DSpace at VNU: A Critical Discourse Analysis of two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

PHẠM THỊ TUẤN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TWO SPEECHES
ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013
Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán hai bài phát biểu về
phụ nữ của Hillary Clinton vào các năm 1995 và 2013

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60220201

Hanoi, 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

PHẠM THỊ TUẤN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TWO SPEECHES
ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013
Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán hai bài phát biểu về
phụ nữ của Hillary Clinton vào các năm 1995 và 2013

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

60220201

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng

Hanoi, 2016


`

DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “A critical discourse analysis of two
speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013” is the result of my
own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, and that this thesis has not
been submitted for any other degrees.

Hanoi, 2016

Phạm Thị Tuấn

i


`

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Associate
Professor Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng for helping me complete this study. This paper
would not have been accomplished without his expert, constant and valuable
guidance and encouragement. His patience and helpful criticism helped me
confidently express my ideas into this paper.

I also wish to express my sincere thanks to all my lecturers at the Faculty of
Graduate and Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and International
Studies for their valuable lectures which have helped me a great deal in gaining a
lot of theoretical background as well as practical knowledge.

My special thanks also go to my friends and colleagues for their enthusiastic
help and support with my teaching schedule at school which gave me precious time
to deal with my thesis.
Finally, I would also like to express my deep gratitude and love to my
family who gave me time and encouragement to overcome all obstacles during the
completion of this study.

ii


`

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to discover the relationship between power, ideology and
discourse embraced in two speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and
2013, using the CDA framework suggested by Norman Fairclough (2001). The
analysis is carried out in three separated phases namely Description, Interpretation,
and Explanation. Major aspects selected for analysis include vocabulary, grammar,
and macro-structures. Due to the limited time, the study focuses on analysis of
lexical choice, voice, pronouns, and large-scale structures. The findings show that
ideology and power are expressed in a number of ways, and there is not much
difference between two speeches. The biggest difference lies on the situational
context that exerts influences on exhibiting power and ideology. While 1995
speech centers on depicting the reality of harsh treatment on women, 2013 speech
offers a review of achievements and remains in fights for women advancement. In
general, both speeches serve as Clinton’s calls for actions on women rights
violations.

iii


`

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CDA:Critical Discourse Analysis
S: Sentence
M: Macro - statement

iv

`

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables

Page

Table 1: Frequency of pronoun “I” and “We” in 1995 and 2013 Speech

21

Table 2: Frequency of active and passive voice in 1993 and 1995 Speech

24

Figures
Figure 1: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)

11

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)

12

v


`

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.............................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... I
1.

Rationale ...................................................................................................................... I

2.

Aims of the study and Research Questions .........................................................II

2.1. Aims of the study .........................................................................................................II
2.2. Research questions .....................................................................................................II
3.

Scope of the study .....................................................................................................II

4.

Design of the study.................................................................................................. III

5.

Significance of the study........................................................................................ III

PART B: DEVELOPMENT ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER

1:

THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

AND

LITERATURE

REVIEW........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.

An overview of CDA .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 The development of CDA ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Definitions of CDA ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3

Some main directions in CDA ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.3.1. Van Dijk’s ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2. Wodak’s ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3. Fairclough’s ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3.1. Description of the text ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3.2. Interpretation of the text ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.3.3.3. Explanation of the text ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOG Y OF THE STUDYError! Bookmark not defined.
vi


`

1.

Research questions restated ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. Methods of the study .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Data of the study...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Analysis procedure of the study ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO

SPEECHES ON WOMEN BY HILLARY CLINTON IN 1995 AND 2013Error! Bookmark
1.

Description ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1 Description of vocabulary use .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Description of grammatical features .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2.1. The use of “I” and “we” pronouns ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2.2. The use of voice........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Description of macro-structures .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. Interpretation........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1. Interpretation of situational context................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 Interpretation of inter-textual context ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 Interpretation of language use ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.1. Interpretation of vocabulary use ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2

Interpretation of grammatical features .. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.2.1. The use of pronouns “I” and “we”........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2.2. The use of voice ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3. Interpretation of macro-structures ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3.1. Macrostructures in 1995 speech............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3.2. Macrostructures in 2013 speech............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Explanation............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1

Explanation of 1995 speech ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2

Explanation of 2013 speech ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

PART C: CONCLUSION.......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.

Summary of findings .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.

Limitations of the study and Recommendations for further studyError! Bookmark no

vii

`

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. V
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

viii


`

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
There has been much written about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in recent
years. It is noticeably noted that not only does CDA seek to describe language but it
also offers critical resources to those wishing to resist various forms of power. With
its success in discerning the relationship between language and power in a wide
range of contexts, CDA is attracting growing interest of numerous worldwide
language researchers.
Language is one of the greatest inventions that human have ever made. It has been
long considered a communication tool that people use to express their wills, their
feelings and their attitudes towards the world. By this way, language is a social
phenomenon. From CDA’s perspective, language is said a part of society, social
practice and a socially-conditioned process (Fairclough, 2001).
As a part of society, language is taken advantage of by different specialists from
various fields, in which politics is included. It is often said that politics is about
power, and language serves as a useful weapon that country leaders use to achieve
their political purposes. From that, there is no doubt for the close relationship
between language and politics; in other words, between language and power.
Political speeches are striking examples for the application of linguistic practice to

show power. Generally speaking, as a speech is given, not only are the messages
delivered, but the speaker’s ideology and power are also embedded.
CDA approaches the study and critique of social inequality by focusing on the role
of discourse in the production and reproduction of dominance, which is defined as
the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups, that results in social
inequality, including political, cultural, class, ethic, racial, and gender inequality
(van Dijk, 1993, p. 249-250). One important social issue that be examined in any
given culture in terms of dominance and inequality is gender.

I


`

That women rights violation is a pressing world problem leads to the delivery of
numerous speeches. The speaker, Hillary Clinton, also made a number of remarks
on the issue, in which 1995 speech is the most outstanding ever. 2013 speech is also
chosen for analysis for it is the review of 1995 one and also gains some important
popularity.
To my best knowledge, there have been quite a variety of researchers working on
language and power connection through the analysis of political speech. However,
most of them tended to study a single speech, and this remains a slot for me to fill
here. Hence, in this thesis, I maybe have a look at the same matter, yet with the
investigation of two speeches at the same time.
All reasons mentioned above lead me to the choice of these two speeches on women
by Hillary Clinton as the data of the study for analysis from the viewpoint of CDA.
2. Aims of the study and Research Questions
2.1. Aims of the study
The study aims to:
-

Provide a critical analysis of two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995

and 2013 based on Fairclough’s framework to find out the way hidden power and
ideologies are shown in two speeches.
-

Find out changes in the way power and ideologies are shown in two speeches.

2.2. Research questions
To achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions have been posed:
1. How are ideologies and power lexically, syntactically and macro -structurally
shown in two speeches on women by Hillary Clinton in 1995 and 2013 ?
2. Are there any changes in the way ideologies and power are shown in two
speeches? If yes, what changes are they?
3. Scope of the study

II


`

In this critical discourse analysis, the researcher is confined to the written aspects of
two speeches and some concerned situational contexts as a kind of background
knowledge. This thesis is a linguistic study rather than a political or social one. It is
actually based on political speeches to approach and to do a linguistic research for
an academic purpose.
4. Design of the study
The study consists of three parts illustrated as follows:
Part A is the INTRODUCTION of the study which presents the rationale, scope,

aims, methodology, and design of the study.
Part B is the DEVELOPMENT which is made up of three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background and literature review.
This chapter gives an overview of CDA – its history, role, concepts, and procedure.
Chapter 2: Methodology of the study
This chapter provides a detailed description of the methodology, which includes
research methods applied for data collection, the types of the data, and the analysis
procedure of the study.
Chapter 3: A critical discourse analysis of two speeches on women by Hillary
Clinton in 1995 and 2013
The CDA procedure addressed by Fairclough (2001) is applied to analyze two
speeches to find out the relationship between power, ideology and language, and
simultaneously explore the similarities and differences in how power and ideology
are reflected in two speeches.
Part C is the CONCLUSION which summarizes the major findings of the study,
draws important conclusions, and offers suggestions for further research.
5. Significance of the study

III


`

Theoretically, this study provides a support to CDA theories. From an objective
view as linguists when approaching texts, CDA analysts can find out ideology and
power hidden behind words. Practically, this study is submitted in partial fulfillment
of requirements of my degree of Master in English Linguistics. Moreover, with the
investigation of two speeches at the same time, it may provide the researcher
another approach to political speech analysis from CDA viewpoint.

IV


`

REFERENCES
Books and Articles
1. Chaudhry, H., and Naz, A. (2011). Developing Gender Equality: An Analytical
Study of Socio-Political and Economic Constraints in Women’s Empowerment in
Pakhtun Society of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing, 2(1), 259-266.
2. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
3. Cooray, A. (2012). Suffrage, Democracy and Gender Equality in Education.
Oxford Development Studies, 40(1), 21-47.
4. Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language. London: Longman.
5. Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
6. Fairclough, N.; Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. Van Dijk
(Hg.): Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction , 2, 258-284. London:
SAGE Publications.
7. Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis as A Method In Social
Scientific Research. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Hg.): Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications, 121-138.
8. Fikree, F. F., and Pasha, O. (2004). Role of gender in health disparity: the South
Asian context.
9. Kress, G., and Hodge, R. (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
10. Lee, F. L. F. (2004). Constructing Perfect Women: the Portrayal of Female
Officials in Hong Kong Newspapers. SAGE Journals: Media, Culture and Society,
26 (2), 207 – 225.
11. Rogers, R. (2004). An Introduction to Critical Discourse in Education. London,

Mahawah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
12. van Dijk T. A. (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Orlando: Academic
Press.

V


`

13. van Dijk. T. A. (1987b). News analysis: Case studies in international and
tuitional news. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. van Dijk, T. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. In: Discourse &
Society, 4 (2), 249-83.
16. van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Study. London: SAGE
Publications.
17. van Leeuwen, Theo. (1993). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis.
Discourse and Society, 4 (2), 193-223.
18. Wodak, R. & Ludwig, Ch. (Eds.). (1999). Challenges in a changing world:
Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis. Vienna: Passagenverlag.
19. Wodak, R., and Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of Critical Analysis. London:
SAGE Publications.
20. Wodak, R. (2002). Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis. Zeitschrift fur
Angewandte Linguistik, 36, 5-31.
Websites
1. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women
Plenary Session. Retrieved from
/>2. Hillary Clinton: Helping women isn’t a “nice” thing to do . Retrieved from
/>
VI