THE REPRESENTATION OF PALESTINIANS IN THE SPEECHES OF THREE US REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE ON PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD.

(1)

THE REPRESENTATION OF PALESTINIANS IN THE SPEECHES OF THREE US REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE UN GENERAL

ASSEMBLY VOTE ON PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD

A Research Paper

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Sarjana Sastra degree

Ariska Yuliana

1104794

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Ariska Yuliana, 2013

The Representation of Palestinians in the

Speeches of Three US Representatives

Regarding the UN General Assembly

Vote on Palestinian Statehood

Oleh Ariska Yuliana

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

© Ariska Yuliana 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Desember 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

THE REPRESENTATION OF PALESTINIANS IN THE SPEECHES OF THREE US REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE UN GENERAL

ASSEMBLY VOTE ON PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD

Written by:

Ariska Yuliana

1104794

Approved by:

Main Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D. Riesky, S.Pd., M.Ed.

NIP.196611271993031002 NIP.198105252005011002

The Head of English Education Department Indonesia University of Education

(4)

ABSTRAK

“The Representation of Palestinians in the Speeches of Three US Representatives Regarding the UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian

Statehood”

Main Supervisor: Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D. Co-Supervisor: Riesky, S.Pd., M.Ed.

Studi ini meneliti representasi Palestina dalam pidato dari tiga perwakilan AS mengenai pemungutan suara tentang elevasi status kenegaraan Palestina di Majelis Umum PBB pada November 2012. Studi ini berfokus pada bagaimana Palestina direpresentasikan serta ideologi yang mendasarinya. Studi ini sebagian besar kualitatif yang didukung oleh beberapa kuantifikasi deskriptif. Data diperoleh dari tiga situs resmi pemerintah AS yang berbeda. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan pendekatan sociosemantic untuk Analisis Wacana Kritis yang dikemukakan oleh van Leeuwen (2008) yang didukung oleh Transitivity Halliday (2004) sebagai alatnya. Studi ini menemukan bahwa Palestina cenderung direpresentasikan secara negatif oleh para perwakilan AS, mereka juga direpresentasikan secara eksplisit. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari kesenjangan yang sangat lebar antara persentase inklusi (93,46%) dibandingkan dengan persentase ekslusi (6,54%) beserta penggunaan negasi yang ditemukan dalam pidato. Ideologi yang mendasari representasi tersebut diantaranya adalah "kolonialisme" dan keberpihakan.

(5)

ABSTRACT

“The Representation of Palestinians in the Speeches of Three US Representatives Regarding the UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian

Statehood”

Main Supervisor: Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D. Co-Supervisor: Riesky, S.Pd., M.Ed.

The present study investigates the representation of Palestinians in the speeches of three US representatives during the UN General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood on November 2012. It focuses on the ways the Palestinians are represented in the speeches and the ideologies underlying the representation. This study is largely qualitative supported by some descriptive quantification. Data were obtained from three different official sites of the US government. Data were analyzed by utilizing sociosemantic approach to Critical Discourse Analysis proposed by van Leeuwen (2008) supported by Halliday’s (2004) Transitivity as the tool. The study finds that Palestinians tend to be represented negatively by the US representatives; they are also represented explicitly. It can be seen from the extremely wide gap between the percentage of inclusion (93,46%) compared to the percentage of exclusion (6,54%) along with the use of negation evidenced in the speeches. The ideologies underlying the representation involve “colonialism” and partiality.

(6)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces background of the study, research questions, aims of the

study, scope of the study, methodology, significance of the study, clarification of

terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1 Background of the Study

As one of the most violent and ideological conflicts in modern history, sited in a very

sensitive and strategic region, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has always been under

the spotlight of media and politicians. The conflict is almost a constant item in the

coverage of news outlets, especially since the outbreak of the increasing violence that

marked the end of the peace process and the beginning of the second Palestinian

uprising in the fall of 2000 (Zaher, 2009). The conflict between the two countries

that has lasted for decades has often drawn the attention of the world. This conflict

has resulted in dozens of peace resolutions. In the making of the peace resolutions,

many parties are involved and the UN has played a major role in the peace process of

the two disputed countries. The conflict has always been a main topic to be listed in

the agenda of UN General Assembly. The latest UN General Assembly in November

2012 was scheduled for a vote on Palestinian elevation status in the UN from

"non-member observer entity" to "non-"non-member observer state". The vote was 138 delegates

in favor of the measure, nine against, including the US and Israel, and 41 abstentions.

The US has been trying to keep the peace process on the track by voting against the

move. Soon after the vote, three US representatives delivered their speeches

(7)

As a member of the UN Security Council, maintaining the world peace has

always been the US main duty, and it has always been a hard thing to accomplish

since mediating peace between the warring parties is not as easy as it seems.

However, their attempts to mediate the disputed countries have turned out to be an

intervention since they have gone too far in the conflict. The US intervention in the

conflict between the two countries has become pros and cons around the world for a

long time considering the fact that the US tends to take side. Since the US partiality

has always been under the spotlight and the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict

has always drawn enormous attention all over the world, the discourse of the

Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been the object of a number of academic studies. It has

also been widely studied in a number of field of study such as: politics, psychology,

media (Almeida, 2005), etc. However, few studies in the field of linguistics have

attempted to investigate the conflict through the language used to represent the actors

taking part in the conflict.

The representation of social actor has been investigated along the history of

critical discourse analysis and types of discourse used as the objects of analysis are

varied. There are several studies of representation with different types of discourse

such as news (Zaher, 2009; Kandil, 2009; Deprez and Raeymaeckers, 2010), reports

(Wenden, 2005; Rashidi and Rasti, 2012), textbooks (Sahragard and Davatgarzadeh,

2010; Karimaghaei and Kasmani, 2013) and speeches (Post, 2009) that had been

discussed. The study conducted by Post (2009) analyzed six campaign speeches of

Barack Obama from the 2008 US election. The study utilizes Van Leeuwen’s Social

Actor Network (2008) a sociosemantic inventory, as a central framework for the

analysis. The study shows that not only do political figures utilize representations of

social actors to shape the perceptions from within the ideological stances of their

(8)

3

Even though there have been many studies on representation conducted by

using speeches as data, unlike the above-mentioned studies which use several

speeches delivered by a speaker, the speeches that are used as the objects in the

present study delivered by three different speakers (representatives of the US)

concerning the same topic that is UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian observer

state status resolution. The speeches were delivered by Barack Obama as the US

president, Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary, and Susan E. Rice as the US

Permanent Representative to the UN. The three US representatives is chosen because

they have important role and different functions in the government, they are also

powerful and influential persons in the nation. By using speeches delivered by three

different representatives of the US, this study seeks to reveal different strategies used

by each of the US representatives in their speeches due to the difference of their

functions in the government and their diverse ways in constructing the representation

of the Palestinian, and also to reveal the ideologies underlying the representation of

Palestinian. In relation to revealing the ideologies, Halliday’s (2004) Transitivity cannot be separated with van Leeuwen’s (2008) sociosemantic approach. Transitivity is utilized to identify the social actor and social action in the text. It is also employed

to get deeper interpretation and broader view of the representation which is useful in

drawing the ideologies.

The present study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge about the

discourse of the representation of the conflict by critically analyzing the

representation of Palestinian in the speeches of three US representatives and to

(9)

1.2 Research Questions

This study is conducted to find answers to the following questions:

1) How are Palestinians represented in the speeches of three US representatives?

2) What are the ideologies underlying the representation?

1.3 Aims of the Study

Based on the research questions stated above, the aims of the study are:

1) To investigate the representation of Palestinians in the speeches of three US

representatives.

2) To reveal the ideologies underlying the representation.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study specifically investigates the representation of Palestinian in the speeches

of three US representatives regarding UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian

Observer State Status Resolution. This study focuses on the relation of

inclusion-exclusion in the text to reveal the representation. The study uses three speeches

delivered in November 2012 by three representatives of the US namely Barack

Obama as the US president, Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary, and Susan E. Rice as

the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations as a corpus. The speeches are

limited to the speeches that are related to the UN General Assembly Vote on

Palestinian Observer State Status Resolution last November 2012, so that they can be

analyzed to reveal the representation of the US regarding the vote on Palestinian

(10)

5

1.5 Methodology

This study employs qualitative method supported by some descriptive quantification

to achieve the aims of the study. It is mainly centered on describing, interpreting, and

analyzing the representation of Palestinian in the speeches of three the US

representatives regarding UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian Observer State Status Resolution. Here, Van Leeuwen’s (2008) framework and Halliday’s (2004) transitivity are used as the tools to seek for representation and ideologies underlying

the representation by splitting up the data into clauses or clause complexes to identify the social actor and social action in the text using Halliday’s (2004) transitivity. Then the representations of social actor are categorized into the categorization proposed by

van Leeuwen (2008) to see how Palestinian is represented in the speeches of three US

representatives so the ideology behind the representation can be drawn.

The data are obtained from three different online news sites, all of which are

the official sites of the US government, White House (www.whitehouse.gov), US

Department of State (www.state.gov), and United State Mission to The United

Nations (www.usus.state.gov).

After collecting the data, the data are analyzed by a model of CDA. The data are then described using Van Leeuwen’s (2008) framework in representing social actor. Supporting this approach, transitivity, an analytical element of Halliday’s Functional Grammar (2004) is utilized. Transitivity is used to specifically uncover

Palestinian representation by identifying social actor and social action in the speeches

and categorizing semantic roles in every clause. Then, the underlying ideologies are

derived by inferring the representation. And the last, conclusions based on the result

(11)

1.6 Significance of the Study

Theoretically, study of critical discourse analysis is useful in revealing a

representation and ideology contained in the speech. Besides, this study is also

expected to enrich the study of critical discourse analysis.

Practically, this study can be helpful for people to uncover what is actually

stored and hidden in a speech delivered by people who have power and take role as

representatives of superpower country. Besides, this study is also useful to broaden

insight and sensitivity of the readers who are interested in examining or analyzing the

discourse of speech critically.

1.7 Clarification of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding, several important key terms are clarified below:

(1) Representation is “ultimately based on practice, on that which people do” (van

Leeuwen, cited in wodak and Meyer, 2009: 26).

(2) Critical Dicourse Analysis (CDA) refers to “a method to unveil the ideology of the discourse.” (Paltridge, 2000).

(3) Discourse refers to “use of language seen as a form of social practice”

(Fairclough, 1995b).

(4) Ideology refers to “positions, attitudes, beliefs, perspectives, etc. of social groups” (Fairclough, 2003: 9).

(5) Text refers to “concrete oral utterances or written documents” (Wodak, 2009:

(12)

7

1.8 Organization of the Paper

This paper is presented in five chapters. Chapter I, Introduction, contains background

of the study, research questions, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of

the study, clarification of the terms, and organization of the paper. Chapter II,

Theoretical Foundation, consists of theoretical review that provides a basis for

conducting the research problems. Chapter III, Research Methodology, discusses the

steps and procedures of the study, and the data resources in conducting the study.

Chapter IV, Finding and Discussions, presents data presentations, explanations to the

analysis of the data, and the result of the analysis. Chapter V, Conclusions and

Suggestions, summarizes the answer to the research questions and presents the

interpretation toward the result of the research in a form of conclusion and suggestion

(13)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides methodology used in this study. It includes formulation

of problem, research design, data collection, and data analysis.

3.1 Formulation of Problem

This study is conducted to find answers to the following questions:

1) How are Palestinians represented in the speeches of three US representatives?

2) What are the ideologies underlying the representation?

3.2 Research Design

This study is largely qualitative supported by some descriptive quantification

to achieve the aims of the study. It is taken because the data of the study are in the

form of words rather than numbers. It is mainly centered on analyzing, describing,

and interpreting the representation of Palestinian in the speeches of three the US

representatives regarding UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian Observer State

Status Resolution. Van Leeuwen’s (2008) notion of sociosemantic approach of social

actor is utilized under framework of CDA to seek for the representation of

(14)

29

3.3 Data Collection

The source of data in this research is in the form of speech transcription

delivered by three representatives of the US concerning the same topic that is UN

General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood. There are three speeches that are

used in this study and two of the speeches were delivered on November 2012 while

the other one was delivered on September 2011. The speeches were delivered by

Barack Obama as the US president, Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary, and Susan E.

Rice as the US Permanent Representative to the UN. The speeches which were

delivered by the US representatives have the same purpose i.e. to explain and

comment on the vote given by the US in the UN General Assembly vote on

Palestinians observer state status resolution in November 2012. However, the

statement was made by the US President, Barack Obama, was delivered in 2011

when the status resolution was still a plan to be listed on the UN General Assembly

agenda. The speech was taken because the speech is so much related to the

Palestinian statehood resolution, even though the voting of the statehood resolution

was still a plan to be listed in the UN General Assembly in the following year. In the

speech, Obama commented on the status resolution planning, he conveyed his

disagreement on it and he stated that the US would stand against the resolution if the

statehood resolution would be listed in the agenda.

The data were obtained from three different online news sites, all of which are

the official sites of the United States government, White House

(www.whitehouse.gov), United States Department of State (www.state.gov), and

United States Mission to The United Nations (www.usus.state.gov). Detailed source

(15)

Table 3.1 Source of Data

described using the approach in representing social actor. Supporting this approach, transitivity, an analytical element of Halliday’s Functional Grammar (2004) is utilized. Transitivity is used to specifically uncover Palestinian representation. Then,

the underlying ideologies are derived by inferring the representation. And the last,

(16)

31

following steps are taken: speech transcriptions are read thoroughly in order to

understand the text comprehensively. Then, the data are split up into clause or clause

complexes to identify the social actor in the text. After that, representations of social

actors are categorized to see the strategies used by the US representatives in

representing Palestinians in their speeches. Then, the ways social actors are

represented in the clauses are analyzed by looking at the construction of the

representation manifested linguistically using linguistic features along with

transitivity analysis. Next, the categorization of social actor is quantified by

presenting the number of occurrence in the text i.e. occurrence of inclusion and

exclusion. And finally, the data are interpreted by using analytical tools explained in

Chapter II in order to draw representation of Palestinians in the speeches based on the

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents the conclusion and suggestion of the present study. The chapter

is further divided into two sections. The first section elaborates the conclusion of this

study, and the second section presents suggestion for further study.

5.1 Conclusions

The present study investigates the representation of Palestinians in the three speeches

of US representatives regarding the UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinians

statehood resolution in 2012. The study aims to uncover the ways Palestinians are

represented including the strategies used by the US representatives in their speeches

and to unpack the ideologies underlying the representations.

The study finds that Palestinians are represented explicitly negative in the

speeches. It can be seen from the extremely wide gap between the percentage of

inclusion compared to the percentage of exclusion along with the use of negation in

the form of phrases containing negative semantic loads evidenced in the speeches.

They are represented as the blamed party over several negative actions addressed to

Israel. Based on the representations, underlying ideologies are successfully drawn,

and the ideologies underlying the representation involve “colonialism”, and partiality.

However, different speakers and context of each speech influence the speakers’ decision in representing the Palestinians, and it is resulted in the different strategies used in representing the Palestinians in their speeches. The study also finds

(18)

73

strategies in representing Palestinians, but the diversity does not influence their ways

in representing their country differently from the two other representatives because in

some important ways they all contribute to a similar construction of representing the

US and they also have the same ideologies underlying their representations on

Palestinians.

Based on the finding above, it can be concluded that representation supported

with transitivity as a tool to identify semantic categories contained in the speeches are

two important things in doing CDA. Representation itself reflects and emphasizes its

interpretations and underlying ideologies in the investigated texts. Thus, CDA can be

used as a tool for social analysis applied in language. It is in line with a statement

from Wodak and Meyer (2009) which explain that CDA is “fundamentally interested

in analyzing opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance,

discrimination, power and control as manifested in language”.

5.2 Suggestions for Further Studies

For further research, there are some suggestions to expand the study of representation

of social actor. First, since the present study uses transcription of political speeches as

the object of the study, the future researchers is encouraged to enlarge their scope of

study in terms of the form of the object of the study by taking not only transcription

of speeches, but also transcription of interviews or press conferences. It aims to seek

the strategies of representation used in the different forms of political discourse.

Second, the present study uses political discourse as the object of the study. Further

researchers can also expand their object of the study by taking other kinds of

discourse, such as: educational, cultural, or social discourse. It is expected to reveal

(19)

Halliday’s (2004) Transitivity analysis as a tool to identify semantic categories in the speeches. Thus, the future researchers are suggested to utilize different framework

other than van Leeuwen’s (2008) sociosemantic framework in conducting the study,

such as: van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach or Reisigl and Wodak’s discourse

(20)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page of Approval….……….………. i

Statement of Authorization ………. ii

Preface ……...……… iii

Acknowledgment ……….………. iv

Abstract………...……….……….. v

Table of Contents……….. vi

List of Tables………. ix

List of Figures….……….……….. x

List of Appendices………….……… xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………. 1

1.1Background of the Study……….. 1

1.2Research Questions……….……….. 3

1.3Aims of the Study ….………... 3

1.4Scope of the Study……… 4

1.5Research Methodology………. 4

1.6Significance of the Study ………...……….. 5

1.7Clarification of Terms………... 6

1.8Organization of Paper ……….……….. 7

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……..………. 8

2.1 Text, Discourse, and Critical Discourse Analysis……… 8

2.2 Political Speech as Discourse………... 10

2.3 Representation: Definitions and Concepts ………..……… 11

(21)

2.3.1.1 Exclusion………..… 12

2.3.1.2 Inclusion………... 13

2.3.2 Halliday’s Transitivity………... 19

2.4 Critical Discourse Analysis and Ideology……… 24

2.4.1 “Colonialism”………... 25

2.4.2 Partiality……… 26

2.5 Related Studies of Critical Discourse Analysis of representation…………... 26

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ………. 28

3.1 Formulation of Problem……… 28

3.2 Research Design……… 28

3.3 Data Collection………. 29

3.4 Data Analysis……… 30

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION ……….. 32

4.1 The Representation of Palestinians in the Speeches of Three US Representatives………. 32

4.1.1 Exclusion………... 34

4.1.1.1 Suppresion………. 35

4.1.1.2 Backgrounding……….. 35

4.1.2 Inclusion……… 36

4.1.2.1 Role Allocation………. 38

4.1.2.1.1 Activation.………. 38

4.1.2.1.2 Passivation……….……… 39

4.1.2.2 Participation, Circumstantialization, and Possessivation …… 40

4.1.2.2.1 Participation ……….. 41

4.1.2.2.2 Circumstantialization……… 42

(22)

4.1.2.3 Personalization and Impersonalization……..……….…. 44

4.1.2.3.1 Personalization……….……… 48

4.1.2.3.2 Impersonalization……….…… 53

4.1.3 Identification of Transitivity……… 54

4.1.3.1 Material Process………... 56

4.1.3.2 Mental Process………. 58

4.1.3.3 Relational Process……… 59

4.1.3.3.1 Relational Attributive Process………. 60

4.1.3.3.2 Relational Identifying Process………. 61

4.1.3.4 Behavioural Process………. 63

4.1.3.5 Verbal Process……….. 64

4.1.3.6 Existential Process……… 65

4.1.4Overall Remarks of the Representation……… 66

4.2 Ideologies Underlying the Representation……… 69

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ……….. 72

5.1 Conclusions……….. 72

5.2 Suggestions……….……….. 73

REFERENCES APPENDICES

(23)

REFERENCES

Almeida, E. P. (2005). Changing Discourse Structures in News Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Fayetteville: Fayetteville State University.

Baird, I. G. (2011). Questioning the Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial in the Context of the Brao of Southern Laos and Northeastern Cambodia. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 48-57.

Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 173-203.

Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism as a Broader Social Determinant of Health. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 2, no. 1. Retrieved from: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol2/iss1/5.

Deprez, A. and Raeymaeckers, K. (2010). Bias in the News? The Representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the Coverage of the First and Second Intifada. The International Communication Gazette, Vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 91–109.

Fairclough, N. L. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

--- (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray: Antipodean Educational Enterprise (AEE).

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practice. London: The Open University.

Horváth, J. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political Discourse. Prešov: University of Prešov.

(24)

Karimaghaei, Z. and Kasmani, M. B. (2013). The Representation of Social Actors in Top Notch 2A And 2B. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-12.

KhosraviNik, M. (2009). The representation of refuges, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British general election (2005). London: Sage Publications.

Lamb, R. and Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 197-235.

Langrova, J. (2010). Ideology in Obama’s Prague Speech in the Mirror of Discourse Analysis. Brno: Masaryk University.

Naz, S. (2012). Political Language of Benazir Bhutto : A Transitivity Analysis of Her

Speech ‘Democratization in Pakistan’. Interdiciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 125-141.

Ozler, N. D. E. and Buyukarslan, B. A. (2011). The Overall Outlook of Favoritism in Organizations: A Literature Review. International Journal of Business and Management Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 275-285.

Paltridge, B. (2006) Discourse Analysis An Introduction. London: Continuum.

Post, M. D. (2009). Representations of Meaning within Textual Personas: An Analysis of 2008 US Presidential Campaign Speeches. Retrieved from

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/appliedlinguistics/RepresentationsofMeaning DissertationMPost.pdf.

Rashidi, N. and Rasti, A. (2012). Doing (in) Justice to Iran's Nuke Activities? A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reports of Four Western Quality Newspapers. American Journal of Linguistics 2012, Vol. 1(1), pp. 1-9.

Sahragard, R. and Davatgarzadeh, G. (2010) The representation of social actors in interchange third edistion series: a critical discourse analysis. The Journal of teaching Language Skills (JTLS), vol. 2, no. 1, pp.67-89.

Stamou, A. G. (2001). The Representation of Non-Protesters in a Student and Teacher Protest: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reporting in a Greek Newspaper. Discourse & Society. London: Sage Publications.

(25)

--- (2012a). Remarks at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy 2012 Saban Forum Opening Gala Dinner. Available at http://m.state.gov/md201343.htm. Retrieved on December 12, 2012.

--- (2012b). Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Following UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian Observer State Status Resolution. Available at http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/201226.htm. Retrieved on December 12, 2012.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. Available at

http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/cda.htm. Retrieved on December 15, 2012.

--- (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 249-283. London: Sage Publications.

--- (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 115-140.

--- (1984). Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: A New Tool for Critical Discorse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

--- (2012c). Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly. Retrieved on December 12, 2012.

Wenden, A. L. (2005). The politics of representation: a critical discourse analysisof an Aljazeera special report. International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 10, no.2, pp. 89-112.