a cda al gores lecture at nobel peace prize award 2007

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
……………………. ……………………..

HOÀNG NGUYỆT ANH

A CDA OF AL GORE’S LECTURE
AT NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AWARD 2007
(PHÂN TÍCH BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA AL GORE TẠI LỄ TRAO GIẢI NOBEL VÌ
HOÀ BÌNH NĂM 2007 DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ PHÊ PHÁN)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60.22.15

HANOI – 2008


2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
……………………. ……………………..

HOÀNG NGUYỆT ANH

A CDA OF AL GORE’S LECTURE
AT NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AWARD 2007
(PHÂN TÍCH BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA AL GORE TẠI LỄ TRAO GIẢI NOBEL VÌ
HOÀ BÌNH NĂM 2007 DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ PHÊ PHÁN)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60.22.15

Supervisor: Prof. Nguyễn Hoà

HANOI – 2008


6

FEAGURES AND TABLES
Page
1. Figure 1:

Interpretation

13

2. Figure 2:

Explanation

14

3

A Fragment of the Mood System in English

17

4. Table 1:

Process types, their meanings and participants

16

5. Table 2:

Components of a Multiple Theme

19

Figure 3:

7

ABBREVIATIONS

CDA:

Critical Discourse Analysis

MR:

Member’s Resources

SFG:

Systemic Functional Grammar

SFL:

Systemic Functional Language


8

TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration ..................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iii
Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. v
PART A: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1. Rationale ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ........................................................................................................ 2
3. Scope of the study....................................................................................................... 2
4. Research questions...................................................................................................... 2
5. Research methods and procedure ................................................................................ 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................... 4
I. Overview of critical analysis (CDA) ............................................................................ 4
1. The notion of CDA, Power and Ideology: ................................................................... 4
1.1. Critical Discourse Analysis: ............................................................................... 4
1.2. Power in language: ............................................................................................. 5
1.3. Language and Ideology: ..................................................................................... 7
2. Main approaches to CDA: ........................................................................................... 9
II. Halliday‟s Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG): ...................................................... 15
1. Transitivity .....................................................................................................

16

2. Mood & Modality system...............................................................................

17

3. Thematic System .............................................................................................

18

CHAPTER II: ALBERT A. GORE AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 2007 ...........

20

1. Al Gore‟s Biography: ............................................................................................ 20
2. The environmental activities and the Nobel Prize 2007: ....................................... 21


9

CHAPTER III:
A CDA OF AL GORE‟S LECTURE AT NOBEL PEACE PRIZE AWARD 2007 .........
I. The lecture .................................................................................................................. 23
II. The Analysis of the Lecture:....................................................................................... 24
1. Analyzing Framework ................................................................................................ 24
2. Textual Description and Explanation .......................................................................... 25
2.1. Vocabulary analysis ................................................................................................. 25
2.2. Grammatical Analysis: ............................................................................................. 33
2.2.1. The relational values of the grammatical features .................................................. 33
2.2.2. The experiential values of the grammatical features .............................................. 36
2.2.3. The expressive values of the grammatical features ................................................ 41
2.2.4. The cohesion of the text ........................................................................................ 42
2.2.5. Thematic analysis of the text ................................................................................. 43
2.3. The macrostructure of the discourse ......................................................................... 47
3. Interpretation of the discourse ..................................................................................... 50
3.1. The situational context of the discourse .................................................................... 50
3.2. Gore‟s stance and his ideology ................................................................................. 52
3.2. The language use ..................................................................................................... 52
3.3. Presuppositions ........................................................................................................ 54
PART C: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 56
1. The Findings ............................................................................................................... 56
2. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 57

3. Implications and suggestion for further study .............................................................. 59
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 61
APPENDIX: Al Gore‟s Lecture at Nobel Peace prize Award 2007 ................................ I


10

Part A
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In the 1970s, linguistics saw the appearance and then the emergence of a new approach
of discourse analysis – critical discourse analysis (CDA) which fundamentally changed
linguists‟ look on encoded massages, texts, and discourses. CDA has been asserted to be
the critical study of language in which language is viewed as a tool of power and the
imposition of speakers‟ or writers‟ ideology on their audience especially in politics and
social affairs. In other words, doing a CDA is much in reference to exploring authors‟
power and ideology hidden in their choice and use of language units rather than the mere
meaning conveyed by words and grammar structures.
By all means, doing a CDA is really always a challenge to learners of language in the
sense that it requires an integrated background knowledge not only linguistically but also
socially. The requirement of applying knowledge of various linguistic fields beside an
understanding of social circumstances surrounding a discourse is obviously the inquiry
of a serious working for a full grasp of a specific discourse and what it conceals. And
that stimulates the writer of this thesis to do a CDA and take it as her graduation paper.
It is said that CDA targets at political and social-matter-related discourses; and the
twenty first century is supposed to be the age of discourses concerning global matters
such as globalization, nuclear weapon, population and anti-terrorism war… since those
best describe the power relation in the modern world. And Albert A. Gore‟s lecture at
the Nobel Peace Prize Award is an illustration. In this speech, Gore again mentioned and
rang the bell warning a global hot issue which is climate changes and their consequences

– a negative effect of globalization. For these reasons, I adopted this discourse as a case
for doing CDA.
2. Aims of the study:
By doing the analysis of Al Gore‟s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, I would like to seek for
the relations among language, power and ideology. It is assumed that the relations of
power and speaker‟s ideology are encoded within linguistic features. The analysis of the


11

chosen discourse aims at clarifying Gore‟s power and ideology beyond his use of
language.
3. Scope of the study:
In this paper, I am going to make a sketch of CDA by covering principal theories and
approaches by famous critical discourse analysts which are the background for every
CDA works. Also their views on the relation between language, power and ideology –
an important goal of CDA - will be recalled.
On the basis of the theoretical background set, I am about doing an analysis of Albert A.
Gore‟s lecture at the Nobel Peace Prize Award 2007 to firstly explore his use of
language, then and more importantly to make explicit his ideologies of climate changes
expressed via words and structures he employed. At the same time, how he imposed
those ideologies on his audience, in other words, how he exercises his power by force of
language, will be under investigation.
4. Research questions:
Obviously, Al Gore‟s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a political discourse which discusses
an environmental effect of globalization – climate changes and their consequences. Since
it turns out to be a matter of fact that politics is concerned with power, a political
discourse is no doubt somehow an instrument of creating and reinforcing power and
ideology. The questions are: in this discourse,
-

in which way is language used to describe the power relation?

-

In which way is Gore‟s ideology made „common sense‟?

5. Research methods and procedure
This is a case study of CDA which examines how ideology and power relation are
embedded in a discourse. Therefore, the analysis of the chosen discourse is meant to
investigate linguistic features which carries the speakers‟ ideology and power in a
contrastive comparison to CDA theory.
Hence, the procedure of conducting this study foremost concerns the collecting and
summarizing the CDA theory to create a background for the analysis of the chosen
discourse.


12

The analysis of the chosen discourse is carried out by means of Fairclough‟s theory and
method. Hallidayan Systemic Functional Grammar is also an essential tool of analyzing
in combination with Fairclough‟s CDA theory. This combination will help me to
uncover the hidden ideology and power relation in the discourse.
The analyzing of the discourse will be in compliance with analyzing steps suggested by
Fairclough.


13

Part B

DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
I. Overview of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA):
1. The notion of CDA, Power and Ideology:
1.1. Critical Discourse Analysis:
CDA is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views “language
as a form of social practice” (Fairclough, 2001:20), and focuses on the ways social and
political domination is reproduced by text and talk. In a sense, it is a historically and
socially placed action, both in itself socially shaped and socially shaping, what
Fairclough called „constitutive‟. It is constitutive both in sense that it helps to sustain and
reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it.
Simply put, CDA can be understood to be “analyzing discourse critically.” It can be
therefore traced to the definitions of “discourse” and “critical” for a full understanding of
CDA.
As a matter of fact, the term “Discourse” is used very differently by different researchers
and in different academic culture. In German and Central European, Discourse and Text
are made distinct relating to the tradition in text linguistics as well as to rhetoric.
Whereas, in English speaking world, Discourse is used to refer to both written and oral
texts. Linking to the socio – cognitive theory of Teun van Dijk, Woddak (2001) views
discourse as a form of knowledge and memory, whereas text illustrate concrete oral
utterances or written documents.
The concept “Critical” is nowadays conventionally used in a broad sense denoting the
practical linking of social and political engagement, while recognizing “that, in human
matters, interconnections and chains of cause – and – effect may be distorted out of
vision. Hence, “critique” is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things.”
(Fairclough, 1995:747).


14

From another view, Fairclough proposes a definition of CDA which is popularly
accepted and employed among CDA practitioners. He says:
“Discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of
causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and tests, 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 and hegemony.”
(Fairclough, 1995:132)
As per van Dijk (1998), CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and
spoken words to reveal the 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.
In brief, despite different ways of saying, scholars all seem to agree on the point that
CDA is nothing rather than an effective tool to illuminate ways in which the dominant
forces in a society construct versions of reality that favour their interests. Consequently,
it helps the analysts understand the social problems which are mediated by mainstream
ideology and power relationships perpetuated by the use of written texts.
1.2. Power in language:
As an abstract concept, power in its most common sense is understood to be an
attachment to politics; it represents one‟s position in the political hierarchy. However, in
a broader sense, a more powerful person can have some certain influences on others.
Power makes it possible for a person to give another person a command without
affecting the relation, even such a simple command as “Wash your hand”. And power
now therefore concerns many other factors other than politics such as wealth, social and
family hierarchy, knowledge, experience, etc…
The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought defines power as “the ability of its
holder to exact compliance or obedience of other individuals to their will” (cited in
Wareing , 2004:10).

15

Accordingly, it can be referred that power can bring a person the obedience. In other
words, with power, one has the right to make decisions, to control resources and other
people‟s behavior as well as their values.
As per van Dijk (1993), “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 may limit the freedom of actions of other, but also influence their
minds.”. He suggests the term “modern power” which is in his opinion enacted by
persuasion, dissimulation, or manipulation to change the mind of others in one‟s own
interest. And he comes to the conclusion that “managing the mind of others is essentially
a function of text and talk”.(van Dick, 1993:254)
As far as the relation between power and language is concerned, it is affirmed that
“language actually creates power, as well as being a site where power is performed”
(Wareing, 2004:10). Wareing further claims that discourse structures can create power
relations in terms of how we negotiate our relative status through interaction with others.
Obviously, one, by his use of language, can make others convinced, obeyed, or even
confused, embarrassed, or frightened. And in such a way, they successfully execute their
power.
Fairclough agrees on the point that there exists a close relationship between language
and power. Fairclough (1997) argues that power can be seen in discourse where
participants are unequal. The idea is that power is behind discourse in such a way that
the whole social order of discourse is put together and held together as a hidden effect of
power. Faiclough takes the case of standardization of language as an illustration. It
should be recalled that the old day society embraced a social class distinction. In such
context, the language of the upper class or the dominant block was regarded as the most
likely standard language. In the mean time, people of other classes also possessed their
own dialects. Despite, the responsibility of the dominant for articulating and defining the

relationship and the pecking order between languages and social dialects was generally
hidden.
For CDA, language is not powerful on its own; rather, it is a tool of manipulating power;
in other words, it obtains power by the use powerful people make of it. And as per


16

Wodak, this explains the fact that CDA often choose the perspective of those who suffer,
and critically analyze the language use of those in power, who in her words are
responsible for the existence of inequality and at the same time have the ability of
improving the conditions.
In CDA, it is also admitted that a text is rarely the work of any individual. In texts,
discursive differences are negotiated; they are governed by the differences in power
which is in part encoded in and determined by discourse and by genre. As a result, texts
are found to be site of struggle in that they show traces of differing discourses and
ideologies which all contend and struggle for the dominance.
Briefly enough, it can be said that language and power exists in an entwined relationship
in which language indexes power, expresses power and also challenge power. It is worth
bearing in mind that power does not root from language but can be challenged by
language. Further, it is realized that in a text power is signaled not only by grammatical
forms but also the genre of a text which a person employs to control a social occasion.
1.3. Language and Ideology:
Along with power, ideology has an important role to play in CDA. Alike power,
ideology obviously sounds social and political, and related to groups and societal
structures. And historically, the ideology of a society is that of the dominant class in that
society. Intuitively, it can be seen that ideologies involve such mental objects as belief,
ideas, thoughts, judgments and values.
Ever since Marx and Engels, ideologies have been defined in sociological and socio –
economic terms, and usually related to groups, group positions, and interests or group

conflicts such as class, gender or race struggles, and hence to social power and
dominance.
Gramsci (1971) points out that ideology is “a conception of the world that is implicitly
manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in the manifestations of individual and
collective life” (Fairclough, 1995:76).
From another view point, Thomson (1990) argues that ideology refers to social forms
and processes in which, and by all means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the


17

social world. Ideology, for CDA, is seen as an important means of establishing and
maintaining unequal power relations.
Van Dijk (1995) claims that ideologies are nothing rather than an „axiomatic‟ oasis of
the socially shared belief systems of groups. To van Dijk, "ideologies" are viewed as
"interpretation frameworks" which "organize sets of attitudes" about other elements of
modern society. Ideologies, therefore, provide the "cognitive foundation" for the
attitudes of various groups in societies, as well as the furtherance of their own goals and
interest. He says:
“Ideologies are basic frameworks of social cognition, shared by members of social
groups, constituted by relevant selections of sociocultural values, and organized by an
ideological schema that represent the self-definition of a group. Beside their social
function of sustaining the interests of groups, ideologies have the cognitive function of
organizing the social representations (attitudes, knowledge) of a group, and thus
indirectly monitor the group-related social practices, and hence also the text and talk of
members.” (van Dijk, 1995: 248)
Van Djik offers a "schema" of relations between ideology, society, cognition and
discourse: Within social structures, social interaction takes place. This social interaction
is presented in the form of text/discourse, which is then cognized according to a
cognitive system/memory. This "system/memory" consists of short-term memory, in

which "strategic process," or decoding and interpretation takes place. Long-term
memory, however, serves as a holder of "socio-cultural knowledge," which consists of
knowledge of language, discourse, communication, persons, groups and events-existing
in the form of "scripts." "Social (group) attitudes" also reside within long-term memory
and provide further decoding guides. Each of these "group attitudes" can represent an
array of ideologies which combine to create one's own personal ideology which
conforms to one's identity, goals, social position, values and resources.
Discussing the relation between ideology and discourse, Fairclough (1995) assumes that
there exists a significant connections between features of texts and ideology which lies
“…in the ideological investment of elements which are drawn upon in producing or
interpreting a text,…, and in the ways in which these elements are articulated together


18

and orders of discourse rearticulated in discoursal events.” (Fairclough, 1995:74). In
such a context, meanings (mainly lexical meanings) are supposed to be the feature that is
ideologically invested. Beside lexical meanings, Fairclough however claims that such
factors as presuppositions, implicatures, metaphors, and coherence and all aspects of
meaning are of importance.
So far it could have been seen the connection between language and power, language
and ideology. Similarly, a close relation is found existing between power and ideology.
It is a common claim that power and ideology are tightly tied together in the sense that
ideology helps secure power, and vice versa, power makes ideology dominant and
become “common sense”.
Jones & Peccei (2004) suggest that in the attempt of making people to act in an expected
way, persuasion is a better choice in comparison to physical coercion. Indeed, by
persuading, a person is to “exercise power through the manufacture of consent … or at
least acquiescence towards it” (Fairclough, 1989:4). To put it another way, persuasive
language actually serves as an effective weapon which bring a person power and

obedience, and more importantly, voluntary acts which mean nothing but that the
speaker‟s ideology has been commonly adopted.
2. Main approaches to CDA:
It is confirmed that there are five main approaches to CDA recognized worldwide which
are Socio – cognitive analysis, Discourse- Historical Analysis, Mediated discourse
analysis, Duisburg School of CDA, and Functional – Systemic CDA.
2.1. Socio-cognitive analysis (van Dijk):
Teun van Dijk, a powerful scholar in CDA, is a pioneer who developed the sociocognitive approach in which an important dimension incorporated is that of human mind.
The central claim of the socio-cognitive approach is that discourse and social structure
are mediated by social cognition. He assumes that social cognition is the bridge between
discourse and society or social representations. For van Dick, social cognition is “the
system of mental representations and processes of group members” (1995:18). Social
cognitions, which can be abstractly characterized as ideas, belief system, or ideologies,


19

are then socially shared mental representations. For him, ideologies are “…the overall.
Abstract mental systems that organize … socially shared attitudes” (van Dijk, 1995:18).
2.2 Discourse-Historical Analysis (Wodak):
As a linguist who is in favor of sociolinguistics, and much influenced Frankfurt school,
Wodak advocates and is a distinguished representative of the socio-historical CDA. She
says:
“Discourse Sociolinguistics … is a sociolinguistics which not only is explicitly dedicated
to the study of the text in context, but also accords both factors equal importance. It is an
approach capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that
contribute to those disorders in discourse which are embedded in a particular context –
whether they be in a structure and a function of the media, or in institutions such as a
hospital or a school – and inevitably affect communication.”
(Wodak, 1996:3)

The discourse-historical method emphasizes the history context and take it as a part of
the interpretation of a discourse. In the process of analyzing, both theory and factual
materials are required. Also, recontextualization has an important role to play in the
uncovering the relation between genres and theme of a discourse.
2.3 Duisburg School of CDA:
Famous in the Duisburg School of CDA is Jager. And Foucault‟s structuralism and
Leontjev‟s “speech activity theory” are of major reference for analysts of Duisburg
School including Jager.
As per Duisburg CDA, discourses are institutionalized and conventionalized speech
modes. Discourses therefore express societal power relations, which in turns are
impacted by discourses.
To Jager, the analysis of discourse structure is the foremost step in the whole process of
analyzing a discourse. Despite the complexity, he suggests, the discourse structure can
be comprehensible in different discourse strands which are composed of discourse
fragments at different discourse levels (science, politics, media…). Individual discourse
fragments, in his opinion, can be analyzed in five steps: institutional framework, text


20

surgace,

linguistic-rhetorical

means,

programmatic

ideological

messages,

and

interpretation. (Jager 1999:175-187)
1.4. Functional Systemic CDA (Fairclough):
Kress and Fairclough, especially Fairclough, are known as the most successful analysts
of Functional Systemic CDA which is much based on Hallidayan Systemic Functional
Grammar. The central of this approach is on semiotic features of discourse.
Of Fairclough‟s most remarkable success, according to Hoa, N. (2006), is his research
on social traditional conflicts as per Marxism and their representations in discourse.
CDA is then, in Fairclough‟s opinion, to analyze the dialectical relationship among
semiotic systems and constituents of social practice. Reasonably, Fairclough employs
Halliday‟s systemic functional grammar corresponding to his view. And in his
“Language and power” (2001), he proposes a three step model of analyzing a discourse
which consists of:
-

Description of text

-

Interpretation of the relationship between the productive and interpretative processes

-

Explanation of the relationship between discourse processes and social processes.

The stage of description:
The description of text involves the answering 10 questions relating to Vocabulary,

Grammar, and Text Structure which are respectively as follows:
A. Vocabulary:
a. What experiential values do words have?
-

What classification schemes are drawn upon?

-

Are there words which are ideologically contested?

-

Is there rewording or overwording?

-

What ideologically significant meaning relations are there between words?

b. What relational values do words have?
-

Are there euphemistic expressions?


21

-

Are there markedly formal or informal words?

c. What expressive values do words have?
d. What metaphors are used?
B. Grammar:
e. What experiential values do grammatical features have?
-

What types of process and participant predominate?

-

Is agency unclear?

-

Are processes what they seem?

-

Are nominalizations, active/ passive sentences, and positive/ negative sentences
used?

f. What relational values do grammatical features have?
-

What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?

-

Are there important features of relational modality?

-

Are the pronouns „we‟ and „you‟ used? And if so, how?

g. What expressive values do grammatical features have?
-

Are there important features of expressive modality?

h. How are sentences linked together?
-

What logical connectors are used?

-

Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?

-

What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?

C. Textual Structure:
i.

What interactional convention are used?

-

Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?

j.

What larger scale structures does the text have?

The Stage of Interpretation


22

The interpretation of discourse is exercised via the combination of what is in the text and
what is in the interpreter. In that process, member‟s resources – MR (or background
knowledge) and discourse features (or described language) which are considered as
CUES are factors activating interpreters‟ MR.
The procedure of interpretation is well described in the following figure suggested by
Fairclough (2001:119):

Interpretative Procedures
(MR)

Resources

Interpreting

Social Orders

Situational Context

Interactional History

Intertextual Context

Phonology,

Surface of Utterance

Grammar,

Vocabulary
Semantics, Pragmatics

Meaning of Utterance

Cohesion, Pragmatics

Local Coherence

Schemata

Text

Structure

and

“Point”

Figure 1: Interpretation
The Stage of Explanation

The procedure of explanation aims at proving that discourse is a part of social practice;
and as a social practice, discourse is determined by social structures, and at the same
time and more importantly, has reproductive effects on those structures: sustaining or
changing them. According to Fairclough, these social determination and effects are
“mediated by MR in such ways that social structures shape MR, which in turn shape


23

discourse; discourse can either sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain or change
structures”. Explanation is therefore “a matter of seeing discourse as part of social
struggle,

within

a

matrix

of

relations

of

power”

(Fairclough,

2001:135).

Correspondingly, the emphasis of the explanation process is on two dimensions: the
social effects of discourse and the social determinants of discourse. These two
dimensions is to be examined at three levels of social organizations: Societal,
Institutional, and Situational which are illustrated as in following figure:
Societal
Institutional

Societal
MR

Discourse

MR

Institutional

Situational

Situational

Determinants

Effects
Figure 2: Explanation

(Fairclough, 2001:136)
In brief, Fairclough has well shown a picture of CDA in full which covers a sharp and
comprehensive look at the relationship between language and power, and a typical
framework of analyzing a discourse critically. That explains why Fairclough‟s theory

has been so far of favor in practicing CDA. Coming into the line with foregoing
practitioners, I will take Fairclough as the theoretical background with the backup of
Halliday‟s Systemic Functional Grammar for the analysis of Al Gore‟s speech delivered
in Nobel Peace Award 2007.
II. Halliday’s Systemic Functional Language (SFL):
Systemic Functional Language (SFL) has been developed since 1960s by M.A.K
Halliday with the emphasis on the notion of language function.
Starting at social context, SFL looks at how language acts upon and is constrained by
social context. And right here, Halliday shares with CDA theorists the idea that there
exists a dialectal relationship between society and language in which language is seen as
creating and being created by social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge


24

and beliefs. For this common assumption, Halliday‟s Systemic Functional Grammar
(SFG) has been widely accepted and adopted in doing CDA by most linguistic analysts
such as Fairclough (2000, 1995, 1992, 1989); Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), Kress
(1989), and Kress and van Leeuwen (1996).
The covering notion in SFL is that of “stratification”. Language, as of SFL, is considered
as a social semiotic organized in four strata in such relationships as „realization‟ and
„instantiation‟. Such strata are recognized as: Context, Semantics, Lexico-Grammar,
and Phonology – Graphology.
Context is realized via such values as Field, Tenor, and Mode. While Field is what is
going on, Tenor is the social roles and relationships between the participants, Mode is
defined as aspects of the channel of communication, e.g., monologic/dialogic, spoken/
written, +/ - visual – contact, etc.
Semantics in SFL consists of three components:
-

Ideational Semantics (propositional content);

-

Interpersonal Semantics (dealing with speech-function, exchange structure,
expression of attitude, etc.)

-

Textual Semantics (how text is structured as a message, e.g.: theme structure, given/
new, rhetorical structure…)

The three above metafunctions of language are realized at the Lexico–Grammar by
choices in the Transitivity, Mood & Modality, and Thematic systems of language.
4. Transitivity
Transitivity plays as a key analytic component of the ideational metafunction. It
expresses the experiential aspect of meaning. The system of transitivity consists of three
components which are process types and their participants as well as circumstances
described within text. In English, there are six process types namely Material, Mental,
Verbal, Behavioral, Relational, and Existential Process.
Material Process is the process of doing; it involves action and event with one, two or
three participants. If there is only one participant involved, the role is then referred to as


25

Actor. If two participants are involved, they are respectively Actor and Goal. If three,
they are respectively Actor, Goal, and Receiver.
Mental Process is defined to be the process of sensing which consists of four main
subtypes: cognitive, perceptive, affective and desiderative. In mental process, there are

two participants involved: Sensor and Phenomenon.
Verbal Process is the process of saying with two participants: Sayer and Target.
Behavioral Process is the process of physiological and psychological behavior. This
process has only one participant referred to as Behaver.
Relational Process is the process of being, having, and being at. This process is
considered as either of attribution or identification. As an attribution, it involves two
participants: Carrier and Attribute. In the process of identifying, there are two equating
participants referred to respectively in two pairs of terms: Identified/ Identifier, and
Token/ Value.
Experiential Process is the process of existing with generally one participant, the
Existent.
The above six process types are summarized in the table below:
Process Type
Material:
Action
Event

Category meaning
„doing‟
„doing
„happening‟

Participants
Actor, Goal, Recipient

Behavioral:

„behaving‟

Behaver, Phenomenon

Mental:
Perception
Affection
Cognition

„feeling‟
„sensing‟
„emotive‟
„thinking‟

Sensor, phenomenon

Verbal:

„saying‟

Sayer,

Target,

Recipient
Relational:
Attribution
Identification

„being‟
„attributing‟
„identifying‟

Carrier, Atrribute
Identified/ Token
Indentifier/ Value

Existential:

„existing‟

Existent

Table 1: Process types, their meanings and participants
(Source: Halliday, 1994:143)

Verbiage,


26

2. Mood & Modality system
Mood & Modality are the realization of the Interpersonal Meaning. In the practice of
interacting, interlocutors take turn to play the role of questioners and informants
alternatively. In such process, they exchange information and express their evaluation,
attitude, and prediction. And that expression is an aspect of the interpersonal meaning
within which the speaker‟s choice of a particular speech role is of significance. The
speaker‟s choice of speech can be done together with different types of modality.
In a clause, Mood functions as the carrier of the syntactic burden of the exchange, and as
the component carrying the argument award. Mood consists of two functional elements
which are the Subject and the Finite. As the nominal component of the Mood, Subject
identifies a proposition. Whereas, Finite functions as the element making the proposition
finite.

The fragment of Mood are illustrated in figure below:
Yes/No
Interrogative
„Wh‟
Indicative
MOOD

Declarative
Inclusive
Imperative
Exclusive
Figure 3: A Fragment of the Mood System in English
(Source: Hoang Van Van, 1996:53)

It can be seen from Figure 2 that, in term of Mood, there are two possible choices: either
indicative or imperative. Indicative mood consists of interrogative or declarative while
imperative includes inclusive or exclusive.
3. Thematic System


27

Thematic system is to do with textual meaning: it expresses the textual meaning
lexicogrammatically. The system of theme is realized by two elements, Theme and
Rheme. While Theme serves as the initial element of the clause, Rheme is the remainder.
Theme may be single or multiple. As a single theme, it is represented by only one
constituent – a nominal group, and adverbial group, or a prepositional phrase.
Meanwhile, a multiple theme has a further internal structure of its own. It may have the
combination of three different components: textual theme, interpersonal theme, and
topical theme which is conflated with the experiential element of the clause. Below in

the table are the components of a multiple theme:
Metafunction
Textual Theme

Component of Theme
Continuative
Structural
Conjunctive

Interpersonal theme

Vocative
Modal
Finite
Wh-interrogative

Topical (Experiential) Theme

Participant, Circumstance, Process

Table 2: Components of a Multiple Theme
In sum, with the perception of language as a social semiotic as well as the emphasis on
language function, SFG serves as the best linguistic background for CDA. Halliday
(1994: 16) says: “A discourse analysis that is not based on grammar is not an analysis at
all, but simply a running commentary on a text.”
It is obviously that speakers choose and use language intentionally for certain
purpose(s), in other words, they are „doing things with words‟. And in Halliday (1970) it
is affirmed that language has three functions: ideational which includes experiential,

28

logical interpersonal, and textual. Those functions are respectively done by system of
transitivity, system of mood and modality, and that of theme. Hence, a discourse analysis
on the base of Hallidayan SFG, surely enough, could bring a comprehensive discover of
speaker‟s ideology and power embodied within text.