A critical discourse analysis on Valkyrie

ABSTRACT

Language and power cannot be separated as single phenomena. Today, language is regularly used in term of political power. One of the political language is hegemony. Hegemony is a way to persuade people by using a coercion to against other social group, and it also build a social unawareness, taken for granted, naturalization, and give mass belief effect.

In this study, the researcher formulate a focus of study: How do the characters of Valkyrie hegemonize each other.To answer the problem, the researcher analyzes the data based on Gramsci‟s and Fairclough theory.

In conducting this research, the researcher uses descriptive qualitative. In analyzing the data, this study follows five steps: (1) takes the data and reduces them to certain categories of words and sentences,(2) presents the meaning of it, (3) explain and describes the context, (4) shows the process of hegemony based on theory of Normain Fariclough (the discourses are analyzed to discuss their texts, discourse practice, and sociocultural practices),(5) the results of analysis are analyzed more by using Gramsci‟s theory,(6) the researcher displays the result of the analysis and (7) drawing conclusion or generate the theory.

Based on the analysis, the researcher concludes that the hegemonic discourse tends to use the “text”, such as using dictions to show a certain ideology of someone, to know the relationship between the sub and super ordinate group; using metaphor to represent the image of someone; using grammar to know the action, event, mental of someone. In addition by using the“Discourse practice” it is known about the production of utterance (using direct discourse to give support; indirect discourse uses to express a danger word, gossiping a super-ordinate group to say a secret); consume the utterance such as giving a feedback, to give a support, and so on) and distribute the utterance using radio, by phone, and written form of “Valkyrie” operation. Furthermore, in the “sociocultural practice”, I sum up that not all the sub-ordinate groups agree with the super-ordinate groups. However, the sub-ordinate group feels afraid to against the super-ordinate group because they have an authority to punish the sub-ordinate groups.