Sie sind auf Seite 1von 57

Chapter I

Introduction

A. Background of the Study

People is the social human that needs interaction with others, they

need a language to keep their interactions. Language is used to express

their opinion and idea as the process of interaction. Language is the

arbitrary system of sound, which is used by the social member to

corporate, interact and identify their identity. Language is the system of

communication, which is used by sounds, symbols, and words in

expressing the meaning of idea and thought. Language is a system of

signs, which express ideas.1 People as the highest creation in the world

has been given the greatest gift that differs from other creations, it called a

thought. From that thought, human can produce a language.

It cannot be counted that how many languages are existed in the

population of human, with the result that every community in smallest unit

or biggest unit like country has an interaction tool (language), so the

language itself has variety in every community. In this global area, English

language is one of language that used in every country in the world as the

official or foreign language. In Indonesia, English language is the first

foreign language that has been used by Indonesian people as the following

of the development information and mass media. English language spreads


1 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistic, (New York City: McGraw-Hill
Paperback, 1966), p. 16.
rapidly in every aspects, it brings the information around the world to

every people. It’s required to all people who doesn’t recognize English

language as the priority to communicate which other around the world

because English language becomes an official language in the world as

international language, the world’s agreement to use it. So, if someone did

not recognize it as well as possible, they will lose interactions in

information and technology which is spreading rapidly.

There are many information and technology in every major written

in form of English language, until every nation in the world knows what

happened in that time. A communication as the process interaction which

is conducted people to interact with each other is language activity and

English language is the tool of interaction around the world. Using English

language in every part of the world will be founded in technological

information who conducted electronic media such as: television, radio,

internet and etc and printed media such as magazine, newspaper, journal

and books.

One of media which is transferred information to the written form

is journal, magazine and book. Because of the modernity of technology,

the written form such as journal and others are accommodated to the

media that known as an internet. Based on this theme, the written form that

has recorded to the internet is Bush speech in ultimatum of Iraq war, and

the statements of rove about Iraq war.


Speech is an utterance, which has a good structure to demonstrate

for many people. For example: speech of presidential (national state),

special day, encouragement or motivation, welcoming speech and etc.2

Commonly, speech holds in the formal events such as conference, council,

wedding party, seminar, campaign. Because speech performs in the formal

area, it is better to write it firstly.

Written of speech is the coherence sentence, which consists in

whole words, so it can be read and analyzed. The kind of text speech

includes as the argumentative texts, which means the writing of text

attempts to convince reader and hearer to follow it. Hence, the goal of

speech performed is pursuing a reader and hearer to follow what the orator

expected or in other hand attempting to convince hearer. The composition

of speech commonly gives the evidences or proofs and the concrete facts.

The expected reaction from hearer is appearing an appropriate opinion or

conviction and trust or the problem that will be leaded.3 One of the

examples of speech that has a goal to convince hearer is a Bush’s speech

in Iraq war 1991:

Just two hours ago, Allied air forces began an attack on military

targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground

forces are not engaged. This conflict started Aug. 2, when the dictator of

Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait, a member of the


2 http//www.organisasi.org
3 Dra. Hj. Siti sahara, Keterampilan Berbahasa Indonesia, (Jakarta: Fakultas Ilmu
tarbiyah dan Keguruan (FITK) UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2008), p. 51-52

3
Arab League and a member of the United Nations, was crushed, its people

brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war

against Kuwait; tonight, the battle has been joined.4

In his speech, Bush gave the concrete facts when the attack had

begun and would be continued. His political expression seems to convince

people that his aggression war is necessary right and legal.

In this case, the speech that was transferred in written form has the

logic and coherence meaning until become a text. Because of an

accommodation of internet, Bush’s speech has recorded and can be

analyzed as the text. Every text, especially English text will operate in the

corridor of semantic that related to the meaning. The wisdom word said

that “langue without meaning is meaningless”, semantic is the study of the

linguistic meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences.5

Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance is the

meaning. There are many aspects to analyze of meaning; we can analyze

meaning in the form of denotation or connotation, meaning in context, the

change of meaning and the relation of meaning.

One of studies concerning on semantic as the relation of meaning is

componential analysis. Componential analysis or lexical decomposition is

a basic study of lexical fields in determining semantic relation of different

4 http//www.ukessay.com/essays/English/language
5 Victoria Fromkin, An Introduction to Language, (United States: Thomson Heinle,
2003), p. 173.
lexical items in one lexical field.6 Meaning also related with the code of

sign, its basic idea in definition and analysis of sign. Signs produce a

meaning as denotation and connotation.

In the study of Componential, lexicon is the main of study. Lexicon

was being analyzed based on its componential meaning to get a description

about lexical system and semantic field structure. Besides that, writer will

try to illustrate the semantic field of Bush’s speech and rove on Iraq war

with the most completely relation of meaning call as thesaurus with the

reference of Rogert’s international thesaurus. According to Harimurti

Kridalaksana one of lexicography’s activities is thesaurus. Thesaurus is

book of reference that contains information about the relation of meanings

of word, such as semantic field, synonym, or antonym and arranged by

relation of meaning (semantically) or alphabetically or the combination of

both of them.7 The writer is interested in doing research because there are

still not many researches about Componential analysis in this university.

Based on the background study above, the writer is interested in

studying and researching componential of meaning within the text of

Bush’s speech and rove on Iraq war and the message of meaning as

expressed in the texts.

6 Wedhawati, “Lexical Fields Componential Analysis and Definition Of Lexical Sense”


Rintisan dalam Kajian Leksikologi dan leksikografi, No1, (Desember 2003), p. 122
7 Harimurti Kridalaksana, rintisan dalam kajian leksikologi dan leksikografi, (Jakarta:
Fakultas ilmu pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia,2003), p. xi

5
B. Focus of the Study

Based on the background of study above, the writer will focus on

analyses with componential analysis and its meaning of denotation and

connotation within the text of Bush’s speech and rove on Iraq war.

C. Research question

Based on the focus study, the main question of the research are:

1. What types of Component meaning are constructed by the lexemes

within the text of Bush’s speech and rove on Iraq war?

2. How is the relation among lexemes of component, denotation and

conotation of meaning within the text of Bush’s speech and rove on

Iraq war?

D. Objective of the Study

Related to the research question above, this research intends:

1. To know the types of component meaning which are

constructed to the text of Bush’s speech and rove on Iraq war

2. To know the relation among lexemes of Component, denotation

and connotation meaning within the text of Bush’s speech and

rove on Iraq war


E. Significance of the Study

It is expected for the research to enrich and add the useful

information especially for the study of meaning (semantic) and critical

language in analyzing of meaning in order to become varieties and the

writer hopes this paper can be benefit for the readers.

Besides that, the research can assist advantageously for next

researcher who would like to conduct the research with similar case as

additional reference especially in structural subject.

F. Research Methodology

This research methodology Contain the important aspects of

research as mentioned below:

1. Method of the study

The method of study for this research is descriptive analysis

method by applying qualitative method. Descriptive is the method

to research of recently status of human group, an object, a set of

condition, a system of human thinking, or class of phenomenon.

The purpose of using that method is to make the description or

illustration of research methodology. The report of research will

describe the objective of study qualitatively in the form of setting

out the report of study.

2. Technique of data analysis

7
To get the main purpose of the research, the writer conducts

the following steps:

1. Reading comprehensively about the definition

componential analysis theory.

2. Reading all the contents of text

3. Giving the order number of sentences within the text

4. Marking the lexemes that construct the componential

analysis within the text

5. Concluding the collecting data

3. Instrument of the Study

The instrument of the research is the writer himself through

reading the text. He reads, analyzes and then marks the

possibility of the lexical fields within the two texts. He also

provides the table of components to know the relation of

selected lexemes and the given components.

Technique of Instrument

Number The element Target


1. Reading Marking the possibiltiy of
the relation meaning in a
selected texts
2. Relation Providing component of
relation meaning
3. Identifying Looking up thesaurus with
a suitable relation meaning
of connotation and
denotation

4. Unit of analysis

The analysis units of the research are two texts which have

been selected in the object of research. The two texts are: Full

text Bush’s speech “A transcript Bush’s war ultimatum speech

from the Cross Hall in the White House”. Rove on Iraq:

Without W.M.D threat, Bush wouldn’t have gone to war.

9
CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Componential Analysis

1. Speech

Speech is an utterance, which has a good structure to demonstrate for

many people. For example: speech of presidential (national state), special day,

encouragement or motivation, welcoming speech and etc.8 Commonly, speech

holds in the formal events such as conference, council, wedding party,

seminar, campaign. Because speech performs in the formal area, it is better to

write it firstly.

Written of speech is the coherence sentence, which consists in whole

8 http//www.organisasi.org
words, so it can be read and analyzed. The kind of text speech includes as the

argumentative texts, which means the writing of text attempts to convince

reader and hearer to follow it. Hence, the goal of speech performed is pursuing

a reader and hearer to follow what the orator expected or in other hand

attempting to convince hearer. The composition of speech commonly gives the

evidences or proofs and the concrete facts. The expected reaction from hearer

is appearing an appropriate opinion or conviction and trust or the problem that

will be leaded.9

Prof. Dr. Gorys Keraf notices that speech has common and special

purpose. The common purpose of speech is to encourage which the reaction

can motivate hearer, to convince, to act, to inform and etc. the special purpose

is something that hearer believed, felt and wanted to act.10

So, it can be said that the purpose of speech can range from simply

transmitting information, to motivating people to act, to simply telling story.

Good orators should be able to change the emotions of their listeners, not just

inform them.

2. Definition of Meaning

One thing that’s remained in our concept to define meaning is not easy

9 Dra. Hj. Siti sahara, Keterampilan Berbahasa Indonesia, (Jakarta: Fakultas Ilmu
tarbiyah dan Keguruan (FITK) UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2008), p. 51-52
10 Prof. DR. Gorys Keraf, Komposisi, (Jakarta: Nusa Indah, 1994), pp.
320-323

11
as we determined; it has a long wide debated problem since Plato was

defined that meaning is a copy of ultra-reality. We may know that one

single word has different sense, as Husserl said in the book of

Wittgenstein’s work Tractacus Logico-Philosopicus that most proposition

and question that have been written about philosophical matters are not

false but senseless.11 Meaning is a word we use in our daily life in different

sense. For example: the term color of red may occur in several context in

which it gives a quite several different of meaning. The term of “meaning”

is a confused term because the limitation is very wide variety; theoretically

meaning is considered in linguistic, philosophy, logic, semiotic and etc.

Another explanation about meaning is the message that is intended or

expressed or signified; "what is the meaning of this sentence"; "the

significance of a red traffic light"; "the signification of Chinese

characters"; "the import of his announcement was ambiguous" or the idea

that is intended; "What is the meaning of this proverb?" what an artist

expresses in an art work; or what a viewer understands and interprets

from an art work.

In The Saussurian perspective, meaning is the product of linguistic

conventions, the effect of a system of differences. To account for

meaning is to set forth the relations of contrast and the possibilities of

combination that constitute a language. However, as many have

observed, a theory that derives meaning from linguistic conventions


11 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus, (London:Routledge, 2001), p.
xi
does not account for it completely. If one conceives of meaning as the

effect of linguistic relations manifested in an utterance, then one must

contend with the fact that, as we say, a speaker can mean different

things by the same linguistic sequence on different occasions. "Could

you move that box?" may be a request, or a question about one's

interlocutor's strength, or even, as rhetorical question, the resigned

indication of impossibility.12 This perspective minded on the every

meaning of word, sentence or expression has a varieties meaning, each

of varieties meaning have a central meaning.

Based on F.R. Palmer from book of Alex sobur, to know what the

definition of meaning, we have to go to back from the theory of

Ferdinand de Saussure. In his book Course in General Linguistic

(1916), de Saussure mentions sign of linguistic. Every sign of

linguistic consists two elements, interpreted (the element of meaning)

and to interpret (the element of sound).13 One example I try to explain

this definition, the word “door” has one element of meaning

(interpreted as door) and one element of sound (spelled d-o-o-r). Those

elements refer to the object that describe as a device of house, a place

of entering and exiting man, placed in the back or the front.

Most theorists recognize that almost words have varieties meaning.

12 Jonathan Culler, Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin, (USA,


The John Hopkins University press), p. 15
13Alex Sobur, Analisis Teks Media suatu pengantar untuk analisis
wacana, analisis semiotic dan analisis framing, (Bandung, Remaja
Rosddakarya, 2006), p. 24

13
Every word of color like red, yellow, black and white has a different

meaning (connotative).14 In English language, there are hundred

similar words compiled in great book Rogert’s International

Thesaurus. One single word of black has the meaning of dark, negative

thing, scare, and etc.

3. Theory of componential analysis

Componential analysis (Nida, 1975), semantic components

(Lehrer, 1974) is theoretical constructs which can characterize the

vocabulary of a language; each lexical item will be defined in term of

the components.15 Nida points out the analysis of component related to

the set of meaning, he recognizes three structurally important types of

components: common, diagnostic and supplementary. The common

components are those features that any set of meaning have in

common. The diagnostic components those that are characteristic of

one or more of the meaning but not for all, and the supplementary

components are those that may connotatively but not denotatively

relevant or that may be denotatively valid but not really necessary or

significant for establishing a minimal set of contrast.16 Componential


14Ibid, p. 25
15 A. Lehrer, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structures, (Amsterdam:
North Holland publishing, 1974), p. 46
16 Eugene A. NIda, Johannes P. Louw, and Ronald B. Smith, Semantic
Domains and Componential Analysis of Meaning, (USA: Indiana University
D1= ’Boy’= ’man’ = ’bull’

‘girl’= ’woman’ ‘cow’

D2= ‘Boy’= ‘girl’___

‘Man’= ‘woman’
analysis is thus an attempt to describe the meaning of words in terms
D3= ‘Boy’= ‘girl’
of a universal inventory of semantic components and their possible
‘Bull’= ‘cow’
combinations.

The diagnostic components have structural relation of internal;

commonly the relation is logical or temporal relation. For example, the

meaning of repentance has temporal relation with regret, remorse,

guilty, commitment for not doing again.17

On the other hand Nida explains what does mean as the

supplementary components, there are basically of two types: (1) those

which derive from the nature of the referent and (2) those which from

the nature of the lexical unit employed designate the referent. 18 In the

type one, Nida tries to explain that some concepts are associated as one

set of cultural meaning, another hand, the type two is associated as one

set of lingual that construct lexical or word to the type as formal, un

formal or slang word.

To illustrate what is meant by this we have taken a simple example

used for this purpose by many linguists.

Press), p. 149
17 Wedhawati, Pandangan E.A. Nida: Analisis Komponen Makna. Ulasan
Singkat Karya E.A. Nida : The Componential Analysis of Meaning, An
Intorduction to Semantic Structures (1975), (Yogyakarta, Balai Penelitian
Bahasa), p. 135
18 Eugene A. Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning, An Introduction of
Semantic ( Great Britain: The Univesity press of Cambridge,1975 ), p. 36

15
Table 1

Consider the following set of words: man, woman, boy, girl, bull,

cow. We can arrange them as correlations of binary oppositions man : :

woman = boy : : girl = bull : : cow. The meanings of words man, boy,

bull on the one hand, and woman, girl and cow, on the other, have

something in common. This distinctive feature we call a semantic

component or seme. In this case the semantic distinctive feature is that

of sex — male or female. Another possible correlation is man : : boy =

woman : : girl. The distinctive feature is that of age — adult or non-

adult. If we compare this with a third correlation man : : bull = woman

: : cow, we obtain a third distinctive feature contrasting human and

animal beings. In addition to the notation given on p. 41, the

componential formula may be also shown by brackets. The meaning of

man can be described as (male (adult (human being))), woman as

(female (adult (human being))), girl as (female (non-adult (human

being))), etc.

Here is the example meaning of looking with the component itself:

Word Intensity or Manner Goal or purposed


stressing
Look at + + Common
sense
See + + Common
sense
Observe + + Specific sense
Peep - - Uncomm
on sense
Spy + +/- Specific
sense
Gaze + +/- Specific
sense
Glance - +/- Specific
sense
Look back - - Common
sense
Watch + +/- Specific
sense
Regard + + Common
sense
Quiz + + Specific
sense
Stare + -/+ Specific
sense
Gape + - Uncomm
on sense
Focus + + Specific
sense
Glimpse - -/+ Specific
sense
Behold + + Specific

17
Gawk + + Specific
sense
TABLE 2

The word looking at and seeing is classified in term of common sense as

one activity of daily life that people usual to do it. It differed from the word

watch, there is stressing sound and the intensity of looking is more intensively.

Just like word focus is one activity which has more intensive and the way of eyes

activity classified as specific sense and it has kind manner.

The word stare has a strong stressing, but it differed from gawk, it’s only a

reaction activity of looking, there is no any purpose that will be gotten. On the

other hand the word peeping usually indicates as impolite of looking.

In addition, the word of observe is differed from focus or looking at, the

sign +,+, indicates as the specific sense that need more intensively of looking, it’s

not only activity of looking but also intentionally of some purpose.

The word spy also has different meaning and stressing than the word focus

and observe. The closest similar meaning with the word spy is observe, but the

way how they are acting (looking) are different. Sometimes observe has negative

(-) or positive (+) manner.

Going to the word gaze, it’s difficult to define. Looking steadily and

intently is specific sense but the object of looking can be people or anything. On

the other hand, the word quiz is also similar with gaze. It’s only looking someone
intently through or as if through an eyeglass.

The word glimpse is defined as looking momentary or partial view, or

looking briefly or partially. It can be positive seeing or negative. Glimpse can be

looking sarcastically or kindly.

Gape is the meaning of looking widely; it has strong stressing and

classified as negative manner. Regard is the word that has a meaning as gaze, but

the different way of looking is more intensively. Regard is only gaze at in

specified fashion or a steady looking.

The word glance, it’s the way of looking with the object is written reading.

Its reading quickly cursorily, when we look quickly, it identified as glance. The

last word is looking back, it has similar meaning with stare. But the way of

looking is only the backside.

Another example will be illustrated about vocal sound’s meaning in the

table below:

No Musical pitch Verbal/ non verbal/ Voiced-voiceless

sequence pseudo verbal alternation/voiceless


1. Whisper - Verbal -
2. Babble - Pseudo verbal +
3. Murmur - Verbal +
4. Sing + Verbal +
5. Hum + Non verbal +

19
TABLE 319

B. Sign

1. Definition of Sign

Umberto Eco, write in his book A Theory of Semiotic, said: “A


sign is everything which can be taken as significantly substituting for
something else. This something else does not necessary substituting for
something else. This something else does not necessary have to exist
or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign stand in for
it. Thus semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything
which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a
lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth. It cannot in fact be
used “to tell” at all. I think that the definition of a “theory of lie”
should be taken as a pretty comprehensive program for a general
semiotics.”20

According to a definition by Eco, sign is the theory of lie, but it’s

indirectly correlated as a theory of truth. Because sign cannot show a

reality, it’s also can not show a lie. Another explanation about sign is

mentioned below:

2. Theory of Sign

a. Ferdinand de Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure is well known as the father of modern

linguistics and the founding father of structural linguistic in Europe.

Saussure was born in Geneva in 1857, studied mainly in Germany,

19 Ibid, pp. 60-61


20 Umberto Eco, Teori Semiotika, Signifikasi Komunikasi, Teori Kode, Serta Teori
Produksi Tanda, (Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana, 2009), p. 7.
taught for a number of years in Paris, and then returned to the University

of Geneva in 1981 and dead there in 1913. His importance work, not in

his detail explanation in linguistic, but in his general view of

representation and the way his model of language shaped the semiotic

approach to the problem of representation in a wide variety of cultural

fields.

There are a three element distinction from Saussure according to

his Course in General Linguistic book as the fundamental element of the

structural semiotic approach, between (1) signifier and signified, (2)

langage, parole, and langue, (3) synchronic and diachronic.

1. Saussure defined the linguistic sign as

two side entity. One side of the sign was

what he called the signifier. A signifier is

the thoroughly material aspect of a sign.

If one feels one’s vocal when speaking,

it is clear that are made from vibrations

(which are undoubtedly material in

nature). Saussure describes the verbal

signifier as a sound image.21 Inseparably

from the signifier in any sign,

engendered by the signifier is what

Saussure calls the signified as the mental


21 Paul Cobley and Litza Jansz, Semiotic for Beginner, (London: Penguin Books, 1997),
p.10.

21
concept. The word “chair” in English

made up the signifier /c/, /h/, /a/, /i/

and /g/, what is engendered for the

hearers is not the real chair but a mental

concept of “chariness”.

These two inseparable of the Signified (mental concept) and the

Signifier (material aspect) are described as the following diagram:

(Figure 4. Meaning element from Saussure)

2. The general phenomenon of language (in French, langage) is made

up by two factor, between parole (individual acts of speech) and

langue (a system of difference between sign).22

3. According to Saussure, the linguistic research must concern in

Synchronic aspect before Diachronic aspect. Saussure describes

this vital distinction as: “Synchronic linguistic will be concerned

with the logical and physiological relations that bind together

coexisting terms and form a system in the collective mind of the

speaker. And Diachronic linguistics, on the contrary, will study

relations that bind together successive terms not perceived by the

22 Ibid, p.15.
Interpretant Object
Sign/ground

collective mind but substituted for each other

without forming a system.”23

b. Charles Sander Pierce

Charles Sander Pierce, the founder of the philosophical doctrine

as pragmatism, he defines a sign in the term of semiosis as “...something

which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity...”.

In this term, Pierce determine the subject of the sign as the part that

unseparated from the proses of the signification. The Triadic model of

Pierce (representament + objek + interpretant = sign), show the

important role of the subject in the language transformation. The sign

according to Pierce is which stand in the proces of the unlimited

semiosis, or the proses of the unlimitred semiosis series, which creating

the interpretant in the newest form.24

This is the triange model or the semiosis by Pierce:

23 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistic, (New York City: McGraww-


Hill Paperback, 1966), p. 99.
24 Yasraf Amir Piliang, Hipersemiotika Tafsir Cultural studies atas MatinyaMakna,
(Yogyakarta: Jalasutra, 2003), p. 266.

23
(Figure 5. Meaning element from Pierce)

In the other name, a sign, is a fisrtnes which stand in such a

genuine triadic relation to a secondes, called it object, as to be capable

on determining the thirdnes, called representament.

From this triadic model, Pierce determines the sign clasification.

Ground or a sign itself clasified into Qualisign (quality on sign),

Signsign (actual event on sign), and Legisign ( a role or norm or a habit

on sign).

Based on it object, Pierce clasified a sign into Icon (the

connection between sign and object becouse its similiarities), Index (the

connection between sign and object its causalities and effect), and

Symbol (the connection between sign and object becouse the convention

on the social agreement).

On the interpretant, a sign clasified on Rheme (a sign interpreted

to represent based on the choises), Dicisign (a sign intrepreted to

rerresent based on the fact), and the Argument (a sign interpreted to

represent on the reason on something else).

One of signs form is words hence, the object is something that


referred by sign. In one hand, interpretant is the concept of sign in the

people mind. If the three elements are merged together in people mind or

though, it will be appeared a meaning about what the sign is represented.

C. The Relation Between Speech and Componential Analysis

Speech is a complete and coherence sentence that constructed in

whole word. The optional word is advised in making speech, in order to

emphasize what will be leaded. The power of speech can be changed the

world, so classification of word into the excellent component is the goal of

making speech.

The selection of words in making speech as logical structure in

order to perceive hearers is the only way to get their empathy, because

words constitute lexical forms that are conventionally related or paired to

meaning, and these form-meaning pairings are stored in a mental

dictionary or lexicon.

Good and logical component words of speech can react hearer to

do something. The general interaction with the orator and hearer will be

built, if the structural components of words are selected as well as

possible.

25
D. The Relation Between Speech and Sign Meaning

Speech produces meaning. Meaning has three components: sign,

reference of sign and the signifier. The system of sign will construct the

whole text in the speech until become meaning in defintion of denotative

and connotative.

After exploring the theory, the writer assumes that studying

analyses of text has varieties approaches, each approaches has a weakness.

A sign analysis text only focuses on the sign as system in determining

meaning denotative and connotative. In one hand, the componential

analysis focuses on the constructed meaning as structural component

which is determining meaning in making vocabulary as varieties meaning.

In conclusion, the writers take advantage to merge those two

different approaches in one research as general sense that semantics

analysis in this research is a component theory within a larger semiotic

theory about meaningful, symbolic, behavior. Hence we have not only a

semantics of natural language utterances or acts, but also of nonverbal or

preverbal behavior, such as gestures, pictures and films, logical systems or

computer languages, sign languages of the deaf, and perhaps social

interaction in general.
CHAPTER III

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. Description of Data

27
The writer uses the two different texts of speech as the object of

research. The data are collected from Bush speech as ultimatum and Rove

on Iraq war. As the indicator of conceptual definition, the writer finds

those two texts reflect their power, this paradigm appears when the texts

reflect the context. They use some their own terms in exploring the speech,

to show their identity as existence of power control. The reflection of

context meaning is convinced that meanings of words are not referred to

the object of referent but the social context. Here are some expressions of

two texts will illustrate below:

Object Expression Form Indicator of conceptual definition

Text 1 “the United States - Meaningful expression as social

and other nations interaction in general to legalize

have pursued patient attack

and honorable efforts


- Logical perception of doing a war
to disarm the Iraqi
- Showing their authority of making
regime without war”
decision of war
“before the day of - Stressing expression of speech to

horror can come” force attack

- An intimidation or snapping.
“War crimes will be - A speech act to warm a war

prosecuted, War
- logical meaningful with a lot of
crimes will be
punished” impotencies

- social interaction as agreement of

doing war
“ And it has aided, - Spreading ideology of terror as

trained and harbored operation in Iraq

terrorist, including
- To convince that al-Qaeda is
operatives of al
terrorism
Qaeda”
- To show that terrorist is exist in Iraq

and should be removed


“the duty falls to me, - To show personal statement that he is

as commander-in- the only maker decision

chief, by the oath I


- Logical perception on keeping the
have sworn, by the
conflict zone
oath I will keep”
- to know people that Bush has right to

do war
Text 2 “Karl Rove, the chief - To convince people that war is legal

political adviser to
- Logical perception on making
President George W.
decision of war
Bush and architect of
- To know people that Bush has right
his two successful
to do war
campaigns for the

White House, says in

29
a new memoir that his

former boss probably

would not have

invaded Iraq had he

known there were no

weapons of mass

destruction there.
What many historians - Meaningful expression of war

may focus on is his definition

description of the war


- To know that war is physical force to
in Iraq, its origins
fulfill someone will
and consequences
While the opportunity - To prove that democracy is better

to bring democracy to conception

the Middle East as a


- To spread his conception on meaning
bulwark against as social production

Islamic extremism

“justified the decision

to remove Saddam

Hussein”

B. Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, according to the analysis of component and sign


theory, the writer analyzes the construction of word in the texts which is only

chose a selected lexeme in both of two texts. After selecting lexeme, the writer

analyzes a selected component into the construction words of meaning.

Afterwards, the writer will analyze each lexeme based on sign theory in

determining of texts to denotative meaning (an explicit meaning of sign) and

connotative meaning (a meaning of sign related to the contexts, ideological or

cultural term at that time). As mentioned above, is it true or false that

meanings of words are not only referred the object of referent but also social

context in the object of research (texts of Bush and Rove)?

The indicator of the research is correlated with crack texts appearing in

the object of research. It’s consistently that almost set construction component

of words and signs usage is a distortion meaning to manipulate reality.

Due to analysis of component is finding construction of words to

constitute meaning in whole text, the writer will begin to find some lexemes in

the text of Bush speech and Rove than the second step is finding meaning

denotative in thesaurus.

The writer fells that using thesaurus is needed in doing research

because by looking for meaning of denotative in thesaurus; it will help the

research especially for study component meaning to know the relationship of

constituted word in establishing meaning of words in the text. Finally here is

the finding research of the text:

1. Text of Bush speech: war, regime, destroy, disarmament, terrorist,

31
aggression, sovereign, authority, force, against, dictator, confront, resolve,

disarm, holds power, assessment, torture, execution, liberation, allies,

enemies, human liberty, violence, hatred, freedom, terror, enforce, violent,

inaction.

2. Text of Rove: invaded, war, Islamic extremism, justification, bulwark,

against, force resolution, constrain, violations, suicide, hypocrisy, deceit,

vanity.

After mentioning selected lexemes, the most questions that will appear

are why both of two texts always use a term of war? Now, the writer will

define the meaning in component until will get the exam definition of

denotative meaning, which try to find relationship between texts of Bush and

Rove.

Table Analysis component meaning of WAR

Word Stressing General term Consequence


War + Contraposition -
Invaded + Contraposition -
Force + Compulsion/ -

contraposition
Against + Compulsion/ -

contraposition
Constrain + Compulsion -
Enforce + Compulsion -
Aggression - +/-
Disarm + Contraposition -
Dictator - Compulsion -
Confront +/- Opponent -/+
Destroy + Compulsion -
Suicide + Compulsion -
Torture + Compulsion -
Liberation/ -/+ Compulsion +/-

human liberty
Freedom -/+ Compulsion +/-
Sovereign + Compulsion -
Authority + Compulsion -
Enemy + Opponent -
Allies + Companion +
Islamic + Opponent -

extremism
Terror + Opponent -
Terrorism + Opponent -

The word war has a meaning as duel on an extensive scale. If we

would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war,

we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by

physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavors to

throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance. War

therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our

will. Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to

contend against violence. Self−imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and

hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it

without essentially impairing its power.

Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force

without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the means; the

compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In

order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament

becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities in theory. It takes the

33
place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from

our calculations.

The word invaded that used by Rove is similarity with the term of war,

thesaurus compiled that invaded has a meaning as wage to war.25

The word against, has a meaning as contraposition. The context use of

term against in those texts is USA and Iraq under control of Saddam Husain is

different and disagrees with all the policy of USA. Iraq is opposition of USA,

and has to face to face by doing war. Recognizing the threat to our country,

the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use

of force against Iraq (text 1).

The word constrain, has a meaning restrain or control someone or

largest than it (nations) “The Bush administration itself would probably have

sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal

with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations” (Text 2). We can look at the

underline expression, it can be inferred that USA want to take a place Saddam

as dictator based on their perception.

Finding word of force is needed much time to know the exact

definition. But, the writer will find the suitable meaning based on the context

use of the word. There are definitions of force as quantity of levity, deranged,

compulsion and force in operation (war).

The word dictator has meaning as teach, speak direct, advice,

dominate, compel and tyrant. This lexeme is repeated by bush fourth times to

claim and spread a term that his enemy is really tyrant of the nation. Indeed,
25
who is really dictator?

Meaning of enforce is making legal or compelling something to do.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not

disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half

months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security

Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. This expression

constitute of enforce as doing legalization to defeat Saddam Husain.

In one hand, the meaning of aggression closet to the meaning of

attack, those lexemes mentioned in bush speech. This is the most important

things in the set of component text of Bush speech. His expression of speech

especially for a term aggression is only combined in a sentence which is

usually correlated with the Iraq and other Muslim nation description. “The

regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East” The other

sentence is “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to

build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no

more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories

(text1). We can look at the underline words; Bush uses the term of aggression

only for Iraq and other Muslim community clash. If we think more intensively

and logically, a term of aggression has a meaning as bellicosity (used to battle

or fight, unprovoked).

Ironically, we are accepting this description until become construction

in our concept. So, the writer finds not only the indicator of conceptual

definition for this term as logical system of language and component social

35
interaction but also as meaningful expression about behavior. People who like

fighting, attacking and killing each other are always described as Iraqis people

and others neighbor. The perfect description of Saddam Husain and others as

the writer mentioned in the text of bush speech is placed in the sentence “One

reason the UN was founded after the Second World War was to confront

aggressive dictators”.

The word disarm has a meaning as disable, weaken, make useless,

pacify, impotence and peace. This term is the most repeated word in the text

of bush speech. “The United States and other nations have pursued patient

and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war….. We have

sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq….

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It

has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full

disarmament…. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again

and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men…. Today, no

nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so

long as Saddam Hussein holds power”.

Based on the definition meaning above, the word of disarm correlated

with the action of disabling someone who holds the power. The word is

mostly directed to weaken people control of the nation. On this case, Bush

uses the term to weaken Saddam. As indicated before in the conceptual

definition, he uses it as propaganda for disabling of Saddam’s power and his

government.
The word confront has a meaning as be present, be opposite, compare,

resist and etc. this word mentioned by bush twice, “One reason the UN was

founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators,

actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the

peace… Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people

can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure

will be taken to win it”. The first and second underline sentences indicate that

Saddam is contraposition with USA; he is in opposition place, and should be

removed.

The word destroy has a meaning as an annihilation or nullification. In

Bush speech, this term always use as an effort to annihilate something. But as

long as definition is non-production annihilation, the text is not correlated.

Bush always uses it as production annihilation such as weapons of mass

destruction and oils. Here is the sentence “That regime pledged to reveal and

destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the

Persian Gulf War in 1991”.

The word suicide related to or denoting a military or terrorist operation

carried out by people who do not expect to survive. This word is mentioned by

Bush and Rove once. It’s interesting to find the relation of using term in those

texts; contextually Bush and Rove describe the subjective situation that occurs

in Iraq. The blaming word directed to the Iraqis as the zone of terrorist.

Going to the word torture, it’s the other meaning as violence. It’s

mentioned above that torture and violence is physical force as compulsory

37
submission to the enemy of our will. This term is only mentioned by Bush

once, “In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your

neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no

more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day

of your liberation is near”. Bush uses this term for comparing USA as the

nation of human liberty and Iraq, Muslim community as the description of

torture activities human rights abuse.

The set component of human liberty or liberation and freedom is the

other term that Bush intends to spread in conception of Iraqis people and

other. He compares those term with the torture term as description of Iraqis

people and other. Explaining the terms human liberty or liberation and

freedom should be correlated with the situation context. “The day of your

liberation is near…Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are

deserving and capable of human liberty…The United States, with other

countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will

not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal

of human liberty is felt in every life and every land…. And the greatest power

of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of

men and women to the pursuits of peace”.

However, the underline words really indicate the situation of Iraq and

other as the conflict zone; Bush tries to describe his perception and wants to

accept it totally. Nation of Iraq under Saddam Husain always occurs as nation

who disobeys the human rights. This once again shows the indicator of
conceptual definition that Bush uses some his own terms in exploring the

speech, to show his identity as existence of power control. The reflection of

context meaning is convinced that meanings of words are not referred to the

object of referent but the social context. This expression doesn’t reflect any

description of Iraq and other as the nation. It’s only some perception mind

made by Bush.

The word sovereign and authority have similar meaning as supreme,

strong, remedial, ruling, and successful but it’s more little beat different that

authority has other meaning as superiority and power. We can analyze it by

exploring this phrase “The United States of America has the sovereign

authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to

me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will

keep….the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding

Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a

question of will…American authorities have expelled from the country certain

individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services”. If we look this phrase

carefully and logically by analyzing the set of components theory, we will find

the unsuitable construction component. This expression indicates that Bush

and other nation partner known as superpower is the only nation that can be

hold the world and the rule is only made by them. Why he cannot use the word

responsibility, if he has a right to do something?? The writer finally finds the

indicator in conceptual definition that logical system of language rules the

meaning.

39
The word allies and enemy is always mentioned in the text of bush

speech, those words become an opposition with each other. The meaning of

enemy is the trouble maker, opponent and hateful object. “Should enemies

strike our country….If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have

aided them, will face fearful consequences…Terrorists and terror states do

not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations - and

responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense,

it is suicide”. We can look at the underline words; Bush uses this term for

countering perception as hateful object and trouble maker. Each sets of

component meaning of enemies correlated with hateful object.

The last word is Islamic extremism, terror and terrorist. Those terms

really become an important component construction to built conception of

war. In Bush speech text, he uses the term of terror and terrorist seventh times.

Here is the text:

“And it has aided trained and harbored terrorists; including


operatives of al Qaeda… The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and
kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or
any other… We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to
build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free… Saddam Hussein attempts to
cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he
and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the
American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are,
however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live
under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world
will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed… Saddam
Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict
when they are strongest… Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these
threats with fair notice”

In addition, the term terror and terrorist defined as violence creature,


brute, anarchist, opponent and malcontent. All those term are described as

Saddam and their friend (al-Qaeda) as one connection. The term of brute

identified in the text Bush speech as terrorist who kills thousand or hundreds

of thousands of innocent people. It seems that bush has succeeded to spread

this conception to the world.

In contrast, Violence creature is the attribute of social reality in

definition and description of bush. An establishment of component meaning

that constitutes the text above is anticipated as the consequence what should

be given for the situation to support and legalize a war.

Islamic extremism is used by rove once time. “While the opportunity

to bring democracy to the Middle East as a bulwark against Islamic

extremism “justified the decision to remove Saddam Hussein”. This sentence

mentioned by rove to compare and describe social production of meaning.

It can be inferred that construction of component in the text of Bush

speech and Rove on Iraq war are legalization of doing war. As an indicator of

research in theoretical frame work, logical language system using in the two

texts are accepting ideological of USA as the nation of peaceful.

In conclusion, all component meaning in those texts is supported,

correlated lexemes of war. Logically, in all term of war, the winners who

defeat their enemy have a right to control the looser or enemy. The only thing

of war’s aim is appealing arms. They (USA) have right to maintain and lead

all asset of Iraq. So, why both two texts those have been analyzed usually use

the term of war? The answer is only fulfilling their will with violence.

41
After knowing each construction components, the writer continues this

research by finding connotation (context) meaning based on the theory of sign.

The texts identified as signifier. The sign as a whole is the printed text: Bush

speech and rove on Iraq war. The signifiers are the letters or words as

individual units and signified about many things and it will be explained one

by one:

1. The United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable

efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war (Text 1). The signifiers are

letters or words as individual unit and signified about: Meaningful

expression as social interaction in general to legalize attack, logical

perception of doing a war and showing their authority of making decision of

war.

The first signified concept about meaningful expression as social

interaction in general to legalize attack can be understood by viewing the

concept of persuasive term to convince people to do war. The signifier of the

text is Iraqi regime; Bush uses this expression as the representation of the

object that should be attacked by war.

The second signified about the concept of war, based on the mental

perception as Saussure explains as signified. There is no resolution except

war. The signifier of war is Iraqi regime as the representation of legal war.
The third signified about the concept of the authority of making

decision, the phrase “The United States and other nations have pursued

patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war”

influences to people that USA is the only nation that can make all decisions

of war beyond other nations.

After knowing signified and signifier, the other step to understand sign

meaning is determining and identifying a connotation meaning. Analyzing

meaning in connotation term is needed to know the context use of the term at

the time. The connotation meaning in the text above interpreted as signal of

authority to legalize and attack war.

2. While the opportunity to bring democracy to the Middle East as a bulwark

against Islamic extremism “justified the decision to remove Saddam

Hussein.( text 2) The signifiers are letters or words as individual unit and

signified about: an ideal system government, to give a meaning as social

production.

The first signified about comparing system government which is

identified as ideal system based on Rove conception. The mental conception

of extremism and democracy is comparison thing that will be not merged and

always become opponent thing. Rove and all people thing that Islamic

extremism is the situation reflected Middle East people.

The second signified tells about interpretation of meaning as social

production. Indeed, this text shows that language is not beyond value but a

43
lot of impotence of values. The clash term between democracy and

extremism considers as the hegemony meaning of social group.

According to the Piercian theory, there are three sign categories: Icon,

a sign which is represented the object that has similarity of sound and form

such as photo. Index, a sign that indicates the relationship with object such as

the smoke indicates the fair. Symbol, a sign which is not indicated the object

anymore, but its convention or rule that represented the object. The writer

finds one of the categories of sign indicated the object. In general, Pierce

defines sign as something which stands to somebody entity. In this case, rove

defines somebody entity to the conception of extremism. So, the perfect

entity which is represented the object of extremism is only Saddam Husain.

Interpreting of sign into the connotation meaning is directly needed to

correlate the situation of context. The expression meaning such democracy

and extremism is reflection of the cultural and ideological perception. To

maintain and spread those conceptions is the goal. In this position of text

above, Saddam Husain becomes as an icon to the Islamic extremism.

3. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. (text 2)

The signifiers are letters or words as individual unit and signified about:

describing a middle east as the nations who like fighting each other, using a

term aggression to prove the conflict nations.

In analyzing a sign of this text, the writer decides to analyze

pictorial word written as regime and egression in the Middle East. There are
two main represeantament/ground or pictorial symbols in those words.

These two represeantament/ground refer to interpretant. The

interpretant in the word regime and aggression is a symbol idea that shows

meaningful conception of regime who likes fighting each other nation in the

Middle East.

Each of word elements, give a context meaning that people should

believe this conception as the proof and occurrence in the Middle East. In this

interpretation step, the sign in word elements show ideas about the conflict

nation that should be resolved. On the other side, people who hear this speech

influence to follow and agree with this conception. Meanwhile, both of word

regime and aggression in the Middle East are pairs of ideology impotence.

According to the usage of connotative meaning, the writer argues that

operational text has a meaning as subjective perception (American) based on

the ideological and cultural establishment of social production meaning.

4. The day of your liberation is near…Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the

Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. (text 1) The

signifiers are letters or words as individual unit and signified about:

spreading ideology, conception of human liberty as an absurd propaganda.

Based on the signified above, the writer argues that connotation meaning

considers to the interpretation of signified. As indicator of conceptual

definition social interaction rules the word.

45
After analyzing both two texts by componential and sign theory

approaches, the writer generally find in this research that the usage of texts in

constructing the term its denotation, connotation and the optional use of the

words is showing their logical perception that appears positive effect for their

community, and creates the subjective meaning or negative stereotypes for

their opposite.

Based on the analysis of Bush speech and Rove text on Iraq war and

according to general purpose of study of meaning between componential and

sign theory research aimed to find the optional use of terms or words and

construction denotation and connotation meaning by analyzing each text of

which constituted meaning, generally the writer concludes that both two texts

similarly construct and create their own term to legalize and convince of

doing war. Many terms are not suitable with the textual meaning. The text

occurs a crack term and shows their only perception as reflection of social

context not reflection of the referent object as usual.

First analysis is Bush speech text. In his speech text, it is found that the

set construction of selection words consistently occur a crack text by using

his own term. He describes people in Middle East by using aggression,

terrorist word to give a negative effect (stereotype). His description on

people in Middle East is only perception which reflects his power identity.

In other hand, he uses a term force and war to convince people for

their doing. A second analysis is text of Rove; it similarly occur a crack text
by using a term of extremism to maintain his conception.

In one hand, after analyzing two texts as the object of research by

approaching sign theory, the writer decides to summarize that a sign both

texts form used any structure of sign. Each of the sign has a system and

formed by combination between texts and context. Thus element has it

contribution to gives a meaning of each signifier in text and signified to

denotation and connotation meaning.

In denotation meaning each text signified to produce a meaning about

doing war as a legal action. In this level, an audience influence to convince

that their action is a compulsory doing. This denotation meaning supports an

idea about hegemony meaning of social group as subjective perception to

spread their culture and ideology term which describes a connotation

meaning. Mostly, the writer finds a cultural (ideological) indication in the

texts that the writer interpreted for.

CHAPTER IV

47
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions

Live without meaning is meaningless, people and their

activities are surrounded by many meaning and signs. Signs correlate

with the meaning, so people always find the signs to know the meaning

(true). One of media meaning is speech; it can produce many meaning

and can be analyzed.

By approaching componential analysis, we will know what

the exact sets construction of whole word in the texts. In other hand, by

approaching sign theory, we will get the connotation (cultural,

ideology) meaning of the usage texts.

After explaining the research, finally the writer concludes the

research as the following:

1. It can be inferred that the language use in Bush

speech and Rove on Iraq war is the social

conception group, so when this conception is

used, it will occur a crack text

2. The usage of sign indicates many manipulation

terms, whether in denotation and connotation

meaning
3. The relation between component as unit lexemes

and sign as signified and signifier of meaning is

directly supported and correlated with the idea

of doing legalization war

B. Suggestion

According to the conclusion above, the writer suggests

some points to the reader who wants to analyze the texts of Bush

speech and Rove on Iraq war by finding the relationship of

componential and sign theory:

1. The text of Bush speech and Rove on

Iraq war uses any unfair meaning to

maintain their wills to force a war. The

set components which constituted word

in the texts are logical perception to

distort audience and people conception.

2. The audience, reader and people in

general should be more understand about

the purpose of the two texts above. They

have to be more understand and aware

about the logical meaning and sign

manipulation in the texts.

3. Finally, the writer hopes that this study

49
will be useful for the future semantic

research. Especially for the English letter

department students who want to analyze

the semantic research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anymous, Pengertian-pidato-tujuan-sifat-metode-susunan-dan-persiapan-
pidato-sambutan. Accessed on june 23, 2010.
http//www.organisasi.org/

Cobley, Paul and Jansz, Litza, Semiotic for Beginner, London: Penguin Books,
1997.

Culler, Jonathan, Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin, USA: The

John Hopkins University press, 1981.

Eco, Uberto, Teori Semiotika, Signifikasi Komunikasi, Teori Kode, Serta Teori
Produksi Tanda, Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana, 2009.

Fromklin, Victoria, An Introduction to language, United States: Thomson


Heinle, 2003.

Gorys Keraf, Komposisi, Jakarta: Nusa Indah, 1994.

Kridalaksana, Harimurti, rintisan dalam kajian leksikologi dan leksikografi,


Depok: Fakultas ilmu pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia,
2003

Lehrer, A, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structures, Amsterdam: North


Holland publishing, 1974.
Nida, Eugene, E, Louw, Johannes P and Smith Ronald B, Semantic Domains
and Componential Analysis of Meaning, USA: Indiana University
Press, 1977.

Nida, Eugene A, Componential Analysis of Meaning, an Introduction of


Semantic, Great Britain: The Univesity press of Cambridge, 1975

Piliang, Yasraf Amir Piliang, Hipersemiotika Tafsir Cultural Studies Atas


Matinya Makna, Yogyakarta: Jalasutra, 2003.

Sahara, Siti Keterampilan Berbahasa Indonesia, Jakarta: Fakultas Ilmu


tarbiyah dan Keguruan (FITK) UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2008

Saussure, Ferdinand de, Course in General Linguistic, New York City:


McGraww-Hill Paperback, 1966.

Sobur, Alex, Analisis Teks Media suatu pengantar untuk analisis wacana,
analisis semiotic dan analisis framing, Bandung: Remaja Rosda
karya, 2006.

Wedhawati, Lexical Fields Componential Analysis and Definition of Lexical


Sense” Rintisan dalam Kajian Leksikologi dan leksikografi, Depok:
Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budya Universitas Indonesia, 2003.
Wedhawati, Pandangan E.A. Nida: Analisis Komponen Makna. Ulasan
Singkat Karya E.A. Nida : The Componential Analysis of Meaning,
An Intorduction to Semantic Structures (1975), Yogyakarta, Balai
Penelitian Bahasa. 1990.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus, London: Routledge,
2001.

51
APPENDIX

Full text: Bush's speech


A transcript of George Bush's war ultimatum speech from the Cross Hall in the
White House
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 March 2003 02.22 GMT
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.
For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient
and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged
to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending
the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed
more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have
sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our
good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has
uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over
the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials,
electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the
Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with
peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq
regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's
neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep
hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored
terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons,
obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and
kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any
other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat.
But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy,
we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is
too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring
its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the
oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted
overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to
work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve
the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason
the UN was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive
dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the
peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under
Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are
authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not
a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the
world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8, the Security
Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of
its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and
immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm
so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the
United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce
that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the
Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that
compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the
danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve
and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now
gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security
Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part.

53
They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq,
so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the
decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his
sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military
conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign
nationals - including journalists and inspectors - should leave Iraq immediately.
Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a
message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed
against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our
coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.
We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq
that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression
against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of
dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be
gone. The day of your liberation is near.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi
military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful
entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will
give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being
attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence
services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own
life.
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this
warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil
wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any
command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi
people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it
will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know
that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken
to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them
in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force
and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein
attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In
desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations
against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable.
They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot
live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world
will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are
preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our
homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country
certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures,
I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard
patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working
closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities
across America.
Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention
with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of
theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful
people - yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs
and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will
face fearful consequences.
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year,
or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be
multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his
terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are
strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear
suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable
realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose
threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when
evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement
could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal
declarations - and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is
not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming
Saddam Hussein now.
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest
commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people
are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed,
they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-
governing nation.
The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in
that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time.
The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And
the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the
creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.
That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by
uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our
allies accept that responsibility.

55
Good night, and may God continue to bless America

March 3, 2010, 3:19 pm

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn’t Have Gone to War
By PETER BAKER
Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect
of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that
his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were
no weapons of mass destruction there.
Doug Mills/The New York Times Karl Rove and President Bush in August 2007
after Mr. Rove announced that he was leaving the White House.

Mr. Rove adamantly rejects allegations that the administration deliberately lied
about the presence of weapons in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But he acknowledges
that the failure to find them badly damaged Mr. Bush’s presidency, and he blames
himself for not countering the narrative that “Bush lied,” calling it “one of the
biggest mistakes of the Bush years.”
The new book by Mr. Rove, who served as senior adviser and deputy chief of staff
in the White House, offers the most expansive account yet of the Bush presidency
by one of the people most responsible for it. Addressing some of the most
controversial and consequential moments of Mr. Bush’s eight years in power, Mr.
Rove takes responsibility for the widely criticized Air Force One flyover after
Hurricane Katrina and writes of his secret fear of being indicted in the C.I.A. leak
case.
For the most part, his book, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a
Conservative in the Fight,” is an unapologetic defense of Mr. Bush and his
presidency, and takes aim at Democrats, the news media and others for what he
describes as hypocrisy, deceit and vanity. He also describes his own hardscrabble
upbringing in a family broken by divorce and suicide.
What many historians may focus on is his description of the war in Iraq, its
origins and consequences. While many have accused the administration of
drumming up a case for war on the back of false intelligence about Mr. Hussein’s
weapons of mass destruction, or W.M.D., Mr. Rove maintains that the White
House genuinely believed the reports, and pointed to Democrats who accepted
them as valid as well.
Most intriguing is his rumination on what would have happened had Mr. Bush
known the truth. While the opportunity to bring democracy to the Middle East as a
bulwark against Islamic extremism “justified the decision to remove Saddam
Hussein,” Mr. Rove makes clear that from the start, at least, the suspected
weapons and their perceived threat were the primary justification for war.
“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes.
“Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without
the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought
other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s
horrendous human rights violations.”
He adds: “So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.” But Mr. Rove said
the White House had only a “weak response” to the harmful allegation, which
became “a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency.”
“So who was responsible for the failure to respond?” he writes. “I was. I should
have stepped forward, rung the warning bell and pressed for full-scale response. I
didn’t. Preoccupied with the coming campaign and the pressure of the daily
schedule in the West Wing, I did not see how damaging this assault was.”
• Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
• Privacy Policy
• NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

57