A critical discourse analysis on Obama’s speech of his stadium general at The University of Indonesia

This study examined the relationship between language and ideology. In this study, the researcher tried to analyze that speech structures were working apparatuses of ideology and stored meanings that were not always obvious for listeners or audiences. This paper, based on Critical Discourse Analysis of Norman Fairclough’s theory and Systemic Functional Linguistics of Eggins, analyzed Barack Obama’s speech mainly from the point of transitivity, nominalization, and passivization, in which the researcher analyzed how the issues are represented and what the ideology behind the speech. Moreover, we can have a better understanding of the political purpose of the speech. The researcher found that generally, Obama used the systems of transitivity, nominalization, and passivization. He successfully shortened the distance between him and the audience. So it could help him persuade the public to accept and support his policies. These may include consideration of possible tradeoffs between a foreign policy approach that stresses the promotion of human rights and those that seeks to strengthen bilateral ties in order to assist in the struggle against violent Islamist extremists and to promote U.S. geopolitical interests. These indicated that Obama did not want just have official business; he wanted to have the opportunity to reach more Indonesian people and Muslims that is the manner in the speech