Interpersonal Function of Joe Biden’s Victory Speech (Systemic Functional Linguistics View)

Hieronimus Canggung Darong

doi:10.23887/jere.v5i1.31420

Authors

Hieronimus Canggung Darong Universitas Katolik Indonesia Santu Paulus http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0050-0040

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v5i1.31420

Keywords:

Interpersonal function, speech, and SFL

Abstract

Text analysis was mainly concerned with the ideational function and textual function. Besides, macro aspect has been regarded as the most text structure examined in previous studies. Regardless of those three aspects, this study focused on the interpersonal function analysis of political speech text, by taking an example of Joe Biden’s victory speech. The purposed theory namely Systemic Functional Linguistics theory (SFL) was then applied to analyze the text. The analysis was conducted by modifying the speech text into clauses which were subsequently analyzed in accordance with the goal of the analysis. Data analysis revealed that the speech established an intimate relationship and a close distance with the audience. As such, the speaker enables to gain support and exchange information through the use of linguistics resources namely declarative clause in the mood structure, modality, and pronoun "we". As a conclusion, different use of mood, modality, and personal pronouns might determine the different level of interpersonal function of a text. This study has a great impact on language teaching and learning in terms of maintaining social relationships and exchanging meanings between teachers and students by taking into account the link between linguistic resources and the nature of texts.

Author Biography

Hieronimus Canggung Darong, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Santu Paulus

English Program, Lecturer

References

Ademilokun, M. . (2019). Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis of Modality in Social Transformation Campaigns in Nigeria. Discourse and Interaction, 12(2), 5–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-2-5.

Afzaal, M. (2020). Book reviews. Discourse Studies, 22(5), 632–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620921656.

Ahmed, M., & Al, A. (2020). Discourse markers of Moo in Iraqi colloquial language. Discourse Studies, 22(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916362.

Andersen, T. H., Emilie, A., & Holsting, M. (2018). Clause Complexing in Systemic Functional Lingustics – towards an Alternative Description. Functional Lingusitics, 5(10), 1–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0059-7.

Bao, C., Zhang, X., Qu, Y., & Feng, Z. (2018). American English Perfect Construction Across Registers. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25(4), 314–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2017.1387961.

Bartley, L. V. (2018). Putting Transitivity to the Test: A Review of the Sydney and Cardiff models. Functional Lingusitics, 5(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0056-x.

Baysha, O. (2019). Dehumanizing Political Others: A Discursive- material Perspective. Critical Discourse Studies, 17(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1567364.

Boch, A. (2020). Increasing American Political Tolerance: A Framework Excluding Hate Speech. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World Volume, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120903959.

Briones, R. R. Y. (2016). Textual Analysis through Systemic Functional Linguistics. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics (JELTL) Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 1(2), 109–144. https://dx.doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v1i2.27.

Brookes, G., & Mcenery, T. (2019). The utility of topic modelling for discourse studies: A critical evaluation. Discourse Studies, 21(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618814032.

Bu, H., Connor-linton, J., & Wang, L. (2020). Linguistic Variation in the Discourse of Corporate Annual Reports : A multi-dimensional Analysis. Discourse Studies, 22(6), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620928231.

Cartagena, M. C. C., & Prego-vázquez, G. (2018). Participation frameworks and socio-discursive competence in young children : The role of multimodal strategies. Discourse Studies, 21(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618802656.

Chu, R., & Huang, C.-T. (2020). The day after the Apology: A Critical Discourse Analysis of President Tsai ’ s National Apology to Taiwan’ s Indigenous Peoples. Discourse Studies, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620942875.

Da Cunha, I. (2019). A corpus-based analysis of textual genres in the administration domain. Disocurse Studies, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619887538.

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Pinter.

Fernández-agüero, M., & Chancay-cedeño, C. (2019). Interculturality in the Language Class – Teachers ’ Intercultural Practices in Ecuador. RELC Journal, 50(1), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218755847.

Fetzer, A., & Bull, P. (2012). Doing leadership in political speech : Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences. Discourse & Society, 23(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431510.

Figini, F., Roccia, V., & Rezzano, N. S. (2019). The Construction of Field in Science Popularization Stories. International Journal of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 1–13. https://www.ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id/index.php/ijsfl/article/view/669.

Fortanet, I. (2005). Honoris Causa speeches: an approach to structure. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445605048766.

Gusthini, M., Sobarna, C., & Amalia, R. M. (2018). A Pragmatic Study of Speech as an Instrument of Power: Analysis of the 2016 USA Presidential Debate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i1.6906.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.

Hasan, R. (2014). Towards a Paradigmatic Description of Context: Systems, Metafunctions, and Semantics. Functional Lingusitics, 1(9), 1–54. https://doi.org/http://www.functionallinguistics.com/content/.

Heruti, V., Bergerbest, D., & Giora, R. (2019). A Linguistic or Pictorial Context: Does It Make a Difference? Discourse Processes, 56(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1565277.

Hopke, J. E., & Simis, M. (2016). Response to ‘ Word choice as political speech ’: Hydraulic fracturing is a partisan issue. Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516643621.

Horváth, J. (2017). Critical discourse analysis of Obama’s political discourse. In Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic World International Conference Proceedings, University Library of Prešov University (pp. 45-56).

Kai, J. (2008). Lexical Cohesion Pattersn in NS and NNS Dissertation Abstracts in Applied Linguistics: A Comparative Study. The Linguistics Journal, 3(3), 132–144. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ning_Zhang126/publication/253961492_Existential_Coda_Constructions_as_Internally_Headed_Relative_Clause_Constructions/links/0046353c06ff52b14c000000/Existential-Coda-Constructions-as-Internally-Headed-Relative-Clause-Constructions.pdf#page=132.

Kaneyasu, M. (2020). Expectations for ‘ Natural ’ Ways of Talking: A context- dependent Perspective on Fixedness in Conversation. Discourse Studies, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620947934.

Kelly, C. R. (2020). Donald J . Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 106(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2019.1698756.

Kusuma, R., Dewi, S., & Kurniawan, E. (2018). Seeing Recount from Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective: Sine Qua Non Attributes. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 4(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/ 10.22225/jr.4.1.464.43-52.

Leong, P. A. (2019). Visualizing Texts: A tool for Generating Thematic-Progression Diagrams. Functional Lingusitics, 6(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-019-0069-0.

Lim, F. V. (2018). Developing a systemic Functional Approach to Teach Multimodal Literacy. Functional Lingusitics, 5(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0066-8.

Määttä, S. K., Puumala, E., & Ylikomi, R. (2021). Linguistic, Psychological and Epistemic Vulnerability in Asylum Procedures: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Discourse Studies, 23(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620942909.

Mendoza-denton, N., & Jannedy, S. (2011). Semiotic Layering through Gesture and Intonation: A Case Study of Complementary and Supplementary Multimodality in Political Speech. Journal of English Linguistics, 39(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211405941.

Montes, P. A. ., Barboza, A. M. ., & Olascoaga, A. I. . (2014). Systemic Functional Linguistics and Discourse Analysis as Alternatives When Dealing With Texts. Profile, 16(2), 101–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v16n2.38113.

Moragas-fernández, C. M., Calvo, M. M., & Capdevila, A. (2018). The process en route: the metaphor of the journey as the dominant narrative for the political discourse in Catalonia. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1468787.

Mubarak, Z. H. (2014). An Analysis of Cohesion Devices in Political News of the Jakarta Post: A Discourse Analysis Approach. Jurnal Basis UPB, 1(2), 1-12.

Nartey, M. (2018). ‘ I shall prosecute a ruthless war on these monsters … ’: a critical metaphor analysis of discourse of resistance in the rhetoric of Kwame Nkrumah. Critical Discourse Studies, 16(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1535987.

Navarro, E., Macnamara, B. N., Glucksberg, S., & Andrew, R. A. (2020). What Influences Successful Communication? An Examination of Cognitive Load and Individual Differences. Discourse Processes, 57(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1829936.

Ong, J. (2019). A Case Study of Classroom Discourse Analysis of Teacher’s Fronted Reading Comprehension Lessons for Vocabulary Learning Opportunities. RELC Journal, 50(1), 1118–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217730138.

Othman, W. (2020). Causal Relations on a Cline of Explicitness: An SFL Perspective. Functional Lingusitics, 7(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40554-020-00071-2.

Potter, L. (2016). Ideological Representations and Theme-Rheme Analysis in English and Arabic news Reports: A systemic Functional Approach. Functional Linguistics, 3(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0028-y.

Poulimenou, S., Stamou, S., Papavlasopoulos, S., & Poulos, M. (2016). Short Text Coherence Hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 23(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2016.1142328.

Qian, D. D., & Pan, M. (2019). Politeness in Business Communication: Investigating English Modal Sequences in Chinese Learners’ Letter Writing. RELC Journal, 50(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217730142.

Risberg, J., & Lymer, G. (2020). Requests and Know-how Questions : Initiating instruction in Workplace Interaction. Discourse Studies, 22(6), 753–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620928239.

Santosa, R. (2016). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). International Seminar Prasasti III: Current Research in Linguistics, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.1442.g1336.

Scholman, M. C. J., Demberg, V., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2020). Individual Differences in Expecting Coherence Relations: Exploring the Variability in Sensitivity to Contextual Signals in Discourse. Discourse Processes, 57(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1813492.

Schubert, C. (2019). ‘ OK , well , first of all , let me say …’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies, 21(4), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842734.

Schumacher, G., Hansen, D., Velden, M. A. C. G. Van Der, & Kunst, S. (2019). A new dataset of Dutch and Danish party congress speeches. Research and Politics, 6(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019838352.

Silke, H., Quinn, F., & Rieder, M. (2019). Telling the truth about power? Journalism discourses and the facilitation of inequality. Critical Discourse Studies, 16(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1568897.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. University of Chicago.

Tolochko, P., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2017). Analysis of Linguistic Complexity in Professional and Citizen Media. Journalism Studies, 19(12), 1786–1803. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1305285.

Upadhyay, S. S. N., Houghton, K. J., & Klin, C. M. (2018). Is “ Few ” Always Less than Expected ?: The Influence of Story Context on Readers ’ Interpretation of Natural Language Quantifiers. Discourse Processes, 56(8), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1557006.

Wang, J. (2010). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama s Speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.254-261.

Wang, W. (2020). Grammatical Conformity in Question-answer Sequences: The Case of Meiyou in Mandarin Conversation. Doscourse Studies, 22(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916371.

Yin, Z. (2017). Principles of Teaching Cohesion in the English Language Classroom. RELC Journal, 49(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217707628.

Zhan, H., & Huang, S. (2018). Critical genre analysis : investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(5), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1468788.