PHÂN TÍCH SO SÁNH cấu TRÚC DIỄN NGÔN của bản TUYÊN NGÔN độc lập của mỹ và TUYÊN NGÔN độc lập của VIỆT NAM

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE
Much language study has always been devoted to pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary
and, as a result, has examined sentences as the largest unit of communication. However,
we all know that being able to produce correct sentences is not enough to use a language in
communicating suceessfully; we need to grasp a larger unit of communication. Modern
linguistic tendency of research focuses on discourse analysis, which is functional analysis
of discourse involving the analysis of language in use. Discourse analysis, although a
challenge to researchers and learners, has attracted much of their attention.
It can be said that discourse analysis touches so many issues of communicating language
both in spoken and written form. It can be analyzed in the light of critical discourse
analysis where relationship between the power, ideology and language is found, or
analyzed to find out linguistic features. However, this thesis will not present the above
issues but study a very interesting aspect of discourse, that’s say, the structure of the text.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States and that of Vietnam will be chosen
as subject of the study. The reason for this choice is that both share the same genre but are
written by two different people in two different countries. Moreover, the texts are quite
popular with people all over the world.
1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY
The aim of this paper is:
+) to explore discourse structure of both Declarations (the textual organisation of every
Declaration, relationship among factors proposed by Man and Thompson, 1983)
+) to find distinction between the two Declarations (in terms of discourse structure).
In order to realize these aims, the study purports to answer the following the research
questions:
1/ what is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of the Untied States?
2
2/ What is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam?
3/ What are similarities and differences between the Declaration of Independence of the
United States and that of Vietnam?

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
As implied by the title of the study, this analysis only deals with the discourse structure of
two Declarations. Therefore, linguistic and stylistic features were ignored though they are
important in the discourse. I particularly examined how relations among the factors
suggested by Man and Thompson are organized in its network instead.
1.4 METHODS OF THE STUDY
I choose an integrated discipline and analytical approach as it grants permission to my
attainment of the aims. This characteristic is in accord with my general research aim.
Additionally, books and studies on Discourse Structure were collected and studied
thoroughly to make theoretical background of the research. In this stage, special attention
was paid to the discourse structure of every genre, especially persuasive discourse one. On
the basis of this, the researcher took those that were most suitable for the analysis and then
decided on my own method of research.
Lastly, the two discourses were read comprehensively to find out what factors were used in
each part of the Declaration and how these factors were related to each other in structuring
the texts. Besides, some necessary comments on similarities and differences would be
accordingly made. To achieve these goals, these successive methods would be chosen for
the better research results. They are analytical, descriptive and comparative. General
research methodology adopted in the study is inductive in the sense that relevant factors
were respectively found out and then the typical structure model of every Declaration were
drawn upon.
3
1.5 DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The thesis is comprised of 5 chapters. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are Introduction and
Literature Review explaining about the purposes and reasons of the topic choosing; aims;
scope; methods and theoretical background of the study. They are usually necessary parts
of every paper. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 explore the discourse structure of Independent
Declaration of the U.S.A and that of Vietnam respectively. There should be a separate
Chapter – Chapter 5 – for comparison, where findings of similarities and differences
between the two are noted. Chapter 6, as final chapter, functions to summarize major

findings and gives some concluding remarks of the study. The diagrams of typical
structure of Independent Declaration of the U.S.A and that of Vietnam are drawn at the end
of each chapter of analysis for readers to have an overall look on. These two Declarations
are enclosed in the Appendix. It would be good for the readers to read through full original
English and Vietnamese versions of these documents.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discourse and Discourse Structure
2.1.1 Discourse
There have been so far many concepts around the two terms TEXT and DISCOURSE.
While some linguists appear to use the terms interchangeably, for instance, Halliday used
“text” to refer to discourse, or “a semantic unit”, others try to make a clear distinction
between them. Being typical of this tendency is David Nunan. He has clarified the two
terms in a very clear definition as follows:
TEXT is “to refer to any written record of communicative event. The event itself may involve oral
language (for example, a sermon, a casual conversation, a shopping transaction) or written
language (for example, a poem, a newspaper advertisement, a wall poster, a shopping list, a
novel)”
DISCOURSE is “to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in
context”(1993:6)
Accordingly, Brown and Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and the
verbal record of a communicative act. It seems that Blass, R shares the same view as these
linguists when he says that I intend to use DISCOURSE as a general term to refer to all
acts of verbal communication, and to reserve the term TEXT for the “explicit”, or
“recorded part” of discourse. Thus, text is a purely linguistic, formal object, whereas
discourse has both linguistic and non-linguistic properties (Blass, R, 1990: 10).
For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech.
This distinction apparently leads to the distinction between Discourse Analysis (D.A) and
Text Analysis (T.A). According to Nunan (1993:7), D.A involves the study or analysis of
language in use within context whereas T.A is concerned with an analysis of the structural

properties of language divorced from their communicative functions. In Blass (1990:12)’s
5
words, the goal of D.A is tracing the hearer’s route in the interpretation of the speaker’s
intention.
In this thesis, the term TEXT is referred to any written record of communicative event and
regarded as the product of DISCOURSE. Therefore, the study does involve a great deal of
consideration of how the discourse is produced.
2.1.2 Discourse Structure
2.1.2.1 The concept of Discourse Structure
Discourse structure (DS) is more difficult to define. We are taking DS broadly, to cover all
aspects of the internal organizational structure of a discourse. The concept of D.S has been
studied and expanded in the theory of discourse analysis with a variety of terms by
different researchers. Halliday and Hasan (1976:324) uses the term “macro-structure” to
refer to the overall global meanings, or the schematic organization of the discourse or
conversation as a whole, usually also described in terms of topic, gist or upshot.
Rosalind Horowwitz (1977:124) proposes using the term “rhetoric structure”, which is
high-level organization pattern of information order in text. Meanwhile, Ross sees the text
structure in the light of pragmatics. He says that text structure is merely “expectation
structures”. However, though the terms used are different and stem from different schools
of ideas, they are essentially the same. They try to establish the relationship between D.S
and the purpose or implication of the speakers, and finally, they give out the method of
analyzing D.S based on the relationship of the factors of discourse. The relations between
information in the discourse and the intentions of the user help us to infer a hierarchical
structure of discourse. Basically, researchers admitted that texts, in spite of their confusing
look, have their own structure.
2.1.2.2 Approaches to an analysis of discourse structure
My objective in this section is to review ways of analyzing structure of text: Rhetorical
genre analysis and Rhetorical structure theory. The two types of analysis share some of
6
their goals (discovering the structure) and differ in others (whether the analysis should

centre on the intentions and goals of authors and readers…)
2.1.2.2.1 Rhetorical genre analysis
The issue of discourse structure is closely related to the phenomenon commonly known as
genre. Each genre has a slightly different structure. Basically, genre can be narrative,
descriptive, procedural and argumentative discourse, which are the types most frequently
presented in language arts. In this section, I pay special attention to argumentative
discourse because it fits the text in this work.
Argumentation theory or argumentation exists from way before the 19
th
century, where the
Aristotle’s logical theory is found first. This indicates that argumentation was an important
factor already in society. An argument occurs when the author of the argument attempts to
convince certain his/her audience to do or believe something by an appeal to reasons, or
evidence. The propositions which are used in offering evidence in support of that claim are
the argument’s premises. By contrast, the proposition that an author supports by an appeal
to evidence, on a particular occasion, is the argument’s conclusion. Finally, the goal of
argumentation is to justify one’s standpoint or to refute someone else’s. It is concerned
primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on
premises.
2.1.2.2.2 Rhetorical structure theory
Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is a theory of text organization described by Mann and
Thompson (1983) which is about how text works and how coherence in text is achieved. It
is one theory of discourse structure, based on identifying relations between segments of the
text.
RST addresses text organization by means of relations that hold between parts of a text. It
explains coherence by postulating hierarchical, connected structure of texts, in which every
part of a text has a role, a function to play, with respect to other parts in the text. According
to RST, relations can be identified on more than one level.
7
RST establishes two different types of units. Nuclei are considered as the most important

parts of a text whereas satellites contribute to the nuclei and are secondary.
In this work, the discourses are analyzed based on this theory aiming to find out how two
texts are structured in a network of relations. To show relations in a more formal way, it is
suggested that the sentences or the propositions in the text should be numbered and then
use diagrams to show how the nucleus and satellite are connected as spans of the text. An
arc with the relation name connects the underlined spans of the text. The numbers stand for
the sentences and propositions identified in the figures. For example, the U.S discourse is
numbered from s1 to s37 and the Vietnamese one numbered from s1 to s43. Each of these
text span is then connected to other spans until the set contains one final span for the entire
text. Therefore, the analysis covers all the relations among all the clauses in the text in a
way that shows how coherence is established by the author and hopefully, is discovered by
the readers.



Elaboration
Circumstance
Solutionhood
Cause cluster
Condition
Otherwise
Interpretation
Evaluation
Restatement
Summary
Sequence
Contrast
Non-volitional cause
Volitional cause
Non-volitional result

Volitional result
Purpose
Motivation
Evidence
Eaboration
Justify
Concession
Background
RST
relations
Subject
matter
8

Figure 1: Model on relations by Man and Thompson (1983)
2.2 Coherence
It can be said that coherence is the core of discourse analysis. Nguyen Thien Giap (2000:
192) states: “The thing that turns a product of language into a discourse or text is merely
coherence”. Coherence is made not only by cohesive devices but structure of the text, or
the way of organizing of a discourse. Thus, discourse structure is also a basic and vital
means of creating text coherence. The structure of discourse seen to include two aspects
that are closely related to each other is the way of organizing and coherence. Do Huu Chau
gives his comments that the arrangement of nuclei in the text is called its layout and is
constructed into a certain order. And the order of construction is an expression of content
relations in that text.
Additionally, Cook, G (1989) says that, the quality of being meaningful and unified is
known as coherence. It is a quality which is clearly necessary for communication and
therefore for foreign language learning. And it is structural unity that contributes to make
the text more and more coherent.
2.3 Thematisation.

According to Ng. Hoa (2000), thematisation is a discoursal process completing two
functions: i) to connect back and link into the previous discourse, maintaining a coherent
view, and ii) serve as a point of departure for further development of the discourse. What
the speaker puts first, or thematises will have an influence on the way we interpret
discourse. Thus, a title will influence the interpretation of the text which follows it. A more
general, more inclusive term than thematisation is staging. Clements (1979: 287) suggests:
“staging is a dimension of prose structure which identifies the relative prominent given to
Presentation
9
various segments of prose discourse.” The notion of relative prominent has led many
researchers, especially psycholinguistics, to consider staging as a crucial factor in
discourse structure because they believe, the way a piece of discourse is staged, must have
a significant effect both on the process of interpretation and on the process of subsequent
recall. Thus, thematisation is the process of giving prominence to certain elements in a
sentence or utterance by placing theme at the beginning of the sentence or utterance.
CHAPTER 3: AN ANALYSIS ON DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
3.1 Socio-political background leading to the birth of Declaration of Independence of
the United States
The American Revolution began in 1763, when the French military threat to British North
American colonies ended. Adopting the view that the colonies should pay a substantial
portion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire, Britain imposed a series
of taxes followed by other laws that proved extremely unpopular. Because the colonies
lacked elected representation in the governing British Parliament many colonists
considered the laws to be illegitimate and a violation of their rights as Englishmen.
Beginning in 1772, Patriot groups began to create committees of correspondence which
would lead to their own Provincial Congress in each of most of the colonies. In the course
of a few years, the Provincial Congresses or their equivalents effectively replaced the
British ruling apparatus in the former colonies, culminating in the unifying Continental
Congress. In 1776, representatives of the Thirteen Colonies voted unanimously to adopt a

Declaration of Independence, by which they established the United States.
By June 7, 1776, events had progressed to a point that Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from
Virginia, made a motion to dissolve all ties to Great Britain and declare independence.
After the motion passed, the Continental Congress appointed a committee comprised of
five men John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and
Roger Sherman, to draft a Declaration of Independence. That committee subsequently
assigned Thomas Jefferson the task of producing a draft document for its consideration.
Some minor changes were suggested by Franklin and Adams, and these were incorporated
10
in the document. Congress also made a few alterations.³ But the finished work was
substantially what Jefferson had presented to the committee. Congress acted quickly once
the Lee resolution came before it again on July 1. The next day it was approved
unanimously by 12 colonies, though the New York delegation abstained. And then — on
the July 4 date which was to be celebrated by posterity — Congress approved the
Declaration of Independence.
3.2 An analysis of the structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United
States.
In the light of rhetorical analysis, the Declaration of Independence is written in the form of
an argument. It begins with a statement of premises and assumptions, and then lists
evidence to support those premises in the series of claims beginning with "He" (in
reference to King George of England). Having asserted its premises and itemized its
evidence, the Declaration then proceeds to draw its conclusion, introduced by that clearest
of conclusion indicators, "therefore."
However, in the process of studying structure of both Declarations, theory of text structure
(RST) will be applied. First and foremost, in terms of layout, the Declaration can be
structured into the following three parts:
The Beginning part is comprised of the first two paragraphs, of which the first is a
preamble, which explains the reasons for the second that states theoretical justification of
revolution and independence.
The Body part is an enumeration of the abuses suffered at the hands of the British,

organized into two different sub - sections labeled as follows: (1) The Indictment of the
King George III; (2) The colonist’s active attempt and the British brethren’s uninterested
respond.
The Conclusion part is an actual Declaration - the legal part of the document. It is that
paragraph by which each of the thirteen original States assumed its independence.
First of all, let’s look at the title of the Declaration
11
3.2.1 The title of the Declaration
The title is the initial signal in a discourse that introduces the discourse content to readers.
To uncover the macrostructure of the Declaration, first we would look at it “In Congress, 4,
July, 1776. The unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America”. The title
answers such questions as what it is about, who it says about, when and where it happens.
As implied by the title, this is a declarative speech about independence of thirteen colonies
in the North America agreed by the Continental Congress on 4, July, 1776. The location
“In Congress” printed on the first line of the discourse shows the place where it was written
and also refers to the right authoritative agency. What follows is the precise point of time
on which the Declaration was issued. Then, a short and bold-printed subject title of
discourse with smaller letters appears and briefly introduces the topic of the whole
discourse. The subject title is in the form of noun phrase with only nine words. According
to Ng. Hoa’s (2003) statistics, using nominalization for the title takes up 50.4% among
political discourse. This accounts for the preference of the written discourse. Additionally,
employing formal words with no burden of two or more meanings helps make the title
clear, concise, yet informative of the discourse content.
3.2.2 The Beginning part
3.2.2.1 The preamble
The preamble is where the author gives list of reasons for making a document. A preamble
can be defined to be an introductory statement or preliminary explanation as to the purpose
of the document and the principles behind its philosophy. Hence, the preamble functions to
list the writer’s goals. In this Declaration, the preamble unexceptionally stays that function.
The preamble identifies the purpose of the Declaration as simply to declare – to announce

publicly in explicit terms – the “causes’ impelling America to leave the British Empire.
The Preamble consists of a short paragraph but is made up of just a complex sentence, so it
conveys a lot of information. Not only does it give reasons for writing down a declaration
but to provide a justification for dissolving the ties binding the colonies to Britain.
12
To sum up, the Title and Preamble of the Declaration of the United States provide readers
with such information as
+ the topic, objectives and scope of the Declaration, which can be realized right in its title.
Additionally, the date of issuing the discourse is usually pulled together with its Title
+ the purposes, basis (theoretical, practical and legal basis) and reasons for making the
Declaration
From an analysis above, it can be seen that purpose relation holds between the title and the
preamble. The opening paragraph functions to state the purpose of the Declaration, that’s
say, to declare the “causes” which impel American to the separation. This relationship is
illustrated as follows: (T stands for the title and s1 means the sentence 1 – the preamble)
Purpose

T s1
Figure 2: Relationship between the title and the preamble
3.2.2.2. Statements of beliefs
It comes to our attention that this sub – section plays the role of specifying what the
undersigned believed, the philosophy behind the document. Its outstanding philosophy is
legal basis on man’s and government’s right which are acknowledged and highly respected
by mankind. It sets forth a philosophy of government that justifies revolution of America.
In other words, this part functions to justify what is stated in the preamble and is one of the
essential grounds impelling American to separate the British. It is also possible to interpret
that man’s right and government’s motivate American to declare independence. This
would be both justification and motivation relation. Its relationship to the preamble and the
title is shown as follows: This sub – section is numbered s2 to s6

Justification
Reason
13
T s1 – s6 s1 s2 – s6
Figure 3: Relationship between the beginning part and the title
Like the preamble, this section is universal in scope. It capsualizes in five sentences - 202
words. Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes
and follows. The propositions are connected by the cohesive relation “that”. The following
diagram is drawn to show that relation. Pro (1)…Pro (5) is an abbreviation of proposition
from 1 to 5:
sequence elaboration solutionhood condition

pro1 pro2 pro1 – pro2 pro3 pro1 – pro3 pro4 pro1 – pro4 pro5
Figure 4: Relations among the first five propositions
From the above model, it can be seen that the first nucleus in P1 is related to a satellite in
P2 (relation: Elaboration), which in turn, is a nucleus of P3, which has its own satellite in
P4 (relation: Solutionhood). Thus, relations in P2 to P4, which act as its satellite for a
nucleus P5, provide the basis of an intentional relation of Conclusion in P5. Looking at all
five propositions in the light of rhetorical purpose, it comes to our notice that it is a very
persuasive argumentation. The first three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into the
fifth. And it is the fifth, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes
destructive of the people's unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument of
the Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give
philosophical grounding to the fifth. The final proposition-asserting the right of revolution-
is logically derived from the first four propositions. Indeed, this section has a powerful
sense of structural unity that is achieved by chronological progression of thought, in which
the reader is moved from the creation of mankind, to the institution of government, to the
throwing off of government when it fails to protect the people's unalienable rights, to the
creation of new government that will better secure the people's safety and happiness.

3.2.3 The Body part
Reason
14
3.2.3.1 The Indictment of King George III and the British
3.2.3.1.1 Grievances of King George III
The indictment of George III is the longest part of the document that makes up almost
exactly two-thirds of the text. It begins with a transitional sentence immediately following
the previous section with the parallel structure “such ”. The next sentence states that
indictment with the force of a legal accusation:
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government (s7). The history of the present King
of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States (s8)
This sentence plays a nucleus part, that’s say, the history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. Next comes the evidences for
“repeated injuries and usurpations” through 28 sentences from s10 to s37 corresponding
to 28 specific grievances which function as satellite information, and are used as proofs
justifying/documenting the king's indictment. The following model illustrates internal
structure of this section:
s7 – s39
evidence
evidence
s7 – s9 s10 – s21 s22 s23 – s37 s38 – s39
s22 s38
concession
s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2
Figure 5 : Internal structure of the indictment of the King George III

evidence
evidence

purpose
15
As seen from the model, the grievances against George III are not listed in random order
but are arranged topically including four distinct groups. All of these group serve as
satellite evidence for nucleus sentence from s7 to s9
The first group, consisting of s10 to s21, refers to such abuses of the king's executive
power as suspending colonial laws, dissolving colonial legislatures, obstructing the
administration of justice, and maintaining a standing army during peacetime.
The second group includes s22 with nine propositions elaborating what is said in s22. It,
therefore, plays a role of both satellite and nucleus. This group of charge attacks the king
for combining with "others" (Parliament) to subject America to a variety of
unconstitutional measures, including taxing the colonists without consent, cutting off their
trade with the rest of the world, curtailing their right to trial by jury, and altering their
charters
The third set of charges, numbers s23 - s37, assails the king's violence and cruelty in
waging war against his American subjects
The war grievances are followed by the final charge against the king (s38 and s39) that the
colonists' "repeated Petitions" for redress of their grievances have produced only
"repeated injury”. In s38, there are two propositions which are related to each other by
concession, of which, pro2 is used as nucleus sentence for pro1.
Obviously, this section, together with the previous one, continues to provide the reasons
why the thirteen colonies had thrust upon them the high obligation of dissolving “the
political bands”. On the other hand, relation that holds between these two parts is sequence
because they are equally important, where the preceding part mentions moral and legal
basis of the document and followed is to exhibit the facts which are contrary to that
philosophy.
Regarding the form, these paragraphs achieve the maximum effect by developing a single
idea in each paragraph. Throughout this part of the Declaration, the author began each
charge against the king by a new paragraph with each ‘he has’ in sixteen successive
sentences or, in the case of one grievance, "He is.": ‘he has refused his assent’; ‘he has

evidence
16
forbidden his governors’; ‘he has refused to pass laws’; ‘he has called together legislative
bodies’; ‘he has refused for a long time.
In term of using language, whereas the first twenty-two grievances describe the king's acts
with such temperate verbs as "refused," "called together," "dissolved," "endeavored,"
"made," "erected," "kept," and "affected," the war grievances use emotionally charged
verbs such as "plundered," "ravaged," "burnt," and "destroyed". These verbs, accompanied
by the repetition of "He has” draws attention to the accumulation of grievances and
contributes to build up images of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse
the passions and feelings of readers, and to awaken those Americans who had yet to be
directly touched by the ravages of war.
3.2.3.1.2 Grievances of the British through their desperate rebellion despite the
colonists’ peaceful efforts
The Declaration continues to command an international audience and has created an
indelible popular image of George III as a tyrant. In addition to petitioning Parliament and
George III, the colonies had also appealed to the people of Great Britain but in vain
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren (s30). We have warned them from
time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us (s31)
… (s33). They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity (s34). We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, ……. (s35).
The first sentence, beginning "Nor . . . ," shifts attention quickly and cleanly away from
George III to the colonists' "British brethren." The "have we" of the first sentence is neatly
reversed in the "We have" at the start of the second. Sentences two through four,
containing four successive clauses beginning "We Have . . . ," underline the colonists'
active efforts to reach the British people. The repetition of "We have" here also parallels
the repetition of "He has" in the grievances against George III, which make a sharp
contrast between the previous section and and its following one and which, in turn, unify
the structure of the whole discourse.
17

s7 – s35


s7 – s29 s30 – s35
Figure 6: Relationship between sub- section 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3
These paragraphs are all more effective as an indictment of the king because of the sharp
contrast between the colonists’ active effort and the charges the King as well as the British
brethren brought.
3.2.4 The Conclusion
3.2.4.1 The Actual Declaration
The conclusion composes of a - two sentence 157 word – paragraph with two nuclei, or,
two main contents. The first sentence numbered s36 is a complex one conveying the most
significant of the conclusion part. In s36, pro2 to pro5 serve as nuclei which has the same
satellite in pro1 which provides background information for pro2 – pro5. These
propositions are, in turn related to each other in a relation of sequence. A single sentence
numbered s37 is also another nucleus. It is a commitment, a pledge and a vow, expressing
American’s determination. It is noteworthy that s36 and s37 provide so much background
information, for example: Who (We, the Representatives of the united States of America);
what do? (solemnly publish and declare); Where (in General Congress); Reason (by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies). The nucleus clauses can be recognized by
linking word “that” whose content plays a role of elaborating what is confirmed in the
title.
3.2.4.2 Signatures:
The Declaration ended with signature by Congress president John Hancook. Followed is
the name of the thirteen states of America which is bold – printed with signatures of 56
delegates below it.
Contrast
18
Below is diagram on RST structure of the U.S discourse as a whole.

T – s37

T s1 – s6 s7 - s35 s36 – s37
s2 - s6 s7 – s35 s36 – s37

pro1 – pro4 pro5 s7 – s9 s10 - s29 s30 – s35 pro1 pro2 – pro5
s2 – s6 s8 – s29 s30 – s35


pro1 – pro3 pro4 s8 s10 – s21 s22 s23 – s27 s28 – s29 s30 – s34 s35
s2 – s6 s22 s28 s30 – s34

pro1- pro2 pro3 s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2 s30 – s33 s34
Figure 7 : RST structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United States
Justification
evidence
result



c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n




e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e


b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e










e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
c

o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n








r
e
a
s
o
n

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
h
o
o
d
e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

19
CHAPTER 4: AN ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF VIETNAM
Like studying Declaration of America in chapter III, we would also find out the typical
discourse structure of that of Vietnam by looking throughout its organization.
4.1 Socio-political context leading to the birth of the Declaration of Independence of
Vietnam.
When the Japanese surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national
sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. On August, 9, 1945,
Vietnam regained its national sovereignty. On August, 26, 1945, returning from the
revolutionary area of Viet Bac to Ha noi. President Ho Chi Minh drafted the Declaration
of Independence at No 28 Hang Ngang street. On September, 2, 1945, He, on behalf of
members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, read the
Declaration in front of the crowd of Vietnamese people at Ba dinh square.
The Declaration was announced in a special historic context: our people had just won the
victory after a general uprising, established a New Vietnam. However, the colonialists and
imperialists was piloting to violate our country again. They hid behind the Allies to disarm
the Japanese troops: approaching from the North is Chinese Party nationalist troops,
behind it American imperialist; from the South British troops and behind it the French

combat troops. The French colonists declared: Dong Duong is their protecting - land which
was violated by the Japanese; now the Japanese surrendered, so Dong Duong is, of course,
under the French’s authority. In that context, the Declaration was not only read before
fellow citizens but before the World, particularly to imperialists and colonists aiming to
dissolve decisively those words.
4.2 An analysis of the structure of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam
In similar fashion, the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam is also developed into three
parts, or the Beginning part, the Body part and the Conclusion. First of all, we start this
chapter with looking at the title of the discourse of concern.
20
4.2.1 The title of the Declaration
Written in capital and bold – printed letters, the title of the Declaration of Vietnam appears
in the form of noun phrase that indicates the preference in formal writing. Also, it provides
the readers with such information as discourse content, subject of the discourse. The
document formally entitled “Tuyên Ngôn Độc Lập Nước Việt Nam Dân Chủ Cộng Hoà” is
an announcement of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam However,
there is no date and place mentioned. The words of the title are all formal in expressiveness
and more importantly they totally bear literal meanings. Moreover, only with 11 words, the
title reflects adequately the primary purpose of the speech. All of these things facilitates
the interpretaion of discourse and avoids misunderstanding.
4.2.2 The Beginning part.
Introduced only by four paragraphs, two of which is quotation from two well – known
Declarations by two most powerful countries, the United States and France and the
remains the author’s own opinion via the phrase words “suy rộng ra” and “Đó là những lý
lẽ không thể chối cãi được”, the Declaration mentions the main nucleus content, that’s say,
unalienable rights “quyền được sống, quyền tự do và quyền mưu cầu hạnh phúc”. The
nucleus content lying in the first and third paragraph has a satellite in sentence three (s3):
“Suy rộng ra, câu ấy có nghĩa là: tất cả các dân tộc trên thế giới đều sinh ra bình đẳng; dân tộc
nào cũng có quyền sống, quyền sung sướng và quyền tự do” and is, in turn, a key nucleus of the
whole discourse. These quotations are considered to be theoretical justification of

independence. As a result, the relation holding between the title and the introduction is
justification, which will be illustrated below. The beginning part with direct quotations
both shows the objectivity and explains the reason partly why Vietnam declares its
independence.
T – s6
justification
T s1 – s6
Figure 8 : Relationship between the title and the preamble

21
4.2.3 The Body part
4.2.3.1 The Indictment of the French imperialist
The indictment of the French Imperialist is comprised of 12 paragraphs, taking up almost
a half of the text. This section is divided into different categories, including grievances
against the French on political and economic aspects, grievances on the French Imperialist
selling “our country” twice to the Japanese and their desperate rebellion prior to Viet
Minh’s active effort. These sub-sections are satellite information for the nucleus content
which lies right from the first sentence of the indictment.
(N) “Thế mà hơn tám mươi năm nay, bọn thực dân Pháp lợi dụng lá cờ tự do, bình đẳng, bác ái,
đến cướp đất nước ta, áp bức đồng bào ta. Hành động của chúng trái hẳn với nhân đạo và chính
nghĩa”
The indictment of the French Imperialist begins with a transitional word “Thế mà” making
a sharp contrast with the section immediately preceding it. This transitional sentence
provides the key content, namely “Hành động của chúng trái hẳn với nhân đạo và chính nghĩa”
that requires evidences for it. The paragraphs numbered s8 to s29 have a function to justify
the French ‘s violation and oppression. The bill of particulars are categorised into
grievances of politic and economy, of selling “our country” twice to the Japanese.
Grievances on political and economic aspects are opened with the phrase words “Về chính
trị”; “Về kinh tế”
Although the nucleus “Thế mà hơn tám mươi năm nay….nhân đạo và chính nghĩa” has two

satellites “Về chính trị, chúng tuyệt đối không cho nhân dân ta một chút tự do dân chủ
nào” and “Về kinh tế, chúng bóc lột dân ta đến tận xương tuỷ, khiến cho nhân dân ta
nghèo nàn, thiếu thốn, nước ta xơ xác, tiêu điều”, they themselves, in turn, are minor
nuclei. The former has seven satellites whereas the latter has four satellites. All of the
satellites begin with the repitition “chúng” with the temperate and charged verbs “tuyệt đối
không cho”, “thẳng tay chém giết” “tắm các cuộc khởi nghĩa” “bóc lột”, “cướp” etc …
22
The list of grievances is written in the form of short sentences with on average 10 words
per sentence. Each paragraph is a grievance. Employing so much alliteration draws
attention to the accumulation of grievances and help to arouse the feelings and passions of
the readers and listeners. The following diagram is drawn to summarise the internal
structure of this sub-section
s7 – s20 s8 – s15 s16 – s20

s7 s8 – s15 s16 – s20 s8 s9 – s20 s16 s17 – s20
Figure 9 : Internal structure of the French’s grievances on economic and politic aspects
Continued to denunciate the charges the French imperialists brought, thus, grievance of
selling the country by the French has sequence relation to the above one.
With a small number of words, less than 100 words in six sentences, a half of which is
compound sentence, another half single sentence, this sub-section helps clarify and
facilitate the understanding of the grievances. Along with using such strong adverb as “dã
man” and negative structure “chẳng những không”, the author of the Declaration would
like to magnify the wickedness of the French imperialist and additionally, he wants to
make a contrast in manner between the imperialists, exclusively aggressive and the
Vietnamese, essentially submissive.
Differentiating from the above grievances, those of selling “our country” twice to the
Japanese are adhered to the precise point of time and are arranged chronologically “Mùa
thu năm 1940” and then, “Ngày 9 tháng 3 năm nay”. The sub-section conveys the main
content through two nuclei: “bọn thực dân Pháp quỳ gối đầu hàng, mở cửa nước ta rước
Nhật (s21)” and “Bọn thực dân Pháp hoặc bỏ chạy hoặc đầu hàng (s25), which provides

historical circumstance via two satellites: “Mùa thu năm 1940 phát-xít Nhật đến xâm lăng
Đông-dương để mở thêm căn cứ đánh đồng minh, ” and “Ngày 9 tháng 3 năm nay, Nhật
tước khí giới của quân đội Pháp”. The former satellite is, in turn, a nucleus of the sentence

evidence
evidence

evidence

evidence
23
following it, which is connected by a relation of result.
The content of this information is consequences brought from the main event.
(S)“Từ đó dân ta chịu hai tầng xiềng xích: Pháp và Nhật(s22). Từ đó dân ta càng sống cực khổ,
nghèo nàn, kết quả là cuối năm ngoái sang đầu năm nay, từ Quảng Trị đến Bắc Kỳ hơn hai triệu
đồng bào ta bị chết đói (s23)”
The according consequences are that the Vietnamese lived in poverty and misery with
more than two million of the writer’s fellow citizen died from starvation
4.2.3.2 Grievances of the French through their desperate rebellion despite Viet
Minh’s peaceful efforts.
This sub-section continues to indict the merdify of the French imperialist by presenting
their desperate rebellion prior to Viet Minh’s peaceful efforts.
We can recognize two nuclei: “Bọn thực dân Pháp đã không đáp ứng, lại thẳng tay khủng
bố Việt minh hơn nữa (s28)” and “Thậm chí đến khi thua chạy, chúng còn nhẫn tâm giết
nốt số đông tù chính trị ở Yên bái và Cao bằng (s29)”. Both nuclei are related by sequence
relation and have the same satellite in s26 “Trước ngày mồng 9 tháng 3, biết bao lần Việt
minh đã kêu gọi người Pháp liên minh để chống Nhật (s27) (Relation: Concession). The
three sentences, in turn, make a sharp contrast with the two following sentences s30 and
s31 via cohesive device “tuy vậy”. The relation between them is antithesis. While the
three above sentences (from s28 to s29) refer to the French’s rebellion, the two following

ones (from s30 to s31) mention Viet minh’s tolerant attitude, either of which is a nucleus,
the other satellite and are related by elaboration
(N) “Tuy vậy, đối với nước Pháp, đồng bào ta vẫn giữ một thái độ khoan hồng và nhân đạo (s30)”
(S) “Sau cuộc biến động ngày mồng 9 tháng 3, Việt Minh đã giúp cho nhiều người Pháp chạy qua
biên thuỷ, lại cứu cho nhiều người Pháp ra khỏi nhà giam Nhật, và bảo vệ tính mạng và tài sản
của họ”
The diagram can be drawn as follows:
24
s27 - s31
antithesis
s27 – s29 s30 - s31
s27 – s29 s28 – s29 s30 – s31
circumstance concession elaboration
s27 s28 – s29 s28 s29 s30 s31
Figure 10: RST structure of the sub – section 4.2.3.2
The above relations are realised by such discourse markers as “thậm chí” (a relation of
Concession), “tuy vậy”, which indicates the contrast between the two pieces of the sub-
section. With the use of these relations, the writer’s intention is nothing different but
makes an outstanding the Viet Minh’s active effort in protecting their country and exhibits
the French colonist’s coward and horror prior to Viet Minh’s attempt.
4.2.3.3. Vietnam won their national sovereign from the Japanese
The coming paragraphs numbered from s32 to s37 confirm that Vietnam won their national
sovereign from the Japanese via the use of copula structure “là”, for instance, “Sự thật là”
and từ tình thái “chứ không phải”. Both expressive devises are repeated twice in the three
successive sentences:
“Sự thật là từ mùa thu năm 1940, nước ta đã giành thuộc địa của Nhật, chứ không phải
thuộc địa của Pháp nữa” (s32)
“Sự thật là dân ta đã lấy lại nước Việt Nam từ tay Nhật, chứ không phải từ tay Pháp”
(s34)
It can be seen that “commentary” factor is a distinguishing feature in this part. Especially,

s35 seems to be the shortest, functioning as a summary of the process of the country’s
fighting “Pháp chạy. Nhật hàng. Vua Bảo Đại thoái vị”. This sentence serves as a nucleus
25
linked to the two satellites of the two sentences following it by a relation of Result. In other
words, a series of these events has brought independence for the country.
4.2.4 The Conclusion Part – Actual Declaration
The Actual Declaration includes declaration to the French, to the Allied nations and to the
world. Every declaration is made up two paragraphs, of which each declaration is followed
by a pledge, a vow. An distinguishing feature of this Conclusion part is persuasive and
logical arguments with hard and incisive wordings.
At first, discourse marker “Bởi thế cho nên” turns readers and listeners to the conclusion.
Following it contains the very crucial contents in a complex sentence, having three clauses.
“thoát ly hẳn quan hệ thực dân Pháp, xoá bỏ hết những hiệp ước mà Pháp đã ký về nước
Việt nam, xoá bỏ mọi đặc quyền của Pháp trên đất nước Việt nam”.
Only with 34 words, the content conveyed to the audience is so clear and brief, that’s say
“thoát ly” and “xoá bỏ”. These two key verbs indicate the nucleus clause, which has its
own satellite preceding it: “Bởi thế cho nên, chúng tôi, chính phủ lâm thời của nước Việt
Nam mới, đại biểu cho toàn dân Việt Nam, tuyên bố…”
Obviously, this satellite provides background for the nucleus clause with full of
information such as : Who (Chúng tôi, lâm thời chính phủ của nước Việt Nam mới, đại
biểu cho toàn dân Việt Nam – s38; chúng tôi – s40 and chúng tôi, chính phủ nước Việt
Nam Dân chủ Cộng hoà – s41); what do? (tuyên bố - s38; tin rằng – Par s39 and trịnh
trọng tuyên bố - s42). Repeated at least twice in this part only, the words and phrase words
“chúng tôi, chính phủ nước Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hoà” seems to be meant to declare
firmly and decisively creation of a new nation, a decromatic and republic Vietnam.
The Conclusion is processed bottom-up. The first two paragraphs is a declaration to the
French. The coming paragraph aims to court Allied nations’approval: “Chúng tôi tin rằng
các nước đồng minh… quyết không thể không công nhận quyền độc lập của dân Việt nam”
serving as satellite as well. In particular, the use of repeated words “một dân tộc…, một
dân tộc. Dân tộc đó…., dân tộc đó” makes the argument more and more convincing, which