1

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS VAN DIJK OF JOE BIDEN’S SPEECH:

“US COMPLETES AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL”

Abstract

The discourse of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, which is quite

phenomenal after a prolonged war, is a discourse conveyed by President Joe Biden in
his speech at the White House. By using speech, one can hold full access to power to
the listener. This strategy can get people's attention. Moreover, a politician's speech
emphasizes his God-fearing and patriotic nature as an attempt to persuade the
audience to take these characteristics for themselves (Waisanen & Becker, 2015). In
this context, Van Dijk views that discourse analysis is not limited to the structure of
the text because the structure of the discourse itself shows and signifies several
meanings, social contexts, and ideologies (in Eriyanto, 2009, p.260). This paper aims
to analyze the text structure of the speech of the president of the United States,
namely Joe Biden, and then the social context that builds the discourse in the address
is power and access. The existence of the discourse text structure; macrostructure,
superstructure, microstructure. Meanwhile, the meaning of the social context shows
that Joe Biden has the power of office as president of the United States, which can
affect the trust of the people of the United States. This research is referred to as
library research, so it does not need to be carried out related to the research location.
The data in this study were taken from the speech of the United States president Joe
Biden entitled “US completes Afghanistan withdrawal” on August 31, 2021, on the
CNBC Television youtube channel and the media site nytimes.com. Data collection
was carried out using a written source library technique using the listen and note
method. The research method used is the matching method with the determining
determinants (PUP) and contextual techniques. This research data are the contents of
President Joe Biden's speech in the form of linguistic units of words, phrases,
sentences, and paragraphs. This study uses a qualitative approach with an analytical
knife using the Teun A. Van Dijk Framework (in Tannen et al., 2015, p.468): a) text
structure, and b) social analysis. This model is the most accessible critical discourse
analysis model to apply because it uses discourse elements to be used practically. The
results are expected to add a positive contribution to the development of scientific
discourse, especially in the critical discourse analysis of the Teun A. Van Dijk model.
Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, Van Dijk, Text Structure, Social Analysis,
Joe Biden
 2

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The 46th president of the United States, Joe Biden, stated in a speech that
caught the attention of many nations. This is not the first time that Joe Biden has
become phenomenal because of his statements or speeches that have been in the
spotlight. Earlier in the 2020 US presidential election with his opponent Donald
Trump, Joe Biden was at the center of a widely researched discourse, and it was
also rumored that he was better than his opponent. Starting his political career
starting in 1972 as the youngest US senator, Joe Biden is also often the center of
discourse. Biden made headlines in 2012 by saying he had “no problem” with
same-sex marriage, comments that were seen as undermining the president, who
at the time did not fully support the policy. In the end, his struggles and ideology
took him through the long journey to the White House.

On August 31, 2021, Joe Biden's statement on the overall withdrawal of US

troops in Afghanistan became a trending topic globally. After a protracted 20-year
war in Afghanistan, Biden declared in his speech to withdraw all his troops. More
than 122,000 people have been flown out of Kabul since August 14, the day
before the Taliban returned to control the country. The Joe Biden administration
recognizes that this carries a high level of risk. Antony Blinken, United States
Secretary of State (as cited in Ruttig, 2021, p.29), stated that he was concerned
that the security situation would worsen following the withdrawal of US troops.
This is controversial for now. Of course, to explain this phenomenon, President
Joe Biden has the power and power to convey it to the public through his
speeches. However, not all people can not all audiences can understand the
various ways of describing reality/content in addresses that imply specific
interests, intentions, and goals, requiring sharp interpretation.
 3

The researcher, in this case, juxtaposes this phenomenon with the critical
discourse analysis step of the Teun A. Van Dijk model. Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) has one of the essential tasks to explain the relationship between
discourse and social forces (Dijk, 2008, p.65). More precisely, such an analysis
must explain how the abuse of power is committed, reproduced or legitimized by
the texts and discourses of the dominant institution or group. Critical discourse
analysis is a critical process of research about things written by someone with a
meaning of language. This means that discourse in text, speech, sentences, images
can be analyzed with a critical view. The characteristics of critical discourse
analysis are carried out with the dimensions of action, context, history, power,
and ideology.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA), according to Van Dijk is described as

having three dimensions or buildings; text, social cognition, and social context.
The essence of Van Dijk's analysis is to combine the three dimensions of
discourse into a unified analysis. Part of the dimensions of the text studied is how
the structure of the text and the discourse strategies are used to emphasize a
particular theme. At the level of social cognition, producing news texts involves
the cognition of individuals and journalists. At the same time, the third aspect
studies the building of discourse that develops in society about a problem. The
researcher chose this theme as research material because this problem is very
closely related to the broader community. The peace of the world can be unstable
because of the political relations and diplomatic relations of a country.

Meanwhile, Theo Van Leeuwen’s arguestated that the critical discourse

analysis model refers to how certain social events and actors or groups are
displayed in news discourse. Leeuwen introduced a discourse analysis model to
detect and examine how a group or person is marginalized in a discourse. How a
dominant group is more in control of interpreting an event and its meaning, while
another group whose position is low tends to continue as an object of meaning,
and is poorly described. Here there is a link between discourse and power.
 4

Roger Fowler's stated discourse analysis can be used to see how the media
construct a news story. In his analysis Roger Fowler also reveals these two things
as important, this classification can be seen from how the same event is discussed
in different languages. The different words are not seen as technical but are seen
as an ideological practice. Because these different languages produce different
realities when accepted by the audience. Language provides a tool for how that
reality must be understood by the audience. Informing his analytical model, Roger
Fowler based Halliday's theory, which is about the structure and function of
language which is the basis for the grammatical structure which is then
communicated to the public.

One way of studying CDA is Halliday's IC with Systemic Functional

Linguistic (SFL). SFL is a functional language study that examines the meaning
of texts to find out how language is used in social life. In addition, it also views
language as a social phenomenon. The basis of this theory is functional because in
understanding meaning, the text cannot be seen as separate parts but can be seen
as a whole together with several different points of view. This theory, which was
pioneered by M.A.K Halliday, views language as a choice of meaning that
includes ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions, each of which goes
through transitivity, mode, and rhyme-theme structures in a clause.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997:1-37) assert that critical discourse analysis sees
discourse (the use of language in speech and writing) as a form of social practice
so that it may display ideological effects, produce and reproduce unequal power
relations between social classes, men and women. men, women, as well as
majority and minority groups. Therefore, textual elements that always involve
language in a closed space are combined with the wider context of society. The
essence of Fairclough's discourse analysis is to see language as a practice of
power. Fairclough focuses discourse on language because the use of language is
used to reflect something. First, discourse is a form of action, language is used as
a form of representation in seeing reality so that language is not only observed
 5

traditionally or micro linguistics, but on a broader macro basis and cannot be

separated from its context. Second, it implies a reciprocal relationship between
discourse and social structurepractice. As a social practice, discourse is an action,
practice, or form of actualizing a goal.

The researcher takes the object of research on Joe Biden's speech which
contains the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan using the discourse
theory of Teun A. Van Dijk because the content of the address can be analyzed in
terms of the structure of the text, (macrostructure, superstructure, microstructure)
especially in microstructure to find linguistics features and also the social context
according to the context. Data recorded the text of the speech obtained from
watching on the CNBC Television youtube channel and the nytimes.com media
site. The researcher also found a previous study conducted by Fernandez & Uran
(2021), entitled “A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE SECOND
INAUGURAL SPEECH OF INDONESIAN PRESIDENT JOKO WIDODO IN
2019,” this study contains the characteristics of critical discourse analysis and text
structure of the object of the second inauguration speech text. This journal focuses
on examining the structure of a text that present semantics, syntax, and rhetoric,
in contrast to the current research, which focuses on text structure analysis and
social analysis.

Then researcher also found a previous study conducted by Khalil & Abbas
(2018), entitled “Iraq in the American Presidential Debate Discourse: A Critical
Discourse Analysis,” this study also used the Teun A, Van Dijk framework from
the object of the discourse of the Trump and Clinton presidential debates with
similarities using qualitative methods. The journal only focuses on researching the
socio-cognitive approach to find each presidential candidate's ideology,
knowledge, and attitudes on the ISIS issue in Iraq. This is different from the
current research, which uses Joe Biden's speech as the object of study and focuses
on text structure analysis and social analysis. By using critical discourse analysis,
we intend to researcher want to present explore language, ideology, and power in
 6

presidential speech. In addition, we want to find out how to use the power of
speech to persuade the public to accept and support the administration's policies.

In the research written by Sinambela (2019) describe Donald Trump that tell
about Palestine and use Van Dijck Critical discourse analysis theory. This
studyresearch aims to reveal the macro-structure and the ideology of the Donald
Trump Speech Act. As a Result, Donald Trump Mainly Uses Activity Description
and goal description in his speech. Then the most dominant ideology of Trump's
speech is by activity description, such as plans, suggestions, tasks, works, and not
more describe Palestine. Donald Trump tried to express his idea/decision to
audience about support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with the logical and
acceptable reasons. On macrostructure, Donald Trump clearly explains his main
rationale to approve Jerusalem became worthy as Israel capital and most rule of
macrostructure that he uses in this speech is construction rule. On detail element,
he gives some descriptions about Jerusalem that he thought was a different and
special state.

Also the Iraqi political speech in the thesis by Khudir (2021) describe the
Iraqi political that used analysis of text structure and social cognitive. The study
proves the applicability of Van Dijk’s framework (2004) to Iraqi politicians’
speeches as well. It also depicts how the underlying ideologies of each political
speech are revealed since media mostly achieves it by utilizing socio-political and
ideological beliefs in implied utilization of linguistic categories. Furthermore, the
study reflects how the politicians explain themselves and persuade the audience
and what political ideologies are mirrored in their speeches. Thus, the ideological
construction of certain speech situation can be reproduced through what CDA
concerns as the linguistic categories which a speech producer makes as a probable
standard. As such, Van Dijk’s Socio Cognitive framework explores the ways in
which discursive devices are exemplified in their speeches to arrive at concealed
ideologies, perspectives and power organizations revealed in their speeches.
 7

From the previous study, researcher can find that there is a gap that
researchers must fill. The gap in this journal focuses on one type topic of Van
Dijk theoretical framework and also in object that using debate speech, namely
socio-cognitive. Meanwhile, the current study uses Van Dijk's theoretical
framework, namely text structure, and social analysis. The similarity is looking
for ideology, but previous studies used presidential debates as objects, while
current research uses presidential speeches. This study analyzes the discourse
content of a speech; speech is an activity carried out by someone to talk about a
theme conveyed in public to provide information or persuade the listeners. The
speech research is exciting to study with Teun A. Van Dijk's theory apart from the
structure of the text because it raises a social theme with the background of
diplomatic relations between the two countries, namely the United States and
Afghanistan. Of course, this policy is very dilemmatic because it involves human
life due to a prolonged war.

Briefly, the discourse study discusses the interpretation of a speech text,

namely understanding the message intended by the sender of the message, why it
must be delivered, how the message is structured and understood, and the motives
or intentions behind the text. This study uses a qualitative approach with an
analytical knife using the Teun A. Van Dijk framework to find; text structure, and
social analysis in Joe Biden’s speech. Van Dijk's CDA aimed at yielding
discourse analytical research that primarily studies how social power abuse,
domination, and inequality are enforced, reproduced, and opposed by texts and
speech in social and political contexts. He is concerned with the representation of
social issues, hidden agendas, and readers that impact people's lives; he claims to
take an ethical stance in dealing with power imbalances, injustice, and social
justice plans to spur readers into resistance and corrective social action. This
model is the most accessible critical discourse analysis model to apply because it
uses discourse elements for practical use. The results of this study are expected to
 8

add a positive contribution to the development of scientific discourse linguistics

studies, especially in the critical discourse analysis of Teun A. Van Dijk's model.

1.2 Problems of the Study

According to the background and research focus of “A Critical Discourse

Analysis of Joe Biden's Based on Van Dijk: "US Completes Afghanistan
Withdrawal,” there are problems and objectives in the form of questions that
researcher will discuss:

1. How are the text structures in Joe Biden's speech constructed?

2. How are the elements of social analysis found in Joe Biden‘s speeches?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Based on the formulation of the problem above, the objectives in this study
are:

1. To describe find ideology from the structure of the speech text US

Completes Afghanistan Withdrawal by Joe Biden according to van Dijk's
study.
2. To describe find the social element of analysis in Joe Biden's US
Completes Afghanistan Withdrawal speech by Joe Biden.
 9

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter discusses the main framework and also reviews some related
theories about current research. For this purpose, a review of several associated ideas
is critical discourse analysis, political speech, and Van Dijk's critical discourse
analysis model.

2.1 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is concerned with using language as a social phenomenon

and, therefore, inevitably goes beyond a single speaker or newspaper article to
discover more general features of relevance. This is a potentially confusing point
because the publication of research findings is generally presented through examples.
The analyst can select a single instance or case to exemplify the feature to be
discussed. However, those features are of interest only as social phenomena, not
individuals (Taylor, 2012, p.2). Discourse in society is widely used in various fields
of science knowledge ranging from psychology, linguistics, political science,
communication, etc.

Discourse is a linguistic communication that involves the exchange of speakers

and listeners, the things that become relationships in the unity of language. First, the
abstract element gives language teaching and regulations when language works.
Second, the component of language communication when communicating is called
discourse. Discourse is classified in the journalistic process in a written form whose
contents meet the criteria for newspaper media. Discourse analysis aims to express
the linguistic rules that construct discourse, produce discourse, understand discourse,
and symbolize something in discourse. The purpose of analysis discourse is to
provide discourse (as one of the exponents of language) function as a communication
tool. The discourse used in this research is news discourse that will be sought for
elements of discourse continuity.
 10

Van Dijk uses the term text analysis, which is known as discourse analysis today.
Discourse analysis continues to develop, which in the past was only limited to the
analysis of the text itself, which had such meaning and structure. Some discourse
analysts such as van Dijk focus analysis on both textual and contextual (cognitive,
social) functions; Fairclough and Foucault maintain texts with power and ideology
relations. Different views of discourse have also been incorporated into the CDA
theoretical framework. Specially developed by Fairclough is the work of Foucault.
This is because it offers essential theoretical concepts for understanding institutions
as sites of discursive power. Discourse analysis might include the structure of
paragraphs, the overall organization of the text, and typical conversational
interactions, such as how speakers open, close, and take turns in conversation. They
may also look at vocabulary patterns throughout the text, words that link sections of
text together, and the way items like “it” and “they” point backward or forwards in a
text.

2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

Van Dijk's journal Discourse and Society (1990) explained that critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) was first officially launched. CDA has now become a paradigm in
linguistics. Since then, many new articles have been established (Fairclough, 2013).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Critical Linguistics (CL) are two
interchangeable terms. Anthonissen (as cited in Weiss & Wodak, 2007), the term
CDA refers to the CL approach of previous scholars who found a larger unit of
discursive text as the basic unit of communication. At first, the researcher preferred
the term CL over CDA. However, in reality, CDA is very prominent today.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an effort or process that has a specific

purpose of obtaining what is used from a text (social reality) that a person or group
wants or is studying dominant to explain (Darma, 2009:49). It means, in interests
must be realized, there is a context. Therefore, the author influenced by various
factors from the analysis formed. Also, one must be aware that a significant meaning
 11

and image is being fought behind the desired discourse. Critical discourse analysis is
not understood as a study of discourse language. The analyzed text uses the
vocabulary reviewed by CDA, but CDA has a different language structure in a
linguistic sense traditional. CDA also relates aspects of language to the context in
which it is used analysis. The purpose in this practice of power means including the
language used in context.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an analytical research discourse that

primarily studies how abuses of social power, domination, and inequality are
enforced, reproduced, and opposed by texts and spoken in social and political
contexts. With such research of dissent, critical discourse analysts take an explicit
position and thus want to understand, expose and ultimately fight social inequality.
CDA is a theory and method that analyzes how language individuals and institutions
use. A critical perspective on discourse analysis, then, explores the relationship
between language use and the social and political contexts in which it occurs. It does
this in a way that deals critically with societal norms and expectations of particular
discourses, raises social issues, economic and political concerns, but aims to provide
students with the tools they need to succeed. CDA is not so much a direction, school,
or specialization as many other 'approaches in studying discourse. Rather, it aims to
offer a different 'perspective' or 'fashion' from theorizing, analysis, and application
across fields.

Critical discourse requires several conditions to realize its goals, such as:

1. As is often the case in more marginal research traditions, CDA/research

must be 'better' than other studies to be accepted.
2. The researcher focuses primarily on political and social issues rather than
current paradigms and fashions.
3. Instead of just describing the structure of discourse, he tries to explain it in
terms of the nature of social interaction and especially social structure.
 12

4. More specifically, CDA focuses on how discourse structures an action,

confirming, legitimizing, reproducing, or challenging relations of power
and domination in society.

The four objectives of the CDA can be said not only to describe the structure of
discourse but also to reveal specific meanings in a discursive event which is mainly
about social problems and political issues in society. Based on the research
background above, the researcher has mentioned that this research will adopt a single
theory. The theory mentioned above is critical discourse analysis (CDA) developed
strictly by Van Dijk and was first set by the Lancaster linguistic school, namely
Fairclough.

2.2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis Models

From the point of view of the figures of Critical Discourse Analysis, their view is
that discourse is a tool for power, hegemony, cultural and scientific dominance.
Therefore, in analyzing discourse, one must also pay attention to the ideological and
socio-cultural issues that underlie the writing of a discourse. Therefore, several
figures have different opinions in their critical discourse analysis. Of course, many
critical discourse analysis models have different contributions in processing the data
they want to address. The models used in critical discourse analysis are as follows:

1. Roger Fowler, et al.

Roger Fowler, Robert Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew are faculty
members at the University of East Anglia. This group of researchers does see how
specific grammars and confident vocabulary choices carry certain implications
and ideologies. In building their analytical model, Roger Fowler et al., mainly
based on Halliday's explanation of the structure and function of language. The
role and construction of this language become a grammatical structure, where
grammar provides a tool to be communicated to the audience.

2. Sara Mills
 13

Sara Mills has written extensively on discourse theory. However, the focus is
mainly on the discourse of feminism, how women are represented in texts,
whether in novels, pictures, photos, or news. This discourse analysis focuses on
how women are depicted and marginalized in news texts and how the forms and
patterns of marginalization are carried out.

3. Norman Fairclough

Fairclough tries to build a discourse analysis model that contributes to social

and cultural analysis, combining traditional text analysis - which always sees
language in a closed space with the broader context of society. Fairclough's
significant point of interest is that language is a practice of power. In addition,
critical discourse analysis aims to systematically explore the relationship between
causality and determination among discursive practices, events and texts, broader
social structures and cultural structures, relations, and processes

4. Theo Van Leeuwen

Theo Van Leeuwen introduced a discourse analysis model to detect and

examine how a group or person is marginalized in a discourse. How a dominant
group controls an event and its meaning, while another group tends to be stable, is
the object of importance and is poorly described.

5. Teun A. Van Djik

Of the many discourse analysis models introduced and developed by several

experts, perhaps the Van Djik model is the most widely used. This is probably
because Van Dijk elaborates the elements of the discourse to be utilized and used
practically. The model used by Van Dijk is often referred to as “social cognition.”
The name of this kind of approach cannot be separated from the characteristics of
the approach introduced by Van Dijk. According to Van Dijk, research on
discourse is not enough to be based on an analysis of the text alone because the
text is only the result of a production practice that must also be observed. Here it
 14

must also be seen how a text is produced so that we know why the text can be like
that. If there is a text that marginalizes women, research is needed to see how the
production of the text works, why the text marginalizes women. The production
process, which is very typical of Van Dijk, involves a process called social
cognition. This term is adopted from the approach from the field of social
psychology, especially to explain the structure and function of forming a text.

2.3 Political Speech

Ideas and ideologies in political speeches need to be conveyed through

language so that the recipient and others can agree upon them. They may read or hear
parts of the speech that follow in the media. Expressions and words are used or
omitted to influence meaning in different ways. Moreover, political speeches are
composed by a team of professional speechwriters who are educated in persuasive
language. Political discourse is not necessarily successful because of the truth;
instead, it may present the argument (Bread, 2000, p. 18). Several speeches were
made to address the people before the election; These speeches can also be referred to
memorable Pre-election speeches, especially at general meetings and campaigns.
Political discourse has functioned as a text, an output, and a process that can be
spoken or written.

Critical Discourse Analysis is seen as a study of the use of language in a

particular context or situation; this will require awareness of the message being
communicated or the speech act performed by the speaker; the participants involved;
their intentions, knowledge of the world, and its impact on their interactions; Have
they taken it for granted as part of the context; the deductions they make based on the
context; what is implied by what is said or not said; etc. (Leech, 1983, p. 20; Watson
& Hill, 1993, p. 146; Thomas, 1995, p. 7). Most politicians are unaware that there is a
connection between what is said, what is meant, and the actions conveyed by what is
displayed. In the study of political speech, one of the main theories that have been
effective and adequate for analysis is social analysis..
 15

There are two definitions of speech according to the Oxford dictionary. The
first is an expression or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate
sounds. From this explanation, the researcher can explain that this definition is a
person's speaking style closely related to the way a person speaks and the language of
a nation, region, or group of people. At the same time, the second definition of speech
is a formal speech or discourse delivered to the audience. This means that in front of a
crowd, one person is a speaker who talks about a specific topic.

A leader commonly uses a speech with a structural system to be conveyed to

people with a specific purpose. The general purpose of the speech itself concerns
several things such as:

1. Providing information or understanding to others. At this stage, a

person gives a message without asking for feedback from the
recipient/audience.
2. Influencing others to comply voluntarily. It means directing one's
attitude according to the influencer's wants. At this stage, the
audience becomes obedient to what is conveyed by the person
giving the speech.
3. Get listeners to participate. That is, the message aims to be followed
or become a role model for others who listen and observe

2.4 Critical Discourse Analysis Van Dijk’s Model

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is not a homogeneous model, nor is it a

paradigm or school, but at best a shared perspective in conducting linguistic,
semiotic, or discourse analysis. In simple terms, Critical Discourse Analysis studies
the relationship between textual structure and social context and then explores it in
the context of a more comprehensive social system. Following that, Van Dijk limits
that Critical Discourse Analysis is focused on the relationship between discourse,
power, domination, and social inequality. Van Dijk emphasizes three levels of
speech: text, social cognitive, and social analysis.
 16

2.4.1 Text

Van Dijk sees a text consisting of several structures/levels, each of which

supports the other. He divided it into three groups. First, the macrostructure is the
global/general meaning of a text that can be observed by looking at the topic or
theme that is put forward in a news story. Second, the superstructure is a discourse
structure related to the framework of a text, and the parts of the text are arranged
into the news as a whole. Third, the microstructure is the meaning of discourse
observed from a small amount of text, namely words, sentences, propositions,
clauses, paraphrases, and pictures.

According to Van Dijk, although it consists of various elements, all elements

are one unit, interconnected, and support each other. The text framework supports
the global meaning of a text (theme) and the choice of words and sentences used.
Van Dijk sees all texts as having a rule that can be seen as a pyramid. The terms,
sentences support the global meaning of a text, and propositions are used.
Statements/themes at the general level are supported by the choice of words,
sentences, or particular rhetoric. This principle helps researchers to observe how a
text is constructed through more minor elements. This schema also provides a map
for studying a text. We understand what the content of a news text is and the
elements that make up the news text, words, sentences, paragraphs, and
propositions. We know what the media covers, how the press expresses events in
confident language choices, and how they are expressed through particular
rhetoric.

2.4.1.1 Macrostructure of the text

The macrostructure is the global meaning of a text that the researcher

can observe from the topic/theme raised by a text (thematic). This element
refers to the general description of a text. It can also be referred to as the main
idea, summary, or central idea of a text. Topics describe what journalists want
in their reporting. The issue shows the dominant, mid, and most important
 17

concept of news. In analysis, the point of a news story is new if it has been
completed in its work. Topics describe the ideas put forward or the core ideas
of journalists when they see or view an event.

2.4.1.2 Superstructure of the text

Texts or discourses generally have a scheme or plot from the

introduction to the end. The field shows how the parts in the text are arranged
and sorted to form a unified meaning. According to van Dijk, the critical
significance of schematic is the journalist's strategy to support specific topics
to be conveyed by arranging the parts within a particular order. Schematics
emphasize which part comes first and which part later as a strategy to hide
critical information.

2.4.1.3 Microstructure of the text

The microstructure is the local meaning of a text that the researcher can
observe from the choice of words, sentences, and styles used by a text. The
microstructure is divided into:

a. Semantics, namely the meaning to be emphasized in the news text. For

example, by providing details on one side, making explicit one side, and
reducing components on the other side. The elements contained in this
semantic section are as follows:

1. Background, namely the news section that can affect the semantics
(meaning) that you want to display.
2. Detail, this element relates to the control of the information
displayed by a person. Communicators will display excessive
information that benefits themselves or a good image.
3. Intent, the element of intent to see information that benefits
communicators, will be described explicitly and clearly.
 18

4. Presupposition is a statement used to support the meaning of a text

by providing a premise that is believed to be accurate.

b. Syntax, namely how the sentence (form, arrangement) is chosen. The

elements are as follows:

1. Sentence form is a syntactic aspect related to logical thinking,

namely the principle of causality. Sentence form is a technical issue
of grammatical correctness and determines the meaning formed by
the sentence structure.
2. Coherence is the relationship or interweaving between words or
sentences in the text. Two sentences that describe different facts can
be connected so that they appear coherent.
3. Pronouns are elements to manipulate language by creating a
creative community.

c. Stylistics, how the choice of words is used in the news text. The
element contained in the syntax of this structure is the lexicon element. This
element is used to show how a person chooses words from the different
possible words available. The choice of words will then be used to indicate
certain attitudes and ideologies.

d. Rhetorical is how and in what way the emphasis is put.

1. Graphic, is a part to check what has been emphasized or highlighted by

someone that can be observed from the text.
2. Metaphor, an element that is intended as an ornament or spice of a news
story. The use of specific metaphors can be the main clue to
understanding the meaning of a text.

2.4.2 Social Cognition

Van Dijk directed the analysis known as social cognition. Van Dijk's
discourse analysis framework requires research on social cognition, namely the
 19

mental conditions that make up the text. In Van Dijk's interpretation, the structure
of the text is not limited to discourse analysis because several meanings, opinions,
and ideologies signify the design of the discourse itself (Eriyanto, 2001, p.:260).
Social cognition are requires context and cognition analysis to uncover hidden
meanings in the text. The text has no meaning, but the meaning given by the
language used by the reader is based on a cognitive approach, meaning that the
discourse speaker is more appropriate in mental awareness of language use.

2.4.3 Social Analysis

This social analysis is called the same as the social context. To examine the
discourse that develops in the community, it is necessary to conduct intertextual
research with discourse material produced in the community (Eriyanto, 2001,
p.271). Social context is more defined in terms of social identity that is displayed
as interpreted by language users in text and speech. In addition, the social context
also has meaning in many ways the interface between discourse and society as a
mental model of the social situation of communication. If social cognition is the
discipline that studies behavior, relationships between people, and societal norms,
social cognition has for decades examined how various social situations affect
people's behavior and has proposed several taxonomies for the structure of such
cases that may be relevant for context theory.

As is the case in many disciplines, social cognition is hardly a systematic

and well-organized collection of knowledge about the relationship between people
and society but rather a loose community of many disparate studies. In short,
social cognition is part of explaining how individuals or groups of discourse
writers produce texts. The initiation of bad news about a tribe arises from a
particular structure of mind that adheres to a certain way of looking at the reason
that shapes the perspective on the problem and thus influences how a text is
produced. In contrast, the social analysis focuses on how the text is linked to the
social structure and knowledge that develops in society on a discourse.
 20

According to Van Dijk, there are two critical points in analyzing the
community's issues: power and access. From the two points below, there are
explanations, among others:

a. The Practice of Power Van Dijk himself understands ownership of power

as a right owned by a group; one group will control another group.
Resources assessed for power are based on possessions that are generally
valuable, such as knowledge, status, and money (Eriyanto, 2001, p.272).
b. Access Affects Discourse Van Dijk's discourse analysis pays attention to
public access to each group, namely that elite groups have greater access
to power than non-power groups. Therefore, more powerful people have
more opportunities to influence public awareness (Eriyanto, 2001, p.272).

2.5 Review of Related LiteraruteLiterature Review

In this research, the writer found some thesis and journal, but they have
differences between this research such as subject of the research, the
formulation of the research and the theory of the research.

Firstly, Rifqi Nugraha, University Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta‘s student, (2014).39 The title is A Critical Discourse Analysis on Hillary
Clinton‘s Speech‖ American for Marriage Equality‖. This research discusses
about Hillary Clinton‘s speech titled American for Marriage Equality. The
objectives of this research are finding the text structure and the ideology that
described on Hillary Clintons Speech. The analysis focused on the critical
discourse analysis on Hillary Clinton speech text. This research conducted Van
Dijk Critical Discourse Analysis method and qualitative method. This research
not only discusses text structure of the speech, but also the ideology of Hillary
Clinton. According to Van Dijk, in discourse analysis frameworks there need
study of study related ideology of discourse. It is important to understand
discourse meaning. To dismantle hidden meaning from discourse text needs
ideology analysis.
 21

Secondly, Andhita Rachman, University of Muhammadiyah Surabaya, (2017)

the title is Critical Discourse Analysis in Donald Trump Speech Presidential
Campaign to Win American‘s Heart. 40 Political strategy proposes a pathway to
success when the society understands the background of candidates and reasons
for them to vote for. Basic way to do it is use speech campaign because society
will knows personality of candidates by sharing their thought. By using speech,
society feels that the candidate stand beside them and have the same thought.
This strategy can gain society sympathy. When they are able to obtain
sympathy, the succession in gaining power soon come through.

Thirdly, research by Ahmad Syamwiel in Discourse Analysis of Propagandas

on Donald J. Trump Inaugural Speech. This thesis examines Donald Trump‘s
speeches using Van Dijk‘s Critical Discourse Analysis Theory. It investigates the
structure of Critical Discourse Analysis that emerges in Donald Trump speeches
and the elements of Socio Cognitive Approach that emerge in Donald J Trump‘s
speeches. The writer mainly utilizes the structure Critical Discourse Analysis
theory by Van Dijk which consists of three structure of analysis consisting of
macrostructure and microstructure. Afterwards, the writer adopts Socio
Cognitive Approach to analyze the schema of the speech which included in
superstructure analysis. Under descriptive-qualitative method, this research
significantly gives a wider understanding about how linguistic features emerges
trough Critical Discourse Analysis structure. As the result, there are totally 64
expressions that were noticed as linguistic features from three chosen speeches
of Donald J Trump.
 22

2.5 Conceptual Framework

 23

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Design

In this study, the researcher used a qualitative research method with the
critical discourse analysis approach of Teun A. Van Dijk's model as a data analysis
technique. Research that uses a qualitative strategy uses original data and does not
convert any data into a numerical form (Moleong, 2007: 6). In other words, this study
intends to understand the phenomena experienced by research subjects such as
behavior, perception, motivation, action, and others by describing the form of words
and language. More specifically, this research is included in textual research because
the object is text in a broader sense (in this study, it is speech). The researcher tries to
describe the data analysis related to the research methods and questions.

3.2 Data and Data Sources

The data source in this study was taken from Joe Biden's talk with the title 'US
COMPLETES AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL' on the CNBC Television youtube
channel and the media site nytimes.com. This speech will be held on August 31,
2021, at the White House of the United States of America. The data is in the form of
words, sentences, and phrases from Joe Biden's speech. The researcher uses the
whole text to explore linguistic features through CDA theory. The first research
question is the structure of discourse that takes multiple utterances because the
researcher has to identify and classify each linguistic feature that appears in the
speech. While the data needed to answer the second research question is overall data
because it explores the schema or outline of Joe Biden's speech. There are no
informants or interactions such as interviews or observations.

3.3 Data Collection

 24

The data which is used in this research comes from Joe Biden‘s speech as the
president US. In the way of collecting the data, research uses documentation. Which
some step is mentioned and explained as follows:

1. Searching the script

The first step of collecting the data, researcher used script observation. It
was look for the script of Joe Biden‘s speech from the network. The
researcher looked for the script of the speech and check.
2. Downloading the script
After the data found script, the researcher downloads them both. Door the
script especially, it used for the main data to be analyzed.
3. Reading
The researcher reading the script in Joe Biden‘s speech.
4. Finding the data
Have we read the script we will found the data from the script by Joe
Biden‘s.
5. Categorize the data
The researcher made some classified the kind Critical Discourse Analysis
and after describe all the data. The categorizing was divided into three
types of analysis instead Macrostructure, Microstructure, and
Superstructure.

4.4 Data Analysis

The data analysis technique used in data collection is by listening to Joe Biden's
speech regarding the withdrawal of the United States Army in Afghanistan from the
CNBC Television Channel account on YouTube and the nyctimes.com website. The
following is a systematic way to process research data to be carried out:

1. Download a video of President Joe Biden's speech regarding the Withdrawal

of United States Troops in Afghanistan on the CNBC Television Channel
account on YouTube.
 25

2. Using the method of listening and recording the contents of President Joe
Biden's speech.
3. Copy the contents of President Joe Biden's speech in Microsoft Word to make
it look neat and then print it into text.
4. Reread and observe languages such as words, sentences, paragraphs contained
in a speech by paying attention to the discourse study of Teun A. Van Dijk's
theory of text structure dimensions, social cognition, and social context.
5. Marking the language forms of the things observed such as thematic,
schematic, semantic, syntactic, stylistic, and rhetorical. Then make rough
notes, so they are easy to remember.
6. Describe the dimensions of the text structure (macro, superstructure, micro),
and the meaning of Van Dijk's social context from President Joe Biden
regarding the withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan.

Research Research Data & Data Data Collection Data Analysis

Question Design Source
How are the Qualitative Youtube Joe Biden Listen and
text structures research Channel Speech “US Record Joe
in Joe Biden's methods CNBC Completes Biden's speech
speech with a Television Afghanistan regarding the
constructed? critical Withdrawal” withdrawal of
discourse US troops in
analysis Afghanistan
approach
Teun A.
Van Dijk's
model
How are the Qualitative Youtube Joe Biden Listen and
elements of research Channel Speech “US Record Joe
social analysis methods CNBC Completes Biden's speech
found in Joe with a Television Afghanistan regarding the
 26

Biden‘s critical Withdrawal” withdrawal of

speeches? discourse US troops in
analysis Afghanistan
approach
Teun A.
Van Dijk's
model

SECTION PAGE
Research -What is your topic 2
Bachground
-Why do you study this topic? 3
-Have you citied other relevant studied? 5-6
-Any gap filled? Which gap? Is it significance? 7
-What makes these theories relevant to your 7-8
study?
Theoretical -How do you argue that these theories may enable 12
Framework you analyze your data aligned to the formulated
RQ’s or objectives?
-Are there critiques to these theories? 13
-How do you aim to answer your RQ’s? 15

Research Method -How are the data source, collected and analyzed? 23-24
 27

Reference

Eriyanto. (2009). Analisis Wacana: Pengantar Analisis Teks Media. Yogyakarta:

LKIS

Fernandez, M. R., & Uran, S. I. G. (2021). A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

ON THE SECOND INAUGURAL SPEECH OF INDONESIAN
PRESIDENT JOKO WIDODO IN 2019. Edunipa Journal, 2(1), 17-28.

Khalil, H. H., & Abbas, N. F. (2018). Iraq in the American presidential debate
discourse: A critical discourse analysis. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 8(2), 260-278.

Ruttig, T. (2021). Have the Taliban Changed?. CT Sentinel, 21(3), 1-15.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). The handbook of discourse

analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Macmillan International Higher

Education.

Waisanen, D. J., & Becker, A. B. (2015). The problem with being Joe Biden: Political
comedy and circulating personae. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 32(4), 256-271.