A Study of Transitivity in Barack Obamas Speech Delivered in Jakarta on

November 10th, 2010: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Maria Ulfa; Drs. Albert Tallapessy, M.A, Ph.D; Sabta Diana, S.S, M.A
English Department, Faculty of Letters, Jember University
Jln. Kalimantan 37, Jember 68121
E-mail: probolinggoku.2012@gmail.com

Abstract
The speech of Barack Obama delivered in the University of Indonesia on November
10th has become phenomenal since his visit to Indonesia for Asian Tour. The purpose
of this study is to expose the production of power served by Obama in his speech.
The analysis of Obamas speech is based on the theory of Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA), the theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and the theory of
power. Particularly, the analysis focuses on the transitivity of processes used in the
speech. This study is conducted by using mixed method (both qualitative and
quantitative methods). The result of investigation in transitivity shows that Obama
tries to present the United States and Indonesia equally. It means that the power
production served by the United States and Indonesia are balanced. Conclusively,
theres no power abuse in Obamas speech.
Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, speech, transitivity, power.
Abstrak
Pidato Barack Obama yang disampaikan di Universitas Indonesia pada tanggal 10
November 2010 lalu menjadi fenomenal sejak kedatangannya ke Indonesia untuk
tur Asia. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengangkat fenomena kekuatan
sosial yang digunakan Obama dalam pidatonya. Analisisa pidato ini didasarkan
pada teori Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), teori Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) dan teori power. Secara spesifik, analisis ini fokus pada proses-proses yang
termasuk dalam transitivity. Mixed Method (penggabungan antara metode kualitatif
dan metode kuantitatif) digunakan untuk menganalisis data dalam pidato. Hasil
dari analisa melalui transitivity menunjukkan bahwa Obama mencoba
menggambarkan Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia dengan setara. Dengan kata lain,
Obama menunjukkan kekuatan sosial yang seimbang antara Amerika Serikat dan
Indonesia. Hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa penyalahgunaan kekuatan sosial dalam
pidatonya Obama.
Kata Kunci: Critical Discourse Analysis, pidato, transitivity, kekuatan sosial.

Introduction
Language is an important element in the speech to deliver the topic of issues to the audience. The
speech of Obama delivered in Jakarta has become the famous one since his visit to Indonesia for Asian
Tour 2010 on November, 10th. He had an opportunity to deliver his speech at the University of Indonesia.
In the speech, he expressed his happiness to be able to visit Indonesia by saying Pulang Kampung Nih (I
am coming home, guys). In the opening of the speech, he recalled his childhood and recited all of his
experiences when he lived in Indonesia. Next, he moved into the content of his speech which are concerning
on the development, democracy, and religious faith. In the development part, he discussed the economic
development, and technology development along with the democracy development in Indonesia. He
believed that the United States and Indonesia can advance the mutual interest in development. Last, he also
addressed religious issues, particularly the relation between the United States and Muslims around the
world.
This speech was interesting to analyze because the enthusiasm of the audience in Indonesia and his
childhood background for several years in Indonesia. The fact that Obamas speech has become quite
phenomenal at that time up to now has emerged some questions, for example the factors behind the success
of his speech and the power he serves to recover his image and the United States in the perspective of
Indonesian. To find out the answer of those questions, the text analysis is needed. Analyzing discourse that
critically analyzes the text is called CDA.
In this study, the writer applies the theory of CDA, the theory of SFL proposed by Halliday (1994),
and theory of power. Particularly, the transitivity analysis of processes used by Obama is conducted to find
out the power served by Obama in presenting the United States and Indonesia.

Research Methodology
This study employs mixed method (both qualitative and quantitative methods). The quantitative
method is used to count the dominant processes used in the speech by using statistic while qualitative
method is used to interpret and explain the dominant processes appeared in the speech as a reflection of
power. Furthermore, the technique of data collection in this study applies the documentary method. The
speech text, as the primary data, is taken from The White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/) and
collected by using stratified sampling.
The speech text consists of 206 sentences including 466 clauses. The samples which are taken as a
primary data are 95 sentences including 250 clauses which are derived from 56 clauses in opening section,
158 clauses in content and 36 clauses in closing section. Thus, the data are analyzed by using descriptive,
statistical and interpretative method. The descriptive method is used to apply Hallidays SFL theory in term
of transitivity of processes used in selected clauses of the speech. The transitivity identifies the processes of
the clauses such as material, mental, verbal, existential, behavioral and relational process. Next, the
statistical method is applied to classify and count the kinds of processes and the most dominant which is
used in the speech. Last, the interpretative method used to expose the power used by Obama in his speech
based on the most dominant processes found in the transitivity analysis.

Result
2

The result of the transitivity analysis of samples used in Obama speech shows that there are six
processes used by him to address the issues between the United States and Indonesia. In other words, all of
processes types proposed by Halliday in his SFL theory appear in the speech. The quantity of each process
and the most dominant one used in the speech are shown in the table below.

Process
Material

Table 4.1 Transitivity analysis of processes in the speech

Opening
Content
Closing
Total
Percentage
29

81

14

127

50.8%

Relational
a.

Attributive

12

34

54

21.6%

b.

Identifying

10

13

5.20%

Mental
a.

Affection

13

24

9.60%

b.

Cognition

13

5.20%

c.

Perception

0.40%

Verbal

13

5.20%

Existential

1.20%

Behavioural

0.80%

56

157

37

250

100%

Overall Total

The Table 4.1 shows that the number of the material process used in the speech reaches 127
processes. It means that the material processes are used most in the speech with the percentage of 50.8%.
Relational processes are in the second position with the percentage of 26.8% from the overall total of
processes used by Obama. Next, it is followed by 16.4% mental processes where the affection is the
dominant one (9.60%). Other processes appearing are verbal processes as much as 5.20%, existential
processes with the percentage of 1.20% and behavioral processes as much as 0.80%.

Discussion
The first dominant process appearing in the speech is material process. The processes show the
process of doing actions. As proposed by Halliday (1994:110) that material processes refer to the process of
doing something and the doing may be done to some other entities. From this process, Obama shows his
contributions to repair the relations between the United States and Muslims around the world (indicated by
verbs have made, begin, repair and went, faced andve been persistent). Besides, Obama presents the
United States as a powerful country which does actions in helping Indonesia to develop the government in
many aspects such as economic and technology (indicated by verbs are investing, have grown, are opening,
combat,re developing, stands, help, are increasing, support, and are supporting). On the other hand,
Obama shows the capability of Indonesia to guide the big event such as the Bali Democracy Forum and the
East Asia Summit (initiated by verbs hosts, made, took, share, bear). After all, Obama also shows the
relationship of the United States and Indonesia in developing their mutual interest (identified by verbs can
advance, grow, build, is shared, double, defeat, do, have traveled, can find, share and working together).
Next, from the relational process, Obama mostly shows the relation between the United States and
Indonesia. According to Halliday (1994:119) relational process is process of being. Its function is as the
process of expressing and describing something. Firstly, he portrays himself and his country as a friend of

Indonesia and he confirms that the United States never hate Islam at all (I made clear that America is not,
and never will be, at war with Islam). Moreover, he also describes that the United States has an important
role that helps Indonesia to achieve the success of development. He also describes that Indonesia gives
more attention to the human rights within ASEAN. Conclusively, he identifies the United States and
Indonesia as the two countries which are related each other, and that relation can be used by them to have
much work to do together.
It turns to the investigation of mental process, a process of sensing that expresses mental
phenomena as perception (see, hear, smell, taste), affection (like, please, wish, determine, hurt) and
cognition (know, think, understand, believe) (Halliday, 1994:112). In mental affection, Obama uses the verb
want frequently to express his strong desire to get or do something concerning with the partnership of two
countries. Moreover, he presents processes of affection to express feelings by using processes received,
cynicism, despair, make optimistic, can choose and determine. Besides, in mental cognition, he also
presents processes that express his intellectual knowledge (initiated by verbs know and knew) and process
of making decision (identified by verbs will focus, look forward, focused, cannot give in, doubt, believe.
However, in mental perception, he presents the sense of perceiving something (identified by verb see).
The next process is verbal process. It is stated by Halliday (1994:140) that verbal process is the
process of saying. In this process, Obama shows his verbal interaction in conveying important thing
(indicated by verbs told, addressed, said, will repeat). he also presents his commitment on the behalf of the
United States in covering global issues (identified by verbs can promise, is committed, commit). Moreover,
he highlights the action of conveying information about the new Comprehensive Partnership between the
United States and Indonesia (initiated by verb announced). Thus, he shows the possibility to create the unity
of people who hold different beliefs around the world (identified by verb show).
Next, it is the investigation in existential process. Halliday (1994:142) asserts that existential
process represents something that exists or happens. In this process, Obama expresses the existence of
Nusantara that stretches from Sabang to Merauke as the interesting thing of Indonesia (initiated by verbs
there was, stretches, theres).
The last is the investigation of behavioural process. Halliday (1994:139) states that behavioral
processes refer to physiological and psychological behavior such as coughing, smiling, breathing, laughing,
crying, staring, and dreaming, etc. In this process, Obama presents the utterances that refer to himself and
Indonesia. The verb d like to talk indicates Obamas psychological behaviour to express something (story)
and the process looked expresses Jakarta.
Associated with the investigation of processes, Obama initiates the processes referring to himself
and the United States as the Actor more than Indonesia (1.4:1). However, from the ratio, it cannot be said
that Obama serves more power over Indonesia because it does not differ too much. It means that the power
of Obama is still equal over Indonesia. In correlation with the theory of power, the processes referred to
both the United States and Indonesia show that they serve balanced power. It is supported by Levorato
(2003:47) that there is a link between the power a social Actor has and the type of action s/he performs:
the greater the power, the greater the ability to affect others.
After all, CDA also deals with the inequality of power in the speech. In other words, since the
processes he used and the choice of verbs in the speech indicate the equal production of power and
domination both the United States and Indonesia, the speech delivered by Obama as the president of the
United States when he visited Indonesia on 2010 shows that the power they served are balanced. It means
that there is no power abuse and inequality in Obamas speech. It is proved by his success to make the
audience excited to hear his speech since he tries to show the equality and balance through his linguistic
capability to affect others.

Conclusion dan Suggestion

The result of interpretation shows that Obama tries to present both the United States and Indonesia
in the same way. As the speaker of the speech, Obama describes himself as the powerful figure. He presents
himself as the person who has strong capability and great influence to the development of Indonesia in
many aspects. Moreover, he also presents the United States and Indonesia as the powerful countries which

can do such actions in increasing the development of the governmental aspect and in creating peacefulness
of the people around the world. Furthermore, looking back at the result of the quantitative analysis, it shows
that Obama, the United States and Indonesia are presented equally. From the ratio, it can be concluded that
Obama presents the equality of power both the United States and Indonesia. It means that the power served
by Obama, the United States and Indonesia are balanced. In other words, it can be interpreted that there is
no inequality or power abuse in Obamas speech.
Conclusively, after the investigation of power in this study, it turns to the result of this study. It is
expected to give contribution to better understanding of the relation of language and power in the text. I
hope this study is useful for others as the reference of their study in CDA which exposes power in speech or
other texts and also can support the further analysis in the same study.

Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude is hereby extended to the following people who never ceased in helping until
this thesis is structured: Drs. Albert Tallapessy, M.A, Ph.D, my first supervisor, who have encouraged and
given me a valuable assistance to finish this thesis; Sabta Diana, S.S, M.A, my second supervisor, for
unwavering guidance and patience throughout the entire process of my thesis.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[16]

Blaxter, Loraine., Hughes, Christina., and Tight, Malcolm. 2006. How to Research. Third Edition.
London: Open University Press.
Denscombe, Martin. 2007. The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects.
Poland: Open University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:
Longman.
Jorgensen, Marianne and Philips, L.J. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London:
SAGE Publications.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group
Limited.
Hornby, A. S. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. Sixth Edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Levorato, Alessandra. 2003. Language and Gender in The Fairy Tale Tradition: A Linguistic
Analysis of Old and New Story Telling. New York: Palgrave macmillan.
Mackey, Alison and Gass, Susan, M. 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.
Martin, J.R., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., and Painter, Clare. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar.
London: Edward Arnold.
Mayr, Andrea. 2008. Language and power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse Analysis.
New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McMillan, J.H. 1992. Educational Research Fundamentals for the Consumer. Virginia: Harper
Collins Publisher.
Nunan, David. 1993. Introducing to Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin Group.
Universitas Jember. 2011. Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Jember: Jember University Press.

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael. 2001. Method in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE
Publications.
Alameda-Hernndez, ngela. 2008. SFL and CDA: Contributions of the Analysis of the Transitivity
System in the Study of the Discursive Construction of National Identity (Case study: Gibraltar). J.
Lang. Teach. Res. 3 (3): 6-12.
Chen-xi, Zhao and Feng-jun, Yang. 2009. The Critical Discourse Analysis of a Report on Barack
Obama. Sino-US Eng.Teach. 6 (10): 49-55.
Palito, Rabindranath. 2011. Language and Power in Blogging: A Critical Discourse Analysis.
IACSIT. 20 (11): 282-286.
Wang, Junling. 2010. An Analysis of Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obamas Speeches. J.
Lang. Teach. Res. 1 (3): 254-261.
Delauney, Guy. 2010. Obama Hails Indonesia as Example for World. [on line].
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11723650. [November, 10th 2010].
The White House. 2010. Remarks by the President at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta,
Indonesia. [on line]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/10/remarks-presidentuniversity-indonesia-jakarta-indonesia . [November, 10th 2010].