Santi Ramdhani_Theoretical Foundation

CHAPTER II
UNDERSTANDING OF DICTION AND STYLE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO THROUGH DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Santi Ramdhani

2.1 OUTLINE OF CHAPTER
This chapter show how the style language and diction of state address are analyzed. Every word and sentence in an address has a particular meaning. It is proven by every people with different background has different utterance when he or she utters something. Especially in state address, every word and sentence becomes something that must be considered, this is because the formal speech and attended by people who have the status of higher education. So did the style language which is used by each orator is different and has individual characteristics, so does for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Discourse analysis is chosen as the way to analyze and to express the possibility of meaning of those.

2.2 UNDERSTANDING OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Discourse analysis is analysis of text structure above the sentence (Sinclair and Couthard, 1995: 7). With this definition, we may say that diction and style language could be analyzed by discourse because of structurally analysis. We could get the meaning of every word and know from the style language structurally analyzed. Although actually to understand what the speaker says, we also have to aware about the condition at that time. As Stubbs says that discourse analysis concerns with language in social context and particularly with interaction or dialogue between speakers. Social context here means that when we analyze a state address, we also must consider anything contextually. It is because usually something could be expressed by textually and contextually.

Some experts give those opinions about the using of discourse analysis toward the text. Therefore they look at some of the issues it raises for philosophy, linguistics, and human sciences in general (Payne & Barbera, 1996: 190). The linguist Benveniste was among the most influential thinkers in this field. According to him, ‘discourse’ has to do with those aspects of language that can only be interpreted with the reference to the speaker, to his or her spatiotemporal location, or to other such variables which served to specify the localized context of utterance (Payne & Barbera, 1996: 190).

Discourse analysis, on the other hand, as inaugurated in the 1970s, concerns itself with the use of language in a running discourse, continued over a sequence of sentences, and involving the interaction of speaker (or writer) and auditor (or reader) in a specific situational context, and within a framework of social and cultural conventions (Abrams, 1999: 66). A sentence above, Abrams expressed the existence of interaction of speaker and listener is also the important thing to analyze. Besides it, the aspect of situational context, social and cultural is also has to give the more concern. In fact, someone will talk something based on the situational at that time. So, it becomes something which is should not be forgotten. With combining the analysis of textual and contextual, it is sure that we would know the main meaning of every diction, why it is chosen and also we understand why the speaker speak with particular style language.

This is also one of profe that if we use discoourse analysis, we would never be separated with social field. And this is considered very correct because esentially the speech aims is to reach the social condition of public. Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory aims at an understanding of the social as a discursive construction whereby, in principle, all social phenomena can be analyzed using discourse analytical tools. First, we present the discourse theoretical approach to language, and then extend the theory to cover the entire social field. Because of its broad focus, discourse theory is suitable as a theoretical foundation for different social constructionist approaches to discourse analysis (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 35).

To conduct discourse analysis means that the investigation of language is required to go beyond the boundaries of the syntactic or semantic form of the utterance. Therefore, the theory of Abrams could be a foundation that discourse analysis involving the context of social and cutural to get the understanding of the state address or another address.

Reference:
Abrams, M.H. 1999. A Glossary of Literary Terms. USA: Earl McPeek
Payne, Michael and Jessica R.B. 2010. A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory. UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Jorgensen, Marriane and Phillips J.L. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publication
Barker, Chris & Darius G. 2001. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publication