terrorism group who
did bombing as (quote 9) which resulting country destroy. From quote 10 to 14 more
clarify that the terrorist act to bomb JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton hotel has created many
 45

negative impacts such as victims and injured for innocent people, pain and hard
situation that must be burdened by the whole Indonesian society, destroying security
and peace of the country, giving negative impacts to all economic activity, business,
tourism, and Indonesian image on the world’s eyes. Moreover, Manchester United foot
ball club who canceled to visit Jakarta was said in the speech as one of negative result
of the bombing in Jakarta.
As it is known clearly that any kind of irresponsible terrorism act belongs to a
cruel act which runs against human being right. Consequently, it can be concluded that
President SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009 contained ideology of maintaining of the
human being right firmly particularly on being against to criminality of human being in
which the subject and object can be seen from quote 15 to 19, the ideology behind that
speech is not only limited on being against to criminality of human being. However, in
the speech text also it is also said that the actor of bombing terror (Subject) could be
done by terrorist group who was not recognized in Indonesia.
The connection between the terrorist group who did exercise to shoot SBY photo
as the object and the threat to screw up KPU related to the result of public election
implied that the terrorist was behind politic activity. It means that terror act which was
done by politician opponent of SBY in doing legislative public election of president-
vice president 2009.
The availability of politic value in the President SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009
can be seen from victimization strategy in the quotes as follows:
19) Aksi pemboman yang keji dan tidak berperikemanusiaan serta tidak bertanggung
jawab…
20) … ada segelintir orng di negeri ini yang sekarang tertawa puas, bersora dalam hati,
disertai nafsu amarah dan keangkara murkaan… tidak memiliki rasa kemanusiaan…
21)… bahwa dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan pemilihan Presiden dan pemilihan
Wakil Presiden tahun 2009 ini, … adanya kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih
menembak dengan foto saya, foto SBY dijadikan sasaran, dikadikan lisan tembak.
22)… diketahui ada rencana untuk melakukan kekerasan dan tindakan melawan hokum
berkaitan dengan hasil pemilu.
23) Ada pula rencana untuk pendudukan paksa KPU pada saat nanti hasil pemungutan
suara diumumkan.
24) Ada pernyataan aka nada revolusi jika SBY menang.
25) Adanya pernyataan, kita bikin Indonesia seperti Iran.
26)… ada pernyataan, bagaimanapun juga SBY tidak boleh dan tidak bisa dilantik.
 46

In the victimization strategy related to terrorist who was recognized in Indonesia

can only be found in the quote 20) as pure of terrorism act and cruel criminality of
human being. Hence, this text contains different ideology to ideology of maintaining
human being right firmly (being against to human being criminality). However, in quote
21 to 27, victimization strategy connected the process of public president and vice
president election 2009. Nevertheless, in those quotes it was implicitly said who was the
victim and accused such as the politic opponent of SBY in legislative public opponent
as it was found in previous strategy of actor description.
In order to strengthen producing discourse of the victimization strategy, strategy
of proposing argumentative authority is also used. This strategy applied in the text is by
mentioning intelligent as authorized institution to deliver information as a threat from
terrorist and the politic opponent of SBY. It can be seen from quote, “Memang ada
sejumlah informasi inteligen; Ini inteligen, ada rekaman videonya, ada gambarnya.
Bukan fitnah, bukan isu; Ada pernyataan, akan ada revolusi jika SBY menang. Ini
inteligen, bukan rumor, bukan isu, bukan gosip.”
Based on the above quote and explanation of actor description, victimization and
argumentative authority proposal strategy it is clearly shown that the text creator
(President SBY) is not only as President but also as a President who involves in
President and Vice-President Election 2009. Consequently, the speech text itself
contains with text related to politic side. In the other words, the speech delivered by
President SBY 17th July 2009 contains not only ideology of human being right but also
ideology of politic.
Through strategy of producing text it self can be concluded the ideology of politic
behind the speech. Euphemism strategy, related to the process of election instead of
mentioning explicitly who was accused as the terrorist of the bomb happened on JW
Marriot and Ritz Carlton hotel; hence, the more euphemistic sentence used, “…aksi
pemboman ini terjadi ketika rakyat merasa prihatin atas kegaduhan politik di tingkat elit
disertai sebagaimana yang saya ikuti setiap hari, ucapan-ucapan yang bernada
menghasut dan terus memelihara suhu yang panas dan penuh dengan permusuhan....
Berkaitan dengan pelaku pemboman, “...Barangkali ada di antara kita, yang di waktu
yang lalu melakukan kejahatan, membunuh, menghilangkan orang barangkali, dan para
pelaku itu barangkali masih lolos dari jeratan hukum...”. The word “barangkali” or it
 47

means ‘perhaps’ in order to make it more euphemistic of the uncertainty, besides it also
seems that the text creator (President SBY) know there are crime actor from the past
who got escaped from the law. The words “lolos dari jeratan hukum” (got escaped from
the law) are like an allusion on someone or a group of crime actor who was brought to
justice of murdering case; however, they could be free from law. The word “lolos” or
free could be also as an allusion that the accused person must have got punishment;
however, the person could be free because of his/her intelligence or even his/her clyness
made the accused crime could not be proved. In addition there is also an euphemism
strategy of word “musibah” or (disaster) which means terrible event especially great
damage, loss etc. by nature instead of saying “kerusakan dan kehancuran, serta kerugian
disebabkan tindakan yang disengaja oleh teroris atas lemahnya keamanan Negara” or ‘
destruction and loss by the action which intentionally done by terrorist because of the
low of country security.
In addition, polarization strategy can be explained on how the use of pronoun
“saya” or ‘I’ in which it refers to the narrator, pronoun “kita” or ‘we’ refers to
people/society which is claimed has same notion to the narrator’s point of view, while
pronoun “mereka” and “teroris” or ‘they’ and ‘terrorist’ refers to people or group who
are accused as negative subject as the bombing actor and the politic opponent of SBY as
an instigator and bothering the peaceful politic system in Indonesia. There are some
quotes that show polarization strategy.
27) titik hitam dalam sejarah kita, terjadi lagi serangan atau pemboman yang dilakukan
oleh kaum teroris di Jakarta
28) Saya yakin sebagaimana yang dapat kita ungkapkan diwaktu yang lalu, para pelaku
dan mereka-mereka yang menggerakkan aksi terorisme ini akan dapat kita tangkap.
29) Saya tunjukkan, ada rekaman videonya, ini mereka yang berlatih menembak
30) Mereka segelintir orang itu tidak memiliki rasa kemanusiaan dan tidak peduli
dengan kehancuran Negara kita.

Besides those strategies mentioned above, in SBY’s speech also uses a strategy
of burden. This strategy used to show how heavy the burden that must be handled by
one particular side because of result of particular action. In that case, the bomb
happened must burden the victims, injured people, victim’s family, the country, and
even the bombing actor himself. The quote that shows this strategy is:
31) ... korban jiwa dan luka-luka bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa.
 48

The burden felt by the country there is destruction of country and affected
negatively to economy, tourism, and investation sector because there is disbelief feeling
of Indonesian security for particular side. There some quotes that confirm the burden of
this country:
32)… adanya kehancuran yang diderita oleh Negara atas tindakan yang tidak memiliki
perikemanusiaan.
33) …merusak keamanan dan kedamaian di negeri ini, juga terjadi ketika rakyat
sungguh menginginkan suasana yang tepat, aman, tenang, dan damai, dan justru rakyat
ingin agar selesainya pemilu 2009 ini kita semua segera bersatu, membangun kembali
Negara kita untuk kepentingan rakyat Indonesia
34) … akibat aksi teror ini yang dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita, iklim usaha kita,
kepariwisataan kita, citra kita dimata dunia dan lain-lain lagi
35) …lagi-lagi harus mengalami goncangan dan kemunduran. Lagi-lagi dampak
buruknya harus dipikul oleh rakyat Indonesia.

However, the burden for terrorist side is that they must face the country reaction
such as searching for them, arresting and punishing them appropriately. The quotes that
show it:
36)…negara dan pemerintah akan melaksanakan tindakan yang tegas, tepat dan benar
terhadap pelaku pemboman ini, berikut otak dan penggeraknya ataupun kejahatan-
kejahatan lain yang mungkin atau dapat terjadi di negeri kita sekarang ini.
Statements in euphemism, polarization, burden strategy above show that there is
an attempt in order to get society simphaty by using heart touching words to the society;
however, in the other side, there is also an attempt to maintain the law firmly against the
crime and ask the society be unity to face and handle the negative impact of terrorism
action. An attempt of getting sympathy from the society is as an effort of self image to
get society’s support and stand behind the narrator. This becomes closely real with
illustration strategy which conveyed in several quotes below:
37) Dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan pemiluhan Presiden dan pemilihan Wakil
Presiden tahun 2009 ini… kegiatan kelompok teroris yang berlatih menembak dengan
foto saya, foto SBY dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan tembak.
38) Ini mereka yang berlatih menembak
39) Dua orang menembak pistol
As additional note while the quotes 39, 40 41 uttered, SBY also showed some
pictures where on a picture of SBY has been shot on left cheek, it means it is used to
practice of shooting with the target, SBY picture. This strategy uttered by SBY shows
 49

that President SBY was worried about his own life safe. Hence, Indonesian society
become so sad and put their sympathetic to SBY and it also make an image that SBY is
a good leader who is always bullied by his politic opponents.
Strategy of Lexixalization also strengthen and more clarify the ideology of
maintaining the human right against terrorism and ideology of politic image can be seen
from several key words in his speech as follows: teror/teroris/terisme
(terror/terrorist/terrorism), aksi (action), tidak berperikemanusiaan (having no
worthiness of a human being), sasaran (target), tembak (shoot), keji (cruel), inteligen
(intelligent), prihatin (anxious), nafsu (desire), amarah (anger), keangkaramurkaan
(greed), segelintir (small group), tanggap (react to), darurat (urgent), investigasi
(investigation), instruksikan (instruct), pihak (side), berwenang (authorized),
pendudukan (occupy), paksa (force), revolusi (revolution), kekerasan (violation),
lokasi (location), steril (sterile), sisir (comb), anarki (anarchist), pengrusakan
(destruction), kutukan (curse), politik (politic), pemilu (election), memilukan
(saddening), membunuh (murder), jeratan (knot), hukum (law), drakula (Dracula), maut
(death), ekstrimitas (extremity).
The whole of key words above contain negative feeling value related to bombing
terror and politic opponent of SBY. The negative feeling value itself strengthen text
which has soul in order to have the ideology of maintaining human being right against
human crime) and also ideology of politic image as the text construction itself.
The use of stategy of proposing norm expretion is expressing statement what
supposed to be done for the bomb terror and intelligent information related to any kind
of threat along the process of president-vice president election done by politic opponent
of SBY. This strategy of norm expretion is as completion of previous strategies such as
actor description, victimization, authority, euphemism, polarization, burden, and
lexicalization strategy. Normative statement proposed is as responsibility to the country
security and Indonesian society directed for Polri, BIN, TNI, law and Indonesian
society. It can be seen from some quotes below:
40)…pemerintah menjalankan kegiatan tanggap darurat untuk merawat saudara-saudara
kita yang menjadi korban dalam aksi pemboman ini investigasi juga tengah dilakukan.
 50

41) saya telah menginstrusikan kepada Polri, Badan Intelijen Negara dan badan
lembaga-lembaga lain terkait untuk melakukan investigasi secara cepat dan menyeluruh
serta mengendali pelaku-pelakunya, sesuai dengan ketentuan hulum yang berlaku.
42) Saya juga menginstrusikan kepada para penegak hukum untuk juga mengadili siapa
saja yang terlibat dalam aksi terorisme ini, siapapun dia, apapun status dan latar
belakang politiknya
43) Andai kata tidak terkait ancaman-ancaman yang tadi itu, dengan aksi pemboman
hari ini, tetaplah harus dicegah, harus dihentikan, karena anarki, tindakan kekerasan,
pengrusakan, tindakan melawan hukum bukan karakter demokrasi, bukan karakter
Negara hukum.
44) Oleh karena itu, kebenaran dan keadilan, serta tegaknya hukum harus diwujudkan.
Saya bersumpah, demi rakyat Indonesia yang sangat cintai, Negara, dan pemerintah
akan melaksanakan tindakan yang tega, tepat, dan benar terhadap pelaku pemboman ini,
berikut otak dan penggeraknya ataupun kejahatan-kejahatan lain yang mungkin atau
dapat terjadi di negeri kita sekarang ini.
45) Polri, TNI, BIN termasuk para Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota, saya minta untuk
terus meningkatkan kewaspadaan, terus berusaha keras mencegah aksi-aksi teror. Dan
kemudian yang penting lagi, para penegak hukum harus betul-betul mencari,
menangkap dan mengadili para pelaku, para penggerak, dan otak dibelakang kekerasan
ini.
Those normative expressions are marked with the use of performative verb
“menginstrusikan” (instruct), a modal “harus” (must), and conjunction “untuk” (for).
Besides there is also a confirmation statement, “Saya bersumpah demi rakyat… Negara
dan pemerintah akan melaksanakan tindakan yang tegas…” (I swear for society, country
and government will do certain action…) in which contains power value in order to
bring a charge or demand to law enforcer, government, and society in order to work
together in exterminating terrorism, violence, anarchism, an action of disobeying law
which do not belong to democration characteristic.
Several kinds of ideology of producing text in those quotes above clearly show
that President SBY’s speech on 17th July 2009, it is not only as a President at that
moment but also as next Indonesian President who involved in the President and Vice-
President election. Hence, it then caused two kinds of ideologies appear in this text.
 51

First, ideology of maintaining the human being right (being against to human crime)
which was produced by the responsibility of President related to terrorist act and the
bombing which happened in JW Marriot and Ritz Carlton hotel. Second, ideology of
politic image produced by the President which involved in election as the next President
candidate for period 2009-2014; however, it was not emphasized as one of society. The
ideology of self image itself was created because there are several critics and threat
given around legislative publich election and President and Vice-President election in
which at that time the vote was being counted by KPU. In that context, SBY and his
partner can be ensured would win the election.
Between the two ideologies appeared, human being right and politic self image
ideology in the text also can be determined which one is the dominant ideology. From
the each paragraph and supporting sentences uttered, there are 22 paragraphs. There
were 6 paragraphs talked about human crime (terror, terrorist, and bombing) and also
the supporting sentences within the paragraphs clarified about the result of the bombing
incident. Then if it is compared with the ideology in politic area, there were 16
paragraphs which talked about the public election and any kind of threats which
possibly happen and the supporting sentences which explained more in the politic area
rather than about the bombing action.
From the text compositions in SBY’s speech itself, there is a focus reversing in
which supposed to concern on stressing the ideology of maintaining the human beign
right (being against to human crime) and dominated the whole text topic, since the
context of producing the text is responding to the bombing action in Jakarta. However,
the ideology of politic self image was very dominated in the whole context.

Summary
Reflection to Analysis result
Indonesian country had just held the process of President-Vice President election
for period 2009-2014 on 8th July 2009. Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) Indonesia as
independent institution on organizing the public election at that time was counting for
votes manually in order to form a firm decision for the next couple of President and
Vice-President for Indonesia. As that far, SBY stated that along his government
Indonesia was relatively safe and peaceful far from any kind of terrorism act and cruel
 52

human crime; moreover, the democration run very smoothly and well without any
significant trouble.
However, suddenly when KPU was counting the result of President and Vice
President election there was terrible bombing action happened in JW Marriot and Ritz
Carlton hotel Mega Kuningan Jakarta. In responding to bombing action itself, President
SBY delivered pers broadcast in the form of speech at 14.00, 7 hours after the incident
happened; in addition, the delivered speech was broadcasted lively by electronic mass
media (Television and Radio)
The discourse which appeared in the Former of President SBY’s speech on 17th
July 2009 actually was not only focused on the tragedy of the bombing action and an
effort on overcoming the terror bomb as cruel human crime. SBY’s statements in his
speech widely spread to politic matter, in which SBY was waiting for the result of
election. The bombing matter also said as an action from the politic opponents of SBY
side who assumed that the President and Vice-President election process was full of
cheating. In addition, the statements of negative value for his politic opponents were
very dominated in his delivered speech.
Based on critical discourse analysis, in an attempt to open up the topics inside the
text and strategies of producing the discourse the Former of President SBY’s speech on
17th July 2009, it is clearly shown that the topic of bombing terror as human crime
action and disobeying human being right as biased ideology in which only few
discussed in his whole speech. However, the self image politic ideology discussed much
more than the first ideology and this politic ideology was dominated in his whole speech
and stressing on negative value on other politic opponents group. The strategy of
producing the discourse in SBY’s speech showed strategy of positive self-presentation
of SBY to make positive image in front of public (boasting) and negative other
presentation to his opponents in politic in order to make negative image for them
(derogation). To sum up, SBY’s speech in responding to bomb action in JW Marriot
and Ritz Carlton hotel could be appropriately assumed as a speech of politic self image
rather than a speech of maintaining human being right against bombing terror which
supposed to be dominated in the whole text.
 53

REFERENCES

Van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study Of Global Structures

In Discourse, Interaction, And Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Van Dijk, T.A, Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York:
Academic Press.
Teun A. van Dijk. 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse and
Society. Vol. 4.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Political discourse and political cognition. Congress
Paper on Political Discourse, Aston University July 1997. Retrieved from van
Dijk's homepage http://www.let.uva.nl~teun
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. Retrieved from:
http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/cda.htm
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.discourse-
in-society.org/teun.html
van Dijk, Teun A. 2003. Ideology and discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
Internet Course for the Oberta de Catalunya (UOC).
van Dijk, Teun A. 2004. from Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis. Working
Paper. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Vol. 2.
Van Dijk, T.A. 2004a. Discourse as social interaction: Ideology and discourse analysis.
London: Sage
Van Dijk, T.A. 2004b. Discourse as social interaction: Politics, ideology and discourse.
London: Sage

Lampiran:

Keterangan Pers Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

Terkait Aksi Bom di Hotel Ritz Carlton dan JW Marriot 17 Juli 2009

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,

Salam sejahtera bagi kita semua,
Saudara-saudara,
Rakyat Indonesia yang saya cintai dimanapun saudara berada. Hari ini adalah titik hitam
dalam sejarah kita, terjadi lagi serangan atau pemboman yang dilakukan oleh kaum
teroris di Jakarta. Aksi teror ini diperkirakan dilakukan oleh kelompok teroris, meskipun
belum tentu jaringan terorisme yang kita kenal selama ini terjadi di bumi Indonesia,
yang menimbulkan derita dan kesulitan yang dipikul oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia.

Aksi yang tidak berperikemanusiaan ini, juga menimbulkan korban jiwa dan luka-luka
bagi mereka yang tidak berdosa. Oleh karena itu, dalam kesempatan ini atas nama
negara dan pemerintahan dan selaku pribadi, maka bagi para keluarga yang ditinggalkan
saya mengucapkan turut berbela sungkawa yang sedalam-dalamnya. Semoga saudara-
saudara kita yang menjadi korban, hidup tenang di sisi Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa.

Saudara-saudara,
Aksi pemboman yang keji dan tidak berperikemanusiaan ini serta tidak
bertanggungjawab ini, terjadi ketika baru saja bangsa Indonesia melakukan pemungutan
 54

suara dalam rangka pemilihan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, dan ketika KPU sedang
menghitung hasil pemungutan suara itu. Kejadian ini yang sangat merusak keamanan
dan kedamaian di negeri ini, juga terjadi ketika rakyat sungguh menginginkan suasana
yang tepat, aman, tenang dan damai, dan justru rakyat ingin agar selesainya pemilu
2009 ini kita semua segera bersatu, membangun kembali negara kita, untuk kepentingan
rakyat Indonesia. Terus terang juga, aksi pemboman ini terjadi ketika rakyat merasa
prihatin atas kegaduhan politik di tingkat elit disertai sebagaimana yang saya ikuti setiap
hari, ucapan-ucapan yang bernada menghasut dan terus memelihara suhu yang panas
dan penuh dengan permusuhan yang itu sesungguhnya bukan menjadi harapan rakyat
setelah mereka semua melaksanakan kewajiban demokrasinya beberapa saat yang lalu.
Saudara-saudara saya yakin, hampir semua diantara kita merasa prihatin, berduka,
prihatin, dan menangis dalam hati, seperti yang saya rasakan. Memang ada segelintir
orang di negeri ini yang sekarang tertawa puas, bersorak dalam hati, disertai nafsu
amarah dan keangkara murkaan. Mereka segelintir orang itu tidak memilki rasa
kemanusiaan dan tidak perduli dengan kehancuran negara kita, akibat aksi teror ini yang
dampaknya luas bagi ekonomi kita iklim usaha kita, kepariwisataan kita, citra kita
dimata dunia dan lain-lain lagi.
Saat ini saudara-saudara disamping kita pemerintah menjalankan kegiatan tanggap
darurat untuk merawat saudara-saudara kita yang menjadi korban dalam aksi pemboman
ini investigasi juga tengah dilakukan. Saya telah menerima laporan awal dari investigasi
yang sedang berlangsung ini. Setelah saya menerima laporan awal, saya telah
menginstruksikan kepada Polri, Badan Intelejen Negara, dan badan lembaga-lembaga
lain terkait untuk melakukan investigasi secara cepat dan menyeluruh serta mengadili
pelaku-pelakunya, sesuai dengan ketentuan hukum yang berlaku.
Saya yakin sebagaimana yang dapat kita ungkapkan diwaktu yang lalu, para pelaku dan
mereka-mereka yang menggerakkan aksi terorisme ini akan dapat kita tangkap dan akan
kita adili secara hukum. Saya juga menginstruksikan kepada para penegak hukum untuk
juga mengadili siapa saja yang terlibat dalam aksi terorisme ini, siapapun dia, apapun
status dan latar belakang politiknya.
Pagi ini saya mendapat banyak sekali pertanyaan, atau saudara-saudara yang
mengingatkan kepada saya. Yang berteori paling tidak mencemaskan, kalau aksi teror
ini berkaitan dengan hasil pemilihan Presiden sekarang ini. Saya meresponnya sebagai
berikut, bahwa kita tidak boleh main tuding dan main duga begitu saja. Semua teori dan
spekulasi harus bisa dibuktikan secara hukum. Negara kita adalah negara hukum dan
negara demokrasi. Oleh karena itu norma hukum dan norma demokrasi harus betul-
betul kita tegakkan. Bila seseorang bisa dibuktikan bersalah secara hukum, baru kita
bisa mengatakan yang bersangkutan salah. Saya harus mengatakan untuk yang pertama
kalinya kepada rakyat Indonesia, bahwa dalam rangkaian pemilu legislatif dan
pemilihan Presiden dan pemillihan Wakil Presiden tahun 2009 ini memang ada
sejumlah inteligen yang dapat dikumpulkan oleh pihak yang berwenang. Sekali lagi ini
memang tidak pernah kita buka kepada umum, kepada publik, meskipun kita pantau dan
kita ikuti. Inteligen yang saya maksud adalah adanya kegiatan kelompok teroris yang
berlatih menembak dengan foto saya, foto SBY dijadikan sasaran, dijadikan lisan
tembak.
Saya tunjukkan, ada rekaman videonya, ini mereka yang berlatih menembak (sambil
menunjukkan foto-foto yang didapat dari badan inteligen). Dua orang menembak pistol.
Ini sasarannya, dan ini foto saya dengan perkenaan tembakan di wilayah muka saya, dan
banyak lagi. Ini inteligen, ada rekaman videonya, ada rekaman gambarnya. Bukan
 55

fitnah bukan isu. Saya mendapatkan laporan ini beberapa saat yang lalu. Masih
berkaitan dengan inteligen, diketahui ada rencana untuk melakukan kekerasan dan
tindakan melawan hukum berkaitan dengan hasil Pemilu.
Adapula rencana untuk pendudukan paksa KPU pada saat nanti hasil pemungutan suara
diumumkan. Ada pernyataan akan ada revolusi jika SBY menang. Ini inteligen bukan
rumor bukan isu, bukan gosip. Ada pernyataan kita bikin Indonesia seperti Iran. Dan
yang terakhir ada pernyataan, bagaimanapun juga SBY tidak boleh dan tidak bisa
dilantik. Saudara bisa menafsirkan apa arti ancaman seperti itu. Dan puluhan inteligen
selain yang sekarang berada di pihak yang berwenang.
Tadi pagi terus terang, sebagaimana kebiasaan saya, saya ingin langsung datang ke
lokasi. Tapi, Kapolri dan semua pihak menyarankan jangan dulu, karena memang belum
steril, masih dibersihkan, masih disisir dan ancaman setiap saat bisa datang, apalagi
dengan contoh yang saya sampaikan tadi, ancaman fisik.
Tapi tentu hidup dan mati tentu di tangan Allah SWT, tidak boleh terhalang untuk
menjalankan tugas saya, untuk rakyat untuk negara ini. Dan karena pengaman Presiden
itu berada di pundak TNI saya yakin TNI telah mengambil langkah-langkah seperlunya.
Terhadap semua inteligen itu saudara-saudara, apakah terkait dengan aksi pemboman
hari ini atau tidak terkait, saya menginstruksikan kepada semua jajaran penegak hukum
untuk menjalankan tugasnya dengan benar, objektif tegas dan dapat
dipertanggungjawabkan, dapat dipertanggungjawabkan secara hukum. Andaikata tidak
terkait ancaman-ancaman yang tadi itu, dengan aksi pemboman hari ini, tetaplah harus
dicegah, harus dihentikan, karena anarki, tindakan kekerasan, pengrusakan, tindakan
melawan hukum bukan karakter demokrasi, bukan karakter negara hukum. Sangat jelas.
Atas semuanya ini, saya selaku kepala negara dan kepala pemerintahan, mengutuk keras
aksi teror yang keji ini. Saya juga sangat-sangat prihatin dengan kejadian ini. Barangkali
atau biasanya dalam keadaan seperti ini, banyak diantara kita yang kurang berani
menyampaikan kecaman dan kutukannya, barangkali karena pertimbangan politik. Saya
dengan bahasa terang harus menyampaikan seperti itu, karena demikian amanah saya
sebagai Kepala Negara.
Mengapa saya sangat-sangat prihatin? Pertama, saudara tahu lima tahun terakhir ini
ekonomim kita tumbuh dengan baik, dunia usaha, kepariwisataan, swasembada pangan,
investasi, perdagangan, sektor riil semua bergerak, meskipun kita terus menghadapi
krisis-krisis global yang datang silih berganti. Yang kedua satu minggu terakhir ini saja,
nilai saham kita menguat tajam, nilai tukar rupiah juga menguat. Dengan ekonomi yang
terus tumbuh, kesejahteraan rakyat kita sesungguhnya secara bertahap terus juga
meningkat, termasuk dapat dilaksanakannya program-program penanggulangan
kemiskinan, program-program pengurangan pengangguran atau yang sering saya sebut
dengan program pro rakyat.
Semua itu terjadi saudara-saudara, rakyat Indonesia yang saya cintai, karena tahun-
tahun terakhir ini negara kita benar-benar aman dan damai. Sehingga di samping
ekonomi tumbuh, rakyat kita diseluruh pelosok Tanah Air, bisa bekerja, bisa menjalani
kehidupan sehari-harinya dengan tenang, bebas dari rasa ketakutan. Sementara itu citra
kita di mata dunia tahun-tahun terakhir ini juga makin meningkat, karena dunia menilai
negara kita makin aman, tertib dan damai. Negara kita memiliki kehidupan demokrasi
yang makin mekar, serta penghormatan kepada Hak Azasi Manusia yang makin baik,
negara yang ekonominya juga tumbuh, dan negara yang berperan dalam percaturan
global. Bahkan, ini yang sangat memilukan, sebenarnya kalau tidak ada kejadian ini,
 56

klub Sepak bola terkenal di dunia, Manchaster United, berencana untuk bermain di
Jakarta.
Saudara-saudara dengan aksi-aksi teror yang keji dan tidak bertanggungjawab ini, apa
yang telah kita bangun hampir lima tahun terakhir ini, oleh kerja keras dan tetesan
keringat seluruh rakyat Indonesia, lagi-lagi harus mengalami goncangan dan
kemunduran. Lagi-lagi dampak buruknya harus dipikul oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia,
minus mereka-mereka yang melakukan tindakan yang tidak bertanggungjawab itu.
Oleh karena itu, kebenaran dan keadilan, serta tegakknya hukum harus diwujudkan.
Saya bersumpah, demi rakyat Indonesia yang sangat saya cintai, negara dan pemerintah
akan melaksanakan tindakan yang tegas, tepat, dan benar terhadap pelaku pemboman
ini, berikut otak dan penggeraknya ataupun kejahatan-kejahatan lain yang mungkin atau
dapat terjadi di negeri kita sekarang ini.
Kepada Polri, TNI, BIN, termasuk para Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota, saya minta
untuk terus meningkatkan kewaspadaan, terus berusaha keras mencegah aksi-aksi teror.
Dan kemudian yang lebih penting lagi, para penegak hukum harus betul-betul mencari,
menangkap dan mengadili para pelaku, para penggerak, dan otak dibelakang kekerasan
ini. Barangkali ada diantara kita, yang diwaktu yang lalu melakukan kejahatan,
membunuh, menghilangkan orang barangkali, dan para pelaku itu barangkali masih
lolos dari jeratan hukum, kali ini negara tidak boleh membiarkan mereka menjadi
drakula dan penyebar maut di negeri kita.
Saya tahu selama lima tahun ini pihak kepolisian telah berkali-kali mencegah dan
menggagalkan aksi terorisme. Telah bisa menyita bahan peledak yang siap diledakkan,
sudah bisa membongkar beberapa jaringan, meskipun lolos hari ini, terjadilah musibah
yang sangat merobek keamanan dan nama baik bangsa dan negara kita.
Agar tugas untuk mencegah dan memberantas terorisme ini serta kejahatan-kejahatan
yang lain dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik, inteligen harus benar-benar tajam.
Pencegahan harus benar-benar efektif. Polri, BIN, TNI harus benar-benar bersinergi
sikap lengah dan menganggap ringan sesuatu harus dibuang jauh-jauh. Ini amanah kita
kepada rakyat, kepada negara.
Kepada rakyat Indonesia seraya juga meningkatkan kewaspadaan tetaplah menjalankan
provesi dan kehidupan saudara secara normal. Jika ada keganjilan, segera beritahu Polri.
Jangan biarkan kaum teroris beserta otaknya berkeliaran di sekeliling saudara.
Saudarapun bisa menjadi korban setiap saat manakala kaum teroris itu dibiarkan
merancang lagi aksi-aksi terornya di negeri kita ini. Selanjutnya ke depan, saya
mengajak seluruh rakyat Indonesia, seluruh komponen bangsa, untuk marilah kita lebih
bersatu dan sama-sama menjaga keamanan dan perdamaian di negeri ini. Bangsa
manapun, agama apapun, kita semua tidak membenarkan terorisme. Apapun motif dan
alasannya. Jangan ragu-ragu, jangan setengah hati, dan jangan takut, untuk mencegah
dan memberantas terorisme. Sementara itu aksi teror yang terjadi hari ini jangan pula
menghalang-halangi semangat dan upaya kita untuk membangun dan memajukan
negara kita ini.
Kita terus berjuang untuk membikin lebih baik, politik demokrasi dan penghormatan
HAM lebih baik, penegakan hukum, pembangunan daerah, peningkatan kesejahteraan
rakyat dan sebagainya. Memang ada kerusakan akibat aksi terorisme hari ini. Mari
bersama-sama kita perbaiki dan kemudian mari kita terus bangkit dan maju kembali.
Kita bangsa, negara, rakyat tidak boleh kalah dan menyerah kepada terorisme. Tidak
boleh membiarkan kekerasan, ektrimitas dan kejahatan-kejahatan lain, terus tumbuh di
negeri ini.
 57

Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa, Allah SWT akan melindungi dan menyelamatkan kehidupan
bangsa Indonesia. Dan dengan memohon ridha Allah, SWT saya sampaikan kepada
saudara-saudara rakyat Indonesia, saya akan terus berada di depan, untuk menghadapi
ancaman dan tantangan ini, serta untuk mengemban tugas yang berat namun mulia ini.
Demikian pernyataan saya, terimakasih,
Wassalamualaikum Wr Wb.