POWER THROUGH LINGUISTIC MODALITIES IN INDONESIAN PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES
Vol.12,No.1(2019)
Language plays a crucial role in political speech. The use of a particular language canreflect or be influenced by the speaker’s ideology, power, cultural/social background, region, or social status. This paper is concerned with the relationship between language and power, specifically as manifested in the language used by an Indonesian president in international forums. It aims to uncover the power relations that were projected through the linguistic features of the president’s speech texts, particularly the use of modal verbs. Data for this paper are the speeches on the topics of peace and climate change delivered by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in international forums during his first and second presidential terms. This paper’s analysis of linguistic modalities uses Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to answer its research questions. The results show that, in projecting his power, SBY used several linguistic modal verbs. From the context of the modality used it can be understood that the president conveyed his strategic desire to be himself as he tried to relate to the audience (as he assumed it to be) and construct an image of himself, of his audience, and of their relationship. The president produced discourse that embodied assumptions about the social relations between his leadership and the audience and asserted both his legitimate power as president and his expert power. Through the language used, SBY created, sustained, and replicated the fundamental inequalities and asymmetries in the forums he attended.
power; modality; CDA; presidential speech; political speech
Rosyida Ekawati
University of Trunojoyo, Madura, Indonesia
Rosyida Ekawati is a lecturer at the University of Trunojoyo Madura, Indonesia. Her interest is in language and discourse. She published some academic articles dealing with language use in political and public spheres in reputable and accredited journals in Indonesia, such as Humaniora, Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching and Literature (Celt), Bahasa dan Seni, and Lingua. She published some other articles in local journals and proceedings of National or International seminars.
Azar, B. S. (2002) Understanding and Using English Grammar. 3rded. New York: Longman.
Chilton, P. (2006) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. andSchäffner, C. (1997) ‘Discourse and politics.’ In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Discourse Studies: A MultidisciplinaryIntroduction. London: SAGE Publications.
Clark, U. (2007) Studying Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07770-7
Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Collins, P. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029095
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fowler, R. (1985) ‘Power.’ In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis.Volume 4: Discourse Analysis in Society. London: Academic Press.
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Nordberg, T. (2010) Modality as Portrayed in Upper Secondary School Textbooks: A Corpus-based Approach. Unpublished Master Thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Online document. <https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19357>.
Nuyts, J. (2006) ‘Modality: Overview and linguistic issues.’ In: Frawler, W. (ed.) The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Reid, S.A. and Ng, S.H.(1999) ‘Language, power, and intergroup relations.’ Journal of Social Issues 55(1), 119-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00108.
Saville-Troike, M.(2003) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758373
Sornig, K. (1989) ‘Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion.’In: Wodak, R. (ed.) Language, Power and Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ct.7.09sor
Thomas, L. and Wareing, S. (eds) (2003) Language, Society and Power. An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Torabiardakani, N., Laleh K.and Nasrin, S. (2015) ‘Modal auxiliaries and their semantic functions used by advanced EFL learners.’Acta Didactica Napocensia 8(2), 51-60.
Vadai, K. (2016) ‘Critical discourse analysis in progress: The power, ideology and manipulation identification (PIMI) model.’ Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány.DOI: https://10.18460/ANY.2016.1.004.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008) Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3
Veneklasen, L. and Miller, V. (2002) A New Weave of Power, People and Politics:The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.
https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780444208
Westney, P. (1995) Modals and Periphrastics in English: An Investigation into the Semantic Correspondence between Certain English Modal Verbs and their Periphrastic Equivalents. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110958904
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2019 Rosyida Ekawati