a critical discourse analysis on english political cartoons = phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán về tranh biếm họa chính trị tiếng anh

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
***



NGUYỄN THU PHƯƠNG





A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON ENGLISH
POLITICAL CARTOONS
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ TRANH
BIẾM HỌA CHÍNH TRỊ TIẾNG ANH)



Minor thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15









HANOI - 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
***



NGUYỄN THU PHƯƠNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON ENGLISH
POLITICAL CARTOONS
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ TRANH
BIẾM HỌA CHÍNH TRỊ TIẾNG ANH)


Minor thesis




Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Prof. Nguyễn Hòa










HANOI - 2010


iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION

NR : Native Reader(s)
NNR : Non-native Reader(s)
CDA : Critical Discourse Analysis

47
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II
ABSTRACT III
LIST OF ABBREVIATION IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A. INTRODUCTION 1
1. RATIONALE 1
2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 3
3. AIMS OF THE STUDY 3
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
5. METHODS OF THE STUDY 3
6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 4
PART B. DEVELOPMENT 6
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
1.1. Theories on Critical Discourse Analysis 6
1.1.1. What is Critical Discourse Analysis? 6
1.1.2. CDA’s characteristics 8
1.1.3. Principles and Aims of CDA 9
1.1.4. Power and Dominance 11
1.2. Background knowledge about Cartoons 13
1.2.1. What are Cartoons and Political Cartoons? 13
1.2.2. General characteristics of Political Cartoons 14
1.2.3. Purpose of Political Cartoons 15

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 16
2.1. Data Collection Methods 16

2
2.2. Data Analysis Procedures 17
CHAPTER 3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSION OF THE RESULTS 20
3.1. Data Analysis 20
3.2. Discussion 40
PART C. CONCLUSION 44
1. CONCLUSION ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2. LIMITATIONS 46
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 46
REFERENCES
APPENDIX


1
PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

There is one question that has particularly fascinated people for thousands of years, whether
our languages can reflect or reinforce our ways of looking at the world and if so, how? It is
usually taken for granted that there exits the purely objective language and differs from our
experience and attitude. However, it is well-known now that language use is an inherently
social phenomenon. How we speak depends on such factors as where we grew up, our racial
and ethnic identity, whether we are women or men, and our education.

And we now also understand that successful reading of journalistic discourse as well as
graphics remains at a much higher level than just how language is used. For second language

readers, this process is complicated by the fact that these readers often rely on sociocultural
conventions of their native language, which is source of misunderstanding between
Vietnamese readers and others of a language. Thus, the readers must not only acquire the
correct forms and sounds of the target language, but also the knowledge of how language is
used in the culture, especially for reading pictures, images or cartoons which is understood
mainly on graphics and social context and language.

Though critical thinking and text analysis are as old as language itself, critical discourse
analysis (CDA) is a relatively new addition to the varieties of text analysis available. CDA is a
perspective on critical scholarship: a theory and a method of analyzing that individuals and
institutions use language. Critical discourse analysts focus “on social problems and especially
the role o discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination” (van
Dijk, 1999). CDA starts by identifying social problem, choose the perspective of those who
suffer most and critically analyses those in power, those who are responsible and those who
have the means and the opportunity to solve such problem. In response to social inequality and
the abuse of power, CDA demands “politically involved research with an emancipatory

2
requirement” (Titscher et al., 2000:147). Such an approach inevitably means that CDA takes
an overt moral and political position with regard to the social problem analyzed. CDA can
provide an insightful look into an authentic text, so that readers engage with the content
critically at the same time as they attempt to understand other more superficial aspects of the
text. For instances, readers may confront texts of a possibly xenophobic nature to explore the
discourse mechanisms of racism. In short, with the aim of dealing with social problems by
means of language, Critical Discourse Analysis, defined as discourse analysis “with an
attitude” (van Dijk) has been in existence for several decades and has helped uncover the
ideological assumptions that are hidden within texts. It is a useful tool in language use analysis
contributing positively to the process of struggling for power equality.

Having gone through a long history to be an important industry as well as a social and

psychological reflection, cartoons appear to be a very potential and appealing source of
material because in cartoons people have a freedom to employ pragmatic strategies that allow
them play to with words and drawings to achieve various communicative effects. Most
dictionary definitions tend to use the word “humorous” when describing cartoons, but this
does not always have to be the case. Certain cartoons, especially for political cartoons are not
humorous at all, but are making serious messages about certain issues that the artist finds
important. Obviously, cartoons can supply people with a very rich of information about the
native countries, people‟s lifestyles and culture differences.

Having these in mind, I choose to carry out a case study on English political cartoons in the
light of Critical Discourse Analysis in an attempt to find out hidden political opinions in
cartoons. This paper also hopefully examines to what extent Vietnamese readers of English are
able to interpret English cartoons and the way in which they differ from native readers of
English in their interpretation of the cartoons. Then, it draws some causes of misunderstanding
and gives some suggestions for better communication.



3
2. Scope of the Study

The study of CDA on English Political Cartoons is confined to linguistic devices and
symbolism of the cartoons under study and their conversational implicatures in relation to
everyday life or political context although the author is well aware that the global context at
the time cartoons were published and the gender of cartoons writer are certain important.

3. Aims of the Study

The objectives of the study on English Political Cartoons from CDA standpoint include:
- To provide a theoretical background of CDA- its concepts, its analysis procedures as

well as its role in linguistics
- To find out hidden political opinions in the English Political Cartoons.
- To investigate the extent to which Vietnamese readers of English understand the
messages embedded in English Political cartoons.

4. Research Questions

In order to realize these above aims, the case study is supposed to answer the following
research questions:
- How are political opinions embedded in English Political Cartoons?
- Do Vietnamese readers of English understand what is intended to be conveyed via the
cartoons?
- What are the causes of misunderstanding?

5. Methods of the Study

According to Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (2001), CDA does not constitute a well-defined
empirical method but rather a cluster of approaches. Fairclough (2001) also stated that the
choice of appropriate methods (data selection, collection and analysis) depends on the object
of research. CDA entails some form of detailed textual analysis. It specially includes a

4
combination of interdiscursive analysis of texts (i.e. of how different genres, discourses and
styles are articulated together) and linguistic and other forms of semiotic analysis. In other
words, CDA is just an approach which is highly eclectic; therefore in this study a bundle of
different techniques is employed to achieve the goal set from the beginning.

The main methods of the case study are the quantitative and qualitative ones, as well as
explanatory and contrastive analysis. All the considerations, remarks, comments and
assumptions are largely based on data analysis.

6. Organization of the Study

The study includes three parts as follows:
Part A: Introduction, presents the rationale, the aims, the scope and the methods of the study
as well as the organization of the study.
Part B: Development, the main part of the thesis and consists of three chapters:
- Chapter 1: Literature review
This chapter discusses the theoretical background related to Critical Discourse Analysis.
Of course, it focuses on definition of CDA, its characteristics, principles and aims of CDA.
Later part deals with the concepts of discourse and power. Then, coming to the
background knowledge about cartoons, in general and political cartoons, in particular.
Some general characteristics and purpose of political cartoons are mentioned in the last
part of this chapter.
- Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter first restates the three research questions then gives the detailed description of
the study, which includes data collection instrument, subjects and data collection
procedure.
- Chapter 3: Presentation and Discussion of the results
This is the main part of the thesis with the data analysis which presents the results and in-
depth discussions, and then an overall picture is given by synthesizing all the major
findings and discussing them.

5
Part C: Conclusion, summarizes the major findings and also deals with the limitation of the
study as well as suggests the further study.

Apart from the three main parts, the two survey questionnaires (one for native readers and one
for non-native readers) are also included as appendix.

6
PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1.Theories on Critical Discourse Analysis
1.1.1. What is Critical Discourse Analysis?

In the 1970s, while linguistic research was still focused on formal aspects of language,
sentences and components of sentences were still regarded as the basic units, there emerged a
form of discourse and text analysis that recognized the role of language in structuring power
relations in society. This new approach to linguistic research drew the attention of many
researchers, among them the most prominent are Kress, van Dijk, Fairclough, Wodak and so
on. In fact, Wokad (2001) provides a summary of different studies conducted by these
researchers. Their work serves to explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and
procedures of what had then become known as Critical Linguistics or CDA. In recent years,
there has been much written about CDA in its broadest sense. It appears to be quite difficult to
define in simple terms and this is probably due to the nature of CDA.

What makes CDA different from other forms of discourse analysis is “the critical point of
view”. “Critical” means not taking things for granted, opening up complexity, challenging
reductionism, dogmatism and dichotomies, being self-reflective in research, and through these
processes, making opaque structures of power relations and ideologies manifest. “Critical”,
thus, does not imply the common sense meaning of “being negative” rather “skeptical”.
Proposing alternatives is also part of being “critical”. (Ruth Wodak in a conversation with
Gavin Kendall, 2007).

The concept of CDA has been discussed for long. CDA encompasses a number of general
tenets and uses a large range of techniques. In simple words, Van Dijk (1988) defines CDA as
“CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the

7
discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are
initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed within specific social, economic, political
and historical contexts”.

Fairclough (1997) also provided us with an useful definition that encapsulated most other
definition of CDA: “CDA is the study of often opaque relationship of causality and
determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and
cultural structures, relations and processes, to investigate how such practices, events and texts
arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power, and
to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a
factor securing power”.

In general, the answer to such (critical) questions as “What is critical discourse analysis?”,
“How is it different from other types of discourse analysis?”, “What are its aims, special
methods?” and especially “What is its theoretical foundation?” require a study of the relations
between discourses, power, dominance, social inequality and the position of the discourse
analyst in such social relationships.

Although there are many directions in the study and critique of social inequality, the way we
approach these questions and dimensions is by focusing on the role of discourse in the
reproduction and challenge of dominance. Dominance is defined here as the exercise of social
power by elites, institutions or groups, that results in social inequality, including political,
cultural, class, ethnic, racial and gender inequality. This reproduction process may involve
such different modes of discourse-power relations as the more or less direct or overt support,
enactment, representation, legitimation, denial, mitigation or concealment of dominance,
among others. More specially, critical discourse analysts want to know what structures,
strategies or other properties of text, talk, verbal interaction or communicative events play a
role in these modes of reproduction. Then, according to Van Dijk (1993), critical discourse

analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power

8
abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the
social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take
explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.”
1.1.2. CDA’s characteristics

According to Meyer, M. (2001), an approach normally obtains and maintains its identities by
distinguishing itself from other approaches. Likewise, distinguishing CDA from other
sociolinguistic approaches provides us with some distinct characteristics of CDA as follows:

Firstly, the nature of the problems with which CDA is concerned is different in principle from
all those methods which do not determine their methods in advance. In respect of the object of
investigation, CDA follows a different and a critical approach to problems. This is because it
endeavors to make explicit power relationships that are frequently hidden, and thereby to
derive results that are of practical relevance. In general, CDA asks different research
questions. CDA scholars play an advocatory role for groups who suffer from social
discrimination.

Secondly, in comparison with other sociolinguistic approaches, CDA is open to the broadest
range of factors that exert an influence on texts. These comprises of such extra linguistic
factors as cultural, society and ideology. This characteristic originates from the assumption
that all discourses are historical and can therefore only be understood with reference to their
context. The notion of context is crucial for CDA in all cases since this explicitly includes
social-psychological, political and ideological components and thereby postulates an
interdisciplinary procedure.

Thirdly, from the notion of context, a further different emerges concerning the assumption
about the relationship between language and society. CDA does not take this relationship to be

simply deterministic but evokes an idea of mediation. There is a difference between the
various approaches to discourse. Norman Faiclough defines the relationship in accordance

9
with Halliday‟s multifunctional linguistic theory and the concept of orders of discourse while
van Dijk introduces a sociocognitive level. This kind of mediation between language and
society is absent from many other linguistic approaches, such as, for example, conversation
analysis.

A further distinguish feature of CDA is the specific incorporation of linguistic categories into
its analysis. CDA in no way includes a very broad range of linguistic categories. It can be
assumed that a small range of linguistic devices is central for CDA studies. In principle,
categories like dexis and pronouns can be analyzed in any linguistic method but they are
crucial for CDA. Explicitly or implicitly, CDA makes use of a concept of the so-called
linguistic surface.

Another characteristic of CDA is its interdisciplinary claim and its description of the object of
investigation from widely differing perspective as well as its continuous feedback between
analysis and data collection. Compared with other linguistic methods of text analysis, CDA
seems to be closets to sociological and socio-psychological perspectives, although these
interfaces are not well defined everywhere.

To sum up, with a critical approach to problems under investigation and a multidisciplinary
approach to study, CDA takes into account different extra linguistic factors such as culture,
society and ideology. There is also kind of mediation in the relationship between language and
society in CDA‟s view. These features make CDA distinctive from other types of discourse
analysis.
1.1.3. Principles and Aims of CDA

Titscher et al. (2000), using the work of Wodak (1996), summarize the general principles of

CDA as follows:
- CDA is concerned with social problems. It is concerned with language or language
use, but with the linguistic character of social and cultural processes and structures.

10
- Power-relations have to do with discourse, and CDA studies both power in discourse
and power over discourse.
- Society and culture are dialectically related to discourse: society and culture are shaped
by discourse, and at the same time constitute discourse. Every single instances of
language use reproduces or transforms society and culture, including power relations.
- Language use may be ideological. To determine this it is necessary to analyze texts to
investigate their interpretation, reception and social effects.
- Discourses are historical and can only be understood in relation to their context. At a
metatheoretical level this corresponds to the approach of Wittgenstein, according to
which the meaning of an utterance rests in its usage in a specific situation.
- Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory. Critical analysis implies a
systematic methodology and a relationship between the text and its social conditions,
ideologies and power-relations. (Wodak, 1996:17-20, cited in Titscher et al.,
2000:146).
Among them, CDA is the most interested and motivated by pressing social issues, which it
hopes to better understand through discourse analysis. Since serious social problems are
naturally complex, this usually also means a multidisciplinary approach, in which distinctions
between theory, description and application become less relevant. This focus on fundamental
understanding of social problems such as dominance and inequality does not mean ignoring
theoretical issues. On the contrary, without complex and highly sophisticated theories no such
understanding is possible. Central to this theoretical endeavour is the analysis of the complex
relationships between dominance and discourse.

Critical discourse analysis is far from easy. It is by far the toughest challenge in the discipline.
As suggested above, it requires multidisciplinary, and an account of intricate relationships

between text, talk, social cognition, power, society and culture. Its adequacy criteria are not
merely observational, descriptive or even explanatory. Ultimately, its success is measured by
its effectiveness and relevance, that is, but its contribution to change.


11
In short, in seeking to accomplish these goals, CDA investigates, and aims at illustrating, “a
relationship between the text and its social conditions, ideologies and power-relations”.
1.1.4. Power and Dominance

Tischer et al. (2000:151) suggest that when tackling CDA, “questions of power are of central
interest” since “power and ideologies may have an effect on each of the contextual levels” of
production, consumption and understanding of discourse. CDA engages with, analyses and
critiques social power and how this is represented and, both explicitly and implicitly,
reproduced in the news. But what is social power?

Power is another incredibly slippery concept and the subject of seemingly endless academic
discussion about what it exactly is and what is exactly means. Indeed, along with discourse
and ideology, power is an essentially contestable concept- a concept whose meaning and
application is inherently a matter of dispute (Gallie, 1955). Social power is based on privileged
access to socially values resources, such as wealth, income, position, status, force, group
membership, education or knowledge. Power involves control, namely by (members of) one
group over (those of) other groups. Such control may pertain to action and cognition: that is, a
powerful group many limit the freedom of actions of others, but also influence their minds
(Van Dijk, 1997).

Besides the elementary resource to force to directly control action (as in police violence
against demonstrators, or male violence against women), modern and often more effective
power is mostly cognitive, and enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among
other strategic ways to change the mind of others in one‟s own interests. It is at this crucial

point where discourse and critical discourse analysis come in: managing the mind of others is
essentially a function of text and talk through such mind management is not always bluntly
manipulative. On the contrary dominance may be enacted and reproduced by subtle, routine,
everyday forms of text and talk that appear natural and quite acceptable. Hence, CDA also

12
needs to focus on the discursive strategies that legitimate control, or otherwise naturalize the
social order, and especially relations of inequality (Fairclough, 1985).

Despite such complexities and subtleties of power relations, critical discourse analysis is
specially interested in power abuse, that is, in breaches of laws, rules and principles of
democracy, equality and justice by those who wield power. For CDA, language is not
powerful on its own-it gains power by the use powerful people make of it. Power does not
derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert is, a alter
distributions of power in the short and the long term. This explains why CDA often chooses
the perspective of those who suffer and critically analyses the language use of those in power;
those who are responsible for the existence of inequalities and who have the means and the
opportunity to improve conditions. In agreement with its Critical Theory predecessors, CDA
emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary work in order to gain a proper understanding of how
language function in constituting and transmitting knowledge, in organizing social institutions
or in exercising power.

To distinguish such power from legitimate and acceptable forms of power, and lacking another
adequate term, the term “dominance” is used. Dominance may be more or less consciously or
explicitly exercised or experienced. Many more or less forms of dominance seem to be so
persistent that they seem natural until they begin to be challenged, as was/is the case of the
dominated can be influenced in such a way that they accept dominance, and act in the interest
of the powerful out of their own free will. We use the term hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; Hall et
al., 1977). One major function of dominant discourse is precisely to manufacture such
consensus, acceptance and legitimacy of dominance (Herman and Chomsky, 1988).

The concept of hegemony, and its associated concepts of consensus, acceptance and the
management of the mind, also suggests that a critical analysis of discourse and dominance is
far from straightforward, and does not always imply a clear picture of villains and victims.
Indeed, we have already suggested that many forms of dominance appear to be jointly

13
produced through intricate forms of social interaction, communication and discourse. It is
hoped that critical discourse analysis will be able to contribute to our understanding of such
intricacies.

1.2. Background knowledge about Cartoons
1.2.1. What are Cartoons and Political Cartoons?

The word cartoon has various meanings, based on several very different forms of visual art
and illustration. The term has evolved over time.
The original meaning was in fine art and there cartoon meant a preparatory drawing for a piece
of art such as a painting or tapestry.
The somewhat more modern meaning was that of humorous illustrations in magazines and
newspapers. Even more recently there are now several contemporary meanings, including
creative visual work for print media, for electronic media, and even animated films and
animated digital media.
When the word cartoon is applied to print media, it most often refers to a humorous single-
panel drawing or gag cartoon, most of which have captions and do not use speech balloons.
The word cartoon is not often used to refer to a comic strip.
Cartoons were not part of the daily news until the late nineteenth century, when technological
advances made reproduction faster, cheaper and easier. According to one account, the cartoon
that appeared on the front page of the New York World on October 30, 1884, by Walt
McDougall carried the trend forward. The cartoon ran across the full width of the paper‟s front
page, equal in space to the articles, but stronger in impact. Editorial cartoons, also referred to

as political cartoons, serve as a visual commentary on current events. Usually satirical rather
than merely humorous in nature, they may communicate the political viewpoint of the
cartoonist or add depth to an editorial opinion article in a newspaper or magazine.

14
1.2.2. General characteristics of Political Cartoons
Political cartoons thrive on hyperbole and exaggeration, and, to a lesser degree, humor.
Symbolism is also heavily used. For example, instead of drawing the entire Republican Party,
American political cartoonists use a work-around such as drawing an elephant, which takes up
far less space than thousands upon thousands of white conservatives and their Latino lackeys.
Symbolism also allows political cartoons to reach a broader audience: while people with
college educations might nearly giggle when a cartoon Jack Abram off gives a sack of money
to an elephant, illiterate high-school dropouts might nearly chuckle at the thought of giving an
elephant a sack of money.
Political cartoons are also animated through visual analogies that imply a likeness between the
event portrayed in the image and the issue on which the cartoonist is making comment.
Although many kinds of analogies can be used, meanings arise as the reader is able to
recognize and interpret them. This becomes difficult, though, when a cartoon's analogy is
drawn from contemporary or historical events, plays on literary allusions, or uses past cultural
knowledge not readily available to a reader. Cartoons are meaningful to those who understand
something about the larger discourse within which they are constructed and read. This
discourse includes a visual language of signs, conventions and rhetorical devices used to
convey and interpret meanings. Most rhetorical devices can be grouped under the broad
categories of caricature and visual analogy.
Cultural memory plays an important role in political cartoons. Cultural memory refers to the
store of background knowledge that one calls upon when interpreting the everyday
commonsense world. Political cartoons are part of that mundane world as long as readers
share four areas of understanding. Most obvious is the contextual knowledge of what the
cartoonist is commenting upon, whether an immediate social problem or a specific news item.
Second, there is knowledge of how the cartoon works, including its visual language of signs

(images, symbols, captions, and quotes), conventions (expectations about what a sign is meant
to signify), and rhetorical devices (caricature and analogies) used to convey satire, irony, and

15
ridicule. Third, allusions to historical events and personages, or to past cultural texts (e.g.,
poems, novels, famous quotations, art), are only successful as the reader is able to access the
allusionary base from which the analogies are drawn. And lastly, there is some understanding
of the broader discourse itself that distinguishes political cartoons from the comics, political or
commercial ads, and photojournalism. Lack of any aspect of this assumed shared memory
might render an image opaque. The fact that most readers experience difficulties with cartoons
raises questions about the status of this shared memory.
1.2.3. Purpose of Political Cartoons
Political cartoons are an easy and funny way to criticize current events without having to
resort to tedious activities such as research, reading, or comprehending said current events.
Political cartoons make criticism of difficult issues as easy as doodling on a napkin - why,
even words are optional! One might say political cartooning makes political commentary
available to the illiterate.
Political cartoons are widely used to express opinions about public issues and officials. They
may be found in the pages of every major newspaper in the world and appeal to all levels of
readers. Cartoonists possess a special art skill which often incorporates caricatures,
symbolism, satire and a well-rounded understanding of the issues about which they are
drawing cartoons. Often the full meaning of the cartoon is rather subtle and may be missed
entirely by casual reader.
In short, what has been done in this chapter is a review of CDA by different linguists. There
have been different ways of doing CDA; each individual method puts emphasis on dissimilar
levels of analysis. Therefore, the critical discourse analyst should decide on their own focus of
analysis in doing their own research. The author also would like to stress that this thesis uses
discourse approach to obtain the final aim of uncovering English political cartoons under
study and, at the same time, revealing the discursive power of language and graphic which
realize the social, political opinions of the cartoonist about certain issues.

16
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

The second chapter describes the design of the investigation in details including information
about data collection methods and data analysis procedures.

2.1.Data Collection Methods

My investigation involves 9 English cartoons that subjects are asked to interpret. The survey
questions are designed in the form of open-ended questions. This kind of question aims at
testing the informants‟ ability to interpret cartoons individually (without influenced by the
suggestions). In order to answer the items, subjects are asked to specify the language, graphic
cues or even background knowledge about political events which can help them derive the
specific messages in the cartoons.
Sample of data collection instruments as follows:


Cartoon:
1. What are the message and the humor in the
cartoon?



2. What help you derive the political opinions
behind the cartoon?
- Which words or phrases appear to be the most
significant? Why?

- Which objects are used as symbols in the

cartoon?


17

- What do you think each symbol mean?

- Who would agree/disagree with the cartoon‟s message? Why?

- What might be the public‟s reaction to this cartoon?


2.2. Data Analysis Procedures

The sample cartoons were collected from popular English magazines, newspapers such as
Newsweek, The New Yorker, Times and reliable websites and
.
The selection of the cartoons under study was based on the following criteria:
- The cartoons must consist of drawings as well as words to serve the purpose of a
linguistics study.
- The cartoons look strange, interesting, and funny but not too challenging so that the
readers can understand them (especially for non-native readers).
- The cartoons must convey political issues such as power, dominance, prejudge
discrimination, and/or racism etc.
To execute this case study, it is necessary to find a group of readers who are at advanced
English proficiency level because this group are more likely to have motivation and
interest in a variety of English sources apart from others. They would be willing to spend
time and effort to fulfill such an uneasy task of interpreting English cartoons. It is decided
to select a group of 10 Vietnamese readers of English; five of them are now working for
Vietnam news, Life and Style Division and others are teachers of English at Faculties of

Foreign Languages, Hanoi University of Industry. Although working at different
environment, all of them have been working in English regularly. 5 journalists often
collect information about life in Vietnam as well as all over the world on every field, then

18
make them funny in form of short story or cartoons that can help readers gain information
but relax after a series of political, social or economical news. Sometimes, they are
collected from some foreign newspapers or magazines that make them more diversity and
help readers update information from many aspects of the life. On the other hand, 5
teachers of English often use cartoons as an effective tool of teaching that can help their
students gain knowledge about language they are studying, but also help them understand
more about its cultural, social or even political issues.

Besides, it was also necessary to have a benchmark to measure the degree to which non-
native readers (i.e. 10 selected Vietnamese readers of English) arrive at the same
understanding as that of native readers. Therefore, 5 native readers were contacted and
they agreed to take part in the survey. These native readers all are mature and fairly
experienced in life. They are all working in the field of education and business. Therefore,
their interpretations may be considered valid and reliable.

I actually do not mean that native speakers set interpretations right. A cartoon may be
interpreted differently and different people may have different interpretations of cartoons
stimulating imagination and thinking. However, when creating a cartoon, the cartoonist
assumes an ideal viewer who has the relevant linguistic and cultural knowledge.
Undoubtedly, native readers are more likely to be the ideal one that the cartoon addressed
than non-native readers, thus more likely to derive the intended message. Through the
information given by native readers, the cartoon producing process (or encoding process)
can be understood.

Five NR were asked to do the same survey questionnaire on English political cartoons as

NNR. Three of them gave me answers directly and two people sent their emails. All the
responses were synthesized to become a benchmark for the study, in terms of the most
possible interpretations. It is remarkable that most of the NR‟s interpretations are quite
similar although they might make use of different cues in the cartoons.

19

Vietnamese readers of English were tested to determine the extent to which their
interpretation of English cartoons were the same as those of native readers who took the
same test. 10 copies of questionnaires were handed out, 10 responses were collected
directly or indirectly. The informants were to give the interpretation for each cartoon
without any suggestion in the survey. They were also asked to specify the language,
graphic features and events which help them derive the messages behind the cartoons. The
names and addresses of the informants were not presented in the study but were noted
down for further interviewing in case there were any details which need to be made clear.

The results attained from the two groups were then analyzed. A comparison was made
between the way Vietnamese readers and native readers exploit the language and graphics
in English cartoons to interpret in order to find out the cause of their misinterpretations.
Due to the limited sample size, the findings must be carefully interpreted. After that major
findings are drawn, giving an overview to the non-native readers as well as factors that
influence the extent of their understanding.


20
CHAPTER 3. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSION OF
THE RESULTS


This chapter is aimed at discovering how the cartoonists‟ political viewpoints are embedded in

cartoons and to what extent NNR can exploit features to come to the interpretation of cartoons
as well as the possible reasons for misunderstanding. First the data analysis presents the
survey results and analyses the nine cartoons individually, then a summary of major findings
and discussions will be given to provide an overall picture of the issue under study.

3.1. Data Analysis

It is apparent from the data that finding out hidden messages in English cartoons is no an easy
job for non-native readers, especially for political cartoons that often focus on important and
sensitive events. For most of the cartoons, less than one third of the NNR subjects managed to
derive the same messages as NR and the percentage of people leaving them uninterpreted is
very high. However, overall statistic results do not tell the whole study. In order to get a more
complete picture of the competence of NNR to interpret cartoons, we must look at the
particular items to see which were troublesome and which were not.

Besides, the analysis of each individual cartoon hopefully reveals the political issues behind
language and graphics-power. It is worth repeating here that the concept of power in CDA
should be understood in its broad sense. Modern power is mostly cognitive, and enacted by
persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change the mind of
others in one‟s own interests. In this broad senses, cartoonist are certainly power-holders
because they are normally knowledgeable, the have privileged access to such a socially valued
resources as the media and their ultimate aim is to change the society by shaping public
opinions and influencing the policy makers. Then the discursive source of power in cartoons
are the power of language in use, i.e. the cartoonists‟ power of using languages, graphics and
social context, etc. to constrain content, to favor certain interpretations and “wordings” of