Linguistic legitimation strategies employed by members of an Indonesian political party

Rizki Ananda, Nova Sari

Abstract


This study aimed at exploring legitimation strategies used by two members of the Indonesian Solidarity Party (or Partai Solidaritas Indonesia, abbreviated as PSI) in justifying their party leader’s controversial statement on the abandonment of Sharia Law. To do so, it employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) with Leeuwen’s legitimation strategies (2007, 2008) as its analytical tool. The data were obtained from two separate interviews with PSI members aired on two different Indonesian TV channels. The interviews were transcribed and translated. From this process, a 1.170-word corpus, from which the data were derived, was generated. The findings showed that moral evaluation is the most dominant legitimation strategy, followed by rationalization and authorization. In moral evaluation, abstraction occurs most often, followed by evaluation and analogy. In rationalization, theoretical rationalization is used more often than instrumental rationalization. Finally, in authorization, PSI utilized impersonal authority to reject the Sharia Law by referring to academic studies and legal documents which assess the law as being negative. Meanwhile, expert authority was used to build legitimation by reference to experts who support the negative effects of the law. This study implies the power of language to legitimize a controversial activity by using different linguistics strategies.

Keywords


critical discourse analysis; linguistic constructions; legitimation strategies

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aksan, N., Kisac, B., Aydin, M., & Demirbuken, S. (2009). Symbolic interaction theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Science, 1(1), 902-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160

Amalia, R. M., Citraresmana, E., & Saefullah, N. H. (2021). Discourse markers in diplomatic settings: Ministerial dialogue between Australia and Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 346-359. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.18350

Basri, H. (2011). Kedudukan syariat Islam di Aceh dalam system hukum Indonesia [The position of Islamic law in Aceh in the Indonesian legal system]. Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 55, 75-92.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.

Brown, P., & S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and Yallop, C. (2003). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Doskaya, F. C. (2002). Legitimating discourse: An analysis of legitimation strategies in U.S. Official Discourse on Cyprus. The Cyprus Review, 14(2), 71-98.

Dreyfus, S. (2017). ‘Mum, the pot broke’: Taking responsibility (or not) in language. Discourse and Society, 28(4), 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517703222

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 258-284). Sage.

Fajrina, D. (2016). Character metaphors in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Studies in English Language and Education, 3(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v3i1.3391

Fitriani, S. S., Ananda, R., Irawan, A. M., Samad, I. A., & Weda, S. (2021). Representation of 212 Rallies in the Jakarta Post articles: A hybridity of CDA and SFL analysis. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 328-345. http://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.16836

Gessier, V. (2010). Islamophobia: A French specificity in Europe? Human Architecture: Journal of Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 8(2), 39-46.

Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis. Heinemann.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

Leeuwen, T. V. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 1(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986

Leeuwen, T. V. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press, Inc.

Leeuwen, T. V. & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. Routledge.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Bloomsbury.

Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to action. Discourse and Society, 22(6), 781-807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927

Rojo, L. M., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). “There was a problem, and it was solved!”: Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Society, 8(4), 523-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005

Said, H. (2017). Legitimation strategies in Egyptian political discourse: The case of presidential speech [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The American University in Cairo.

Samovar, L., Porter, R., McDaniel, E., & Roy, C. (2003). Communication between cultures (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2008). A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 985-993.

van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Ideological discourse analysis. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Analysis, 4, 135-161.

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11-52). John Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Linguistica, XXX(1-2), 11-40.

van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Political discourse and ideology. Doxa Comunicación, 1, 207-225. https://doi.org/10.31921/doxacom.n1a12

van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Politics, ideology and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Elsevier encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Volume on politics and language (pp. 728-740). Elsevier.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908

van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63-85). Sage.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say? American Political Science Review, 87(2), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939042




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.18529

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.