Kata Ganti Nama dan Representasi Identiti Pewacana Parlimen Pronouns and Identity Representations of Parliamentary Speakers
Main Article Content
Abstract
In a discourse of political interaction, the use of pronouns can indirectly reflect the identity of the speakers involved, specifically the government’s or opposition’s member of parliament. Besides being used to refer to a person, personal pronouns (PP) can describe the form of social relationship built between the speakers and the audience. This study aims to identify the form of the first personal pronoun utilised by government and opposition discourse as well as explain the identity highlighted through the use of PP based on critical discourse analysis approach. The text of the 2019 Budget debate is used as study data. A preliminary review of this study found that in both government and opposition discourse, the use of singular first PP “saya” is dominant compared to the use of plural first PP. For the plural PP, the use of “kita” inclusively is dominant in the opposition, while the the use of “kita” exclusively is dominant in the government. Similarly, both discourses are seen trying to “stand out” on their own, stand up, have a personal touch, and even try to get closer to their target audience. In comparison, the opposition emphasises the nature of belonging and togetherness with its discourse audience, while the government emphasises the nature of party which is seen as trying to strengthen the party’s position as the “new ruler” in the new Malaysian parliament.
Dalam wacana interaksi politik, penggunaan kata ganti nama dalam ujaran secara tidak langsung dapat mencerminkan identiti pewacana yang terlibat, khususnya ahli parlimen kerajaan dan pembangkang. Selain berfungsi sebagai perujukan, pemanfaatan kata ganti nama diri (KGND) dapat menggambarkan bentuk hubungan sosial antara pewacana dan khalayaknya. Kajian ini bertujuan mengenal pasti bentuk KGND pertama yang dimanfaatkan oleh pewacana kerajaan dan pembangkang serta menjelaskan identiti yang diserlahkan menerusi penggunaan KGND berpaksikan pendekatan analisis wacana kritis. Teks perbahasan Belanjawan 2019 dijadikan data kajian. Tinjauan awal mendapati kedua-dua pewacana mendominasi penggunaan KGND pertama tunggal “saya” berbanding KGND pertama jamak. Bagi KGND jamak, pembangkang mendominasi “kita” inklusif, sebaliknya kerajaan mendominasi “kita” eksklusif. Secara persamaan, kedua-dua pewacana dilihat cuba “menonjolkan diri” secara sendirian, berpendirian, mempunyai sentuhan peribadi, dan juga cuba merapatkan diri dengan khalayak sasarannya. Secara perbandingan, pembangkang menyerlahkan sifat kekitaan dan kebersamaan dengan khalayak wacananya, manakala kerajaan lebih menyerlahkan sifat kepartian yang cuba mengukuhkan kedudukan parti selaku “pemerintah baharu” di Parlimen Malaysia Baharu.
Article Details
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Abdullah Hassan and Ainon Mohd. 2003. Komunikasi untuk pemimpin. Bentong: PTS Publications & Distributor Sdn. Bhd.
Asmah Haji Omar. 2015. Nahu Melayu mutakhir edisi kelima. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
_____. 2003. Power relations in parliamentary debates. In Language and empowerment, 38–51. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya.
Bayley, P. 2004. Introduction: The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse, ed. P. Bayley, 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cheng, J.E. 2015. Islamophobia, muslimophobia or racism? Parliamentary discourses on Islam and Muslims in debates on the minaret ban in Switzerland. Discourse and Society 26(5): 562–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515581157
Dayang Sariah Abang Suhai, Kesumawati Abu Bakar and Norsimah Mat Awal. 2020. Modaliti dalam wacana perbahasan parlimen. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 20(4): 186–208. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2020-2004-11
Every, D. and Augoustinos, M. 2007. Constructions of racism in the Australian parliamentary debates on asylum seekers. Discourse and Society 18(4): 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507077427
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge
_____. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
_____. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
_____. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
Harshita Aini Haroon, Noor Asliza Abdul Rahim, Noriha Basir and Zaliza Zubir. 2020. Lakuan ilokusi ucapan Zahid Hamidi dalam PAU 2017 dan 2018. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 20(2): 96–114. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2020-2002-06
Idris Aman. 2014. Manifesto pilihan raya dan prestasi parti politik utama Malaysia dalam Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13: Suatu analisis linguistik. GEOGRAFIA Online Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10(2): 65–82.
_____. 2011. Mengurus wacana dan kepimpinan: Analisis ucapan sulung Perdana Menteri Malaysia keenam. Jurnal Bahasa 11(2): 235–272.
_____. 2010. Analisis wacana. Selangor, Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Ilie, C. 2010. Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices. In European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices, 57–78. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kim, H.T., Imran Ho Abdullah, Nur Azureen Zulkifli and Shamirr Muhammad Mohd Shukor. 2017. Trend penggunaan bahasa samar dalam persidangan Parlimen Malaysia. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 17(4): 84–100. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1704-06
Kirkwood, S. 2017. The humanization of refugees: A discourse analysis of UK Parliamentary debates on the European refugee “crisis”. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 27(2): 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2298
Muhammad Faizul Abd Hamid and Mohd Azidan Abdul Jabar. 2020. Penghuraian strategi wacana teks ucapan Belanjawan 2019. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 20(2): 244–263. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2020-2002-14
Muhamad Fuzi Omar. 2008. Parliamentary behavior of the members of opposition political parties in Malaysia. Intellectual Discourse 16(1): 21–48.
Parlimen Malaysia. 2018. https://www.parlimen.gov.my/ (accessed 20 November 2018).
Rohaidah Haron, Madiawati Mamat@Mustaffa and Maizira Abdul Majid. 2019. Pembinaan identiti kepimpinan dalam wacana politik. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication 35(4): 386–407. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2019-3504-24
Tsakona, V. 2012. Linguistic creativity and institutional design: The case of Greek parliamentary discourse. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 36(1): 91–109.
Vukovic, M. 2012. Positioning in pre-prepared and spontaneous parliamentary discourse: Choice of person in the Parliament of Montenegro. Discourse and Society 23(2): 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431507
Yoong, D. 2011. Orderly and disorderly practices of personal pronouns during Question Time in the Malaysian House of Representatives. Journal of Modern Languages 21(1): 33–47.
_____. 2010. Orderliness and disorderliness of interaction during question time in the Malaysian House of Representatives. PhD diss., La Trobe University.