A critical discourse analysis of “finest hour” speech of sir winston churchill = phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu finest hour của sir winston churchill

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG MAI

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF “FINEST HOUR” SPEECH
BY SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
(Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu “Finest hour”
của Sir Winston Churchill)

M.A THESIS PROGRAMME I

Field

: English Linguistics

Code

: 8220201.01

Hanoi - 2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG MAI

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF “FINEST HOUR” SPEECH

BY SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
(Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu “Finest hour”
của Sir Winston Churchill)

M.A THESIS PROGRAMME I

`

Field

: English Linguistics

Code

: 8220201.01

Supervisor : Prof.Dr. Nguyễn Hòa

Hanoi - 2019


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that I am the sole author of this thesis and that no part of this thesis
has been published or submitted for publication.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, my thesis does not infringe upon
anyone’s copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, techniques,
quotations, or any other material from the work of other people included in my
thesis, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the
standard referencing practices.
I declare that this is a true copy of my dissertations, including any final revisions, as

approved by my thesis committee and the Post Graduate Studies office and that this
thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other University or
Institution.

Hanoi, 2019

Nguyễn Thị Phương Mai

i


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My achievement in completing this thesis would not have been possible without the
people who were involved in this study. To the following people who donated their
time and energy to this study, I am grateful and thankful:
First, I would like to offer my greatest appreciation to my supervisor, Professor
Nguyễn Hòa. His expertise and knowledge have guided me during the study. He
offered me his support which has been especially helpful to my academic work.
I also would like to thank my classmates for their advice and assistance in keeping
my progress on schedule.
My great thankfulness is also given to the teachers of Post Graduate Faculty Studies
for their ideas to my paper and many thanks to my family and all my friends who
have encouraged and helped me during the time of analyzing data, information for
the study.

ii


ABSTRACT
Politicians and orators employ words as weapons in order to exert

ideological control and make an audience believe something in an ostensive way. In
this regard, this study attempted to discover the connection between language,
power embraced in “Finest hour” speech by Sir Winston Churchill on June 18th,
1940, a crucial period for the outcome of the Second World War. Based on a brief
overview of critical discourse analysis provided by Norman Fairclough, the study
followed a framework with three stages: Description, Interpretation, and
Explanation. It focused on the analysis of language features, the relationship
between situational and intertextual context, and the discourse process and social
process. The results obtained support the idea that Churchill's skillful use of
language is closely connected with his overall political goals of instilling courage,
inspiring confidence and spark the national pride in his fellow countrymen in such
difficult times for Britain as those of war against powerful Nazi Germany, and the
fascism in general.
Keywords: Critical discourse analysis, political discourse, speech, ideology,
language.

iii


ABBREVIATIONS

CDA:
MR:

Critical Discourse Analysis
Member’s Resources

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. iii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Scope of the study ........................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Aims of the study.......................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Significance of the study .............................................................................................. 3
1.5. Research methodology ................................................................................................. 3
1.5.1. Analytical framework ........................................................................................... 3
1.5.2. Data collection and analysis ................................................................................. 3
1.6. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................ 5
2.1. Discourse analysis ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2. Critical discourse analysis ............................................................................................ 6
2.3. The virtue and limitations of CDA ............................................................................... 7
2.4. Some main concepts of CDA ....................................................................................... 9
2.4.1. Ideology ................................................................................................................ 9
2.4.2. Power .................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.3. Language and ideology....................................................................................... 11
2.5. Main approaches to CDA ........................................................................................... 12
2.5.1. Wodak’s discourse-historical Approach............................................................. 12
2.5.2. Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive Approach ................................................................ 13
2.5.3. Norman Fairclough’s dialectical - relational approach ...................................... 14

v

2.6. Review of previous studies ......................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 19
3.1. Data ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.2. Context of the speech ................................................................................................. 20
3.3. Analytical framework ................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 26
4.1. Description ................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.1. Vocabulary ......................................................................................................... 26
4.1.2. Grammar ............................................................................................................. 32
4.1.3. Connective values ............................................................................................... 38
4.1.4. Large-scale structure (macro-structure) ............................................................. 41
4.2. Interpretation .............................................................................................................. 47
4.2.1. Situational context .............................................................................................. 47
4.2.2. Intertextual context and presupposition.............................................................. 49
4.2.3. Speech acts ......................................................................................................... 51
4.3. Explanation ................................................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 55
5.1. Recap ........................................................................................................................ 55
5.2. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 57
5.3. Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 58
5.4. Suggestions for further study...................................................................................... 58
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................59
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………i

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale of the study, research objectives, research
questions, research scope, research significance and research methodology which

includes the analytical framework and the data collected.
1.1. Rationale
Since the prehistoric era of human beings, the need for communication early arose
and the system of communication before anything else is language. There are
numerous theories about the origin of language: the divine source, the natural sound
source, the social interaction source, the physical adaption source, the tool-making
source, the genetic source. Yet, the primary purpose of language still the same:
communication.
As human beings continuously evolve, they utilize language in an intentional and
more sophisticated way. Language not only simply holds its initial function communication but also is meant to represent ideologies and practice power. As
Fairclough (2001) stated, "exercise of power is increasingly achieved through
ideology, particularly through the working of language". Concerning this issue,
critical discourse analysis has emerged as a major multidisciplinary approach to
"show how discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideologies, and the
constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social relations and the
system of knowledge and belief" (Fairclough, 1992b).
Since CDA's important interest is "the way social and political domination are
produced in text and talk", numerous speeches or rhetorical talks of professional
politicians have been analyzed. CDA is asserted to be an effective tool to discover
the power and ideology hidden in political discourse. Winston Churchill is one of
the most influential Prime Ministers in Britain's history. Besides the skillful military
tactics and effective leadership which led Britain to the victory in the Second World
War, Churchill is also well-known for his professional language competence. He
was the only prime minister awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 "for his
mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in

1


defending exalted human values". Every speech he made is a masterpiece in

rhetoric. "Finest hour" is a speech delivered by Churchill on June 18, 1940, during
one of the lowest and most uncertain moments of the Second World War. The
speech was made, first to the Parliament and then over the radio to the nation,
become one of the most celebrated one of the war and his career.
Due to the huge linguistic, social and historical impact it brings forth, many
writings discussing this speech. However, as far as I am concerned, there has not
any scientific writing concerning investigating the speech from CDA perspective,
which urges the author to conduct this researched entitled: A critical discourse
analysis of “Finest hour” speech by Sir Winston Churchill.
1.2. Scope of the study
The analysis of the "Finest hour" speech of Winston Churchill is restricted to the
transcript of the speech and the social context when the speech was presented. Thus,
paralinguistics (intonation, speed, loudness, etc) and extra linguistics (facial
expressions, eye contact, gestures, etc), despite their significant roles in delivering
the speaker's message, are not taken into consideration.
Moreover, within the scope of an MA thesis, not all of the linguistic features are
investigated. In other words, only salient aspects of the speech are examined.
Finally, the thesis will be conducted for the academic purpose only and has no relation
to any party’s support. The researcher's political view is also ignored in this study.
1.3. Objectives of the study
By analyzing Churchill’s speech in the light of CDA, the study aims to discover the
ideological traits in Churchill’s speech from linguistics features, uncover the way he
encouraged people and persuaded them to believe in his ideas and solutions, how
his language in the speech impacted listeners in the United Kingdom, which led to
stronger British’ resolve and willingness to fight.
To reach these aims above, two research questions are answered:
- What are Churchill's ideologies constructed in the speech?
- How are they manifested linguistically?
2

1.4. Significance of the study
Theoretically, the study makes a contribution to a better understanding of the CDA
approach and further strengthens the CDA theories. Practically, this study may
provide the researcher with the way to analyze selected text, explore ideologies and
power hidden between the lines in a spoken discourse. Moreover, in Vietnam,
plenty of speeches of American politicians or Presidential candidates are critically
analyzed but the ones made by British figures are not yet widely investigated from
the perspective of CDA. Thus, I humbly expect to signal more future researchers
who share the same interest.
1.5. Research methodology
1.5.1. Analytical framework
In the discussion on the methodology of CDA, Van Dijk (1995) said: "one of
CDA‘s volitional characteristics is its diversity". It means, the methodology for
CDA is not similar (Wodak, 2001). A wide range of researchers with different
objectives will lead to various ways of doing CDA. Thus, basing on the
characteristics of rhetoric speech and the aims of the study, Fairclough's CDA
model is taken on board to analyze "Finest hour" speech of British Prime Minister,
Winston Churchill.
The three-stage practical framework of CDA given by Norman Fairclough (2001),
which includes description, interpretation, and explanation will be employed.
However, it is notable that not all the questions suggested by Fairclough are covered
in this study. Only the outstanding features of the speech are focused on in order to
enlighten the assertion of the speaker’s ideology.
1.5.2. Data collection and analysis
The transcript of the historical speech "Finest hour" of Sir Winston Churchill on
June 18, 1940, is taken from website winstonchurchill.org
After that, Fairclough's model is applied to analyze the data. It comprises three
discourse analysis stages: description, interpretation, and explanation. The
qualitative method is utilized to assess the effects of such linguistic features in the

3


stage of description and explore the relationship between text and interaction, then
the relationship between interaction and social context to uncover the power and
ideology underlined the speech.
To understand more about the background of the speech, including the speaker Winston Churchill, a general overview will be provided in the next thesis's chapters.
1.6. Structure of the thesis
This research is organized into 5 chapters as briefly summarized below:
Chapter 1: Introduction contains rationale, significance, scope, aims and methods
of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review and Theoretical background provide an overview
of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the relations among language, power, and
ideology, and Fairclough‘s analytical framework and the details in three stages of
discourse.
Chapter 3: Methodology consists of data, the context of the speech and analytical
framework
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion, includes the textual description, the
interpretation (situational context, intertextual context, presuppositions and speech
acts) and the explanation of the speech's transcript.
Chapter 5: Conclusion summarizes the main findings, draws a conclusion, and
offers suggestions for further study.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter begins with a discussion of discourse analysis, critical discourse
analysis (CDA) and definitions of some key terms in CDA. Wodak’s discoursehistorical approach and Van Diik’s socio-cognitive approach are also presented.

Then, Fairclough’s dialectical-relational approach is mentioned with a detailed
explanation of his three-dimensional model and the reason why it is appropriate for
the data’s analysis. This chapter concludes with a review of previous studies to
show the existing researches’ results and how my thesis distinguishes itself from
them.
2.1. Discourse analysis
For the past decades, discourse analysis has been received significant growing
concerns from linguistics. The definition of “discourse” is the unending source for
linguistic discussion. Some researchers take “discourse” like all forms of talk and
writings (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984), some refer it to only the way talk is messed
together (Sinclair and Coulhard, 1975). Besides, Fairclough (1989) defines the
discourse as a term referring to the whole process of the social interaction of which
a text is just part or segment affected by other super-linguistic components such as
the speaker, audience, and occasion. Generally, discourse is considered as all forms
of spoken interactions, both formal and informal, and written texts of all kinds
whereby discourse is a process or practice and text (or talk) is the product of that
process.
On that ground, discourse analysis, which has been widely defined as an
investigation of language in use and which is fundamentally interested in the extrasentential levels, is all in all regarded as a recent field of linguistics (Brown & Yule,
1983). Schiriffin (1994) sees DA using a combined structural and functional view
that actual analysis of discourse reveals interdependence between structure and
function. Consequently, DA cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic
forms, but also is concerned with the social nature of communication, stressing
contextual aspects of meaning which are interactive and negotiated, determined by

5


the social relations and identities of the participants in communication (Cook,
1994). Van Dijk (2003) assumes that discourse analysis is best depicted in the socalled relationship between the text and context in which that text is introduced or

generated. Detailing more in this prominent point of view, he adds that the word
"discourse" is grasped as a text within the context in which data are subjected to
empirical investigation. In general, it can be inferred that discourse analysis studies
and analyzes what actually reveals in a text or texts related to the context and its or
their functions.
2.2. Critical discourse analysis
Methodologies that can apply to linguistic studies are numerous, but to investigate
the representational interpretation of meaning and ideology, in which power
relationships and social identities are manifested, “Critical Discourse Analysis”
(CDA) is the most specialized. Many recent analysts have emphasized the
importance of moving from Discourse Analysis (DA) to CDA. CDA does not only
examine the purely linguistic value of language but includes and addresses issues
such as genre, cohesion, language structures and interrelations between texts,
including the field of language studies within social semiotics. Thus, Heather
articulates “DA cannot ethically be carried out without moving onto CDA”
(Heather, 2000). CDA differs from other forms of discourse analysis in so much as
it is “critical”. “Critical” implies showing connections and causes which are hidden;
it also implies intervention, for example providing resources for those who may be
disadvantaged through change (Fairclough, 1995a). The exposure of things hidden
is important, as they are not obvious for the people involved and therefore cannot be
fought against.
According to Fairclough (2001), CDA deals with real issues and real problems in
society, like “globalization, social exclusion, shifts in governance and so forth”.
The scope of CDA is vast (Haque, 2007). Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is not
restricted to educational institutions. Discourse Analysis (DA) studies discourse
from linguistics perspectives but CDA looks at discourse not only from linguistics

6

perspective but also goes beyond the boundary. CDA helps people by analyzing
certain discourses which are embedded in society or those discourses which are
employed by powerful groups or societies. It helps to understand how discourse is
used to manipulate people.
CDA is generally viewed as the study of “the relationship between discourse and
power” (Van Dijk, 2001), a study that addresses social problems (Fairclough and
Wodak, 1997). The objective of CDA seems quite significant. According to Haque
(2008) one of the objectives of CDA is to focus on social issues and problems
embedded in society, and take up the causes of the oppressed and downtrodden
people of the society. He further says that the aim of CDA is to show non-obvious
ways in which language is involved in social relations of power and domination,
and ideology. Fairclough (2001) also says that CDA tries to make a balance of the
power between the controller of discourse and the target people. According to him,
CDA is discourse analysis whose purpose is to systematically discover hidden
“relationships of causality, and determination between (a) discursive practices,
events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures,

relations,

and

processes” (Fairclough, 1995).
2.3. The virtue and limitations of CDA
CDA is like a wake-up call; its aim is to make people aware of the possibly
manipulative functions of language; it aims to explore the subtle power hidden in
discourses (Fairclough, 1992, 1999, 2002, 2003; Foucault & Gordon, 1980). Thus,
even Widdowson, a strong critic of CDA, acknowledges the significance of CDA
by stating that “what is most plainly distinctive about critical discourse analysis is
its sense of responsibility and its commitment to social justice” (1998).
It represents an appeal too to the applied linguist who should likewise realize that

the analysis he/she uses is part of the language system and carries ideology as well
as the language used in other genres. Since the analysis itself is a “text” with
“imaginational readers” in mind, it is impossible to be purely objective. Widdowson

7


(1998) articulated “your analysis will be the record of whatever partial
interpretation suits your own agenda”.
That does not mean that we should get rid of the ideologies that we hold or we
believe; instead, we should ask what it means, what is the significance it has to the
research and/or, to an extent, society. Heather (2000) articulated “the philosophy of
CDA wishes us to be aware of how, by accepting programming imposed by such
discourse, we are colluding with underlying social parameters which they support”.
Although claimed as the most widely used discourse analysis, research using CDA
is not without its trepidations.
First, analysts must accept its subjective nature as an inevitability and that the
discourse being analyzed is up to the researcher's interpretation (Fairclough, 1992).
According to Wodak (1999), the CDA analysts may have their subjective influence
on the analysis and cannot separate their own values and beliefs from the research
they are doing. Therefore, during the procedure of analyzing discourse as a
reflection of wider structural and ideological forces, the CDA analysts may shape
and give meaning to the production of discourse by basing on their preconceptions
and personal beliefs (Wooffitt, 2005). Moreover, critical discourse analysis is
fundamentally defined by its political aims. Thus, they may project their own
political biases onto their data and analyze them accordingly. Since CDA's agenda
is important and of considerable social significance (Stubbs, 1997), CDA should be
more critical and detailed, and its claims should be strengthened based on evidence
(Toolan, 1997).
CDA has an inadequate theory of the way texts work in social contexts. Reader

response or audience reception is often naively assumed on the basis of the
researcher's interpretation of the text. Readers should contrast conclusions of this
kind with work carried out in media studies which provide deeper insights into the
relationship between texts and subjects. CDA researchers need to pay more
attention to this dimension and find ways of exploring real responses.

8


Methodology and theoretical background of CDA do not always ensure a
sufficiently detailed and systematic analysis of the text and impose a bias on the
analysis (Schegloff, 1997). Wodak and Chilton (2005) find CDA problematic
because it lacks “acknowledgment of the role of cognitive knowledge in
deciphering and interpretation" and "attention to the human mind”.
Despite its limitations, CDA is the most appropriate method for the research project
at hand, and to strengthen this justification, other approaches to analyze text will be
discussed and why such methods would not serve as sufficient alternatives to
answer my query. Fairclough (2012) suggests Political Discourse Analysis as a way
to analyze texts in that, “it views political discourse as primarily a form of
argumentation, and as involving more specifically practical argumentation for or
against particular ways of acting, argumentation that can ground decision”. This
methodology focuses on the choices made and actions taken based on those choices.
In the case of this study, the actions taken based on the discursive are not under
consideration.
In conclusion, besides significant contributions that CDA makes in understanding
about society, how social phenomena are interconnected, and how structures of
power and ideologies behind discourse; CDA also have some weakness that
analysts should be aware of when using this approach in discourse analysis.
2.4. Some main concepts of CDA
2.4.1. Ideology

Ideology, as the major concern in the field of CDA, has been proposed with
different definitions. Fowler (1991) states that ideology is a neutral concept related
to people's arrangement and proof of their lifestyle. He especially refers to ideology
as an unexamined, un-self-critical and routinized set of beliefs and value systems by
a particular social group. On the other hand, Fairclough (1995) suggests that
ideology involves the description of the world from the perspective of a certain
interest; Thompson (1990) defines ideology as meaning that serves power and
establishes and maintains asymmetrical power relation. Van Dijk (1998) defined

9


ideology as “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group”.
Ideology includes a person's beliefs, disposition, expression of feelings (nonverbal), and so on. Ideology may influence what is understood and accepted as true
or false. It is the output of our logic system, and the framework of a person's ‘world
view'. It helps people to behave in a certain way according to the situation they
adapted to and perceived as “right” or “common”. Fairclough, (1989) shows that
this type of ideology is always defined in terms of two schools: one belongs to the
USA and Britain after the Second world war as “any social policy which is in part
or in whole derived from social theory in a conscious way”. The other comes from
Marxist tradition: “ideologies are ideas which arise from a given set of material
interests' in the course of the struggle for power”.
Despite their different stresses on the definition, we still can make sure that ideology
does not bear any negative connotation in the field of CDA. Instead, it refers to a
kind of practice through which people make sense of their social world. Since the
asymmetrical social structures interfere with people's way of perceiving and
analyzing, this sense-making process varies from one social group to another.
Usually, their variances are coded in the instrument that we use to interpret and
describe the world, the instrument of language. In other words, the linguistic choices
that the language user has developed to depict the world carry ideological meanings.

2.4.2. Power
One crucial presupposition of adequate CDA is understanding the nature of social
power and dominance. Power is conceptualized both in terms of asymmetries
between participants in discourse events and in terms of unequal capacity to control
how texts are produced, distributed and consumed in particular socio-cultural
contexts. Power in CDA is everywhere and no language in use can ever be 'neutral'
or 'objective' (Fairclough, 1989) and no discourse can ever be free of power and the
exercise of power (Watts, 1992). Power is not derived from language, but language
can be used to challenge power, to provide a finely articulated means for differences
in power in social hierarchical structures. Language is not powerful on its own but it

10


is a tool of manipulating power; in other words, it obtains power by the use
powerful people make of it.
Fairclough (1995) argued that power can be conceptualized both in terms of
asymmetries between participants in discourse events and in terms of unequal
capacity to control how texts are produced, distributed and consumed in particular
social contexts. This type of power mainly stems from ideology, the knowledge that
enables persons or groups to carry out their will or to influence others in spite of
their resistance (Andersen, 1988; Fairclough, 1989).
Briefly, it can be said that language and power exist 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. Furthermore, it is realized that in a text, power is signaled
only by grammatical forms but also the genre of a text which a person employs to
control a social occasion.
2.4.3. Language and ideology
Along with power, ideology has an import role in CDA. Alike power, ideology

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.
Discussing the relation between ideology and discourse, Fairclough (1995) assumes
that there exist a significant connections between features of text and ideology
which lies “in the ideological investment of elements which are drawn upon in
producing or interpreting a text,.., and in the way in which these elements are
articulated together and orders of discourse rearticulated in discoursal events”.
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”.

11


Jones & Peccei (2004) suggest that in the attempt of making people 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, 1994). To put it another
way, the persuasive language actually serves as an effective weapon which brings a
person power and obedience, and more importantly, voluntary acts which mean
nothing but that the speaker's ideology has been commonly adopted.
2.5. Main approaches to CDA
CDA, as developed by various scholars, is not a homogenous model, nor a school or
a paradigm, but a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse
analysis (Van Dijk, 1993). Among different approaches in CDA, there are mainly
three broad approaches to British and European CDA: the discourse-historical
approach of Wodak and the social-cultural approach of Fairclough and the
idiosyncratic approach of Van Dijk. Applying discourse-historical approach,

scholars have studied the organization of the European Union (e.g., Iedema and
Wodak, 1999), or the discursive construction of national identities (e.g., de Cillia et
al., 1999; Wodak et al., 1999).
2.5.1. Wodak’s discourse-historical Approach
What distinguishes this approach from other CDA ones is that it focuses on the
historical contexts of discourse in the process of explanation and interpretation.
Wodak (2001) infers a dialectical relationship between discursive practices and
fields of action (situations, institutional and social structures), in which they are
situated. It means that: on the one hand, the situational, institutional and social
settings shape and affect discourses, and on the other, discourses influence
discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. He
(2001) defines discourse “as a complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential
interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest themselves within and across the social
fields of action as thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very
often as ‘texts’”. Reisigl and Wodak (2009) consider discourse to be:

12




a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within

specific fields of social action;


socially constituted and socially constitutive;



related to a macro-topic;



linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as truth and normative

validity involving several social actors who have different points of view (Reisigl &
Wodak, 2009).
Discourse historical approach considers intertextual and interdiscursive relationships
between texts, genres and discourses, as well as sociological variables, and situational
frames. In this approach, intertextuality means that texts are connected to other texts,
while interdiscursivity means that discourses are connected to each other. The
approach focuses on all these relationships to explore how discourses, genres, and
texts change in relationship to socio-political change (Wodak, 2001).
2.5.2. Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive Approach
Van Dijk's approach attempts to connect the microstructure of language to the
macro-structure of society (Kintsch &Van Dijk, 1978). However, instead of
discursive practice, Van Dijk focuses on social cognition as the mediating part
between text and society. He defines the social cognitions as "socially shared
representations of societal arrangements, groups, and relations, as well as mental
operations such as interpretation, thinking and arguing, inferencing and learning".
Kintsch and Van Dijk (1978) have distinguished between text's micro-structure and
macro-structure. Macro-level refers to power, dominance and inequality between
social groups, whereas the micro level refers to language use, discourse, verbal
interaction and communication (Van Dijk, 2001b). According to Van Dijk (ibid.),
societal structures are related to discourse structures through actors and their minds.
Van Dijk (1991) has applied his approach of discourse analysis to media texts. He
believes one of the areas in which discourse plays an important role in the
(re)production of inequality is that of race and ethnic relations (Wodak & Reisigl
2001; Richardson, 2004). Van Dijk's (1984, 1991, 1993b, 2000b, 2000c, 2001b)

13


studies on discourse and racism have developed a general theory of the relations
between discourse and racism. The major point of his work is that "racism is a
complex system of social and political inequality that is also reproduced by
discourse" (Van Dijk 2001b; Wodak & Reisigl, 2001).
Van Dijk (2000a) has approached critical discourse analysis on the basis of
understanding ideological structures and social relations of power involved in
discourse. There is an argument that news texts are controlled by dominant power
(Herman & Chomsky, 2002; Van Dijk, 1991). According to Van Dijk (2000a),
ideologies may determine all structures of text or talk and they may be expressed
explicitly or implicitly in the structure of discourse. Van Dijk (2001b) defines social
power as control and asserts that groups have power if they can control the acts and
minds of other groups. He distinguishes two main types of power: (1) the “coercive
power”, which is based on force i.e., power of the military, power of violent men,
etc.; and, (2) the “persuasive power”, which is “based on knowledge, information,or
authority” such as “the power of parents, professors, or journalists” (Gramsci, 1971).
2.5.3. Norman Fairclough’s dialectical - relational approach
Among various frameworks in CDA, Fairclough's three-dimensional framework has
been widely adopted. Fairclough (1995) believes that his three-dimensional
framework is appropriate for studying socio-cultural changes because this
framework creates a link between social practice and language (discourse). He sets
out to ‘examine how the ways in which we communicate are constrained by the
structures and forces of those social institutions within which we live and function.
Fairclough (1989) describes his views on what discourse and text analysis are. He
identifies three levels of discourse, these being first, social conditions of production
and interpretation, i.e. the factors in society that lead to the production of a text and
how these factors affect interpretation. Secondly, the process of production and

interpretation, i.e. how the text has been produced and this effects interpretation.
Thirdly, the product of the first two stages, the text. Corresponding to the three
levels or dimensions of discourse, he describes three stages of CDA:

14


• Description is the stage which is concerned with the formal properties of the text.
• Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction with seeing the text as a product of a process of production, and as a resource in the
process of interpretation.
• Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social
context - with the social determination of the processes of production and
interpretation, and their social effects.
Among these three approaches, an important part of Wodak's methodology that
distinguishes her perspective from the other two is the use of interviews whether in
groups or one-to-one. By drawing on socio-political, historical and linguistic
perspectives, and using various methods of data collection and a diverse range of
activity types, Wodak (1999) aim to provide detailed descriptions of their theme,
while contrasting competing configurations of national identity and divergent
narratives of identity.
Fairclough posits a three-dimensional conception of discourse, which is a clear and
resemblance to Van Dijk's three dimensions of ideology analysis: discourse, sociocognition and social analysis. The major difference between Fairclough and Van
Dijk would appear to occur in the second dimension, which for each author
functions to mediate between the other two dimensions. While for van Dijk, social
cognition and mental models mediate between discourse and the social, Fairclough
sees interdiscursivity as mediating between the social and the linguistic. Moreover,
Fairclough’s CDA is the analysis of ‘dialectical relations between discourse and
other objects, elements or moments, as well as analysis of the ‘internal relations’ of
discourse (2013) and not strictly the discourse itself. Fairclough’s CDA approach
focuses on studying discursive events; an event is an “instance of language use,

analyzed as text, discursive practice, and social practice” (Fairclough, 1993). Thus,
it allows for a more thorough analysis of the entire situation in which Winston
Churchill is speaking; specifically, what the speaker is speaking about, to whom, as
well as the current and historical events that lead to this moment. A comprehensive
set of analytical questions for even a small amount of data give Fairclough's model

15


major ramifications for the effectiveness of CDA as currently constituted in
interpreting texts. For that reason, it is Fairclough's CDA and Fairclough-inspired
CDA that will be applied in this thesis.
2.6. Review of previous studies
Given the role of political discourse in the enactment, reproduction, and
legitimization of power and domination, we may also expect many critical discourse
studies of political text and talk. Different studies have utilized different
frameworks as the basis of their analyses.
Using Halliday’s systematic-functional framework, Dunmire’s study (2005)
demonstrated how representations of the future were embedded in and projected
through political discourse and how the ‘public’ was implicated in those
representations. He focused on President Bush’s speech on 7 October 2002, which
presented his rationale for war against Iraq to a lay, public audience. The analysis
showed that the nominalization ‘threat’ functions in multiple ways to construe a
particular vision of future reality. Systematic contrasts in modality served to
privilege that future reality over alternative visions and, simultaneously, to
implicate the public in the Administration’s vision. Dunmire also considered the
speech within the context of the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy,
particularly its ‘policy of preemption'. He argued that the President's speech played
a significant role in facilitating the conceptual, linguistic, and political change
articulated through the preemption policy. In fact, this article posits that an

important ideological component of political discourse derives from its
representation of the future and the rhetorical functions those representations serve
in implicating more immediate material and discursive actions.
Krzyzanowski (2005) examined the various discursive constructions, negotiations,
and reformulations of the political and institutional identity of the EU within the
recently completed European Convention within the discourse-historical framework
developed by Ruth Wodak. The study explored characteristics of the EU discourse
about the future of Europe by illustrating the discursive realization of the
‘mainstream voice' in the European Convention, its dissolution of national

16


standpoints, and the characteristics of discourse of convention members from the
EU-Candidate countries.
In terms of wartime speech, there are also a number of studies carried out
approaching various aspects of a speech.
Presenting a framework for a metaphor-based critical analysis of persuasion in
political discourse, Ferrari (2007) examined George W. Bush's public speeches to
the nation in April 2001. More specifically, the analysis was focused on the
persuasion strategy enacted to promote the preventive war in Iraq. In his approach,
conceptual metaphor as related to emotion constitutes the fundamental
argumentative feature and crucial tool to address the matter of persuasion in text,
contributing to identifying both the ideological root and the persuasive strategy of a
given discourse in the long run. Synthesis of the results showed the potentialities of
metaphor as a privileged cognitive tool for abstracting and constructing discourse
strategies. Fernandez (2013) also gave special attention to the analysis of
dysphemistic figurative language within Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor
theory and Charteris-Black's critical metaphor analysis. The results obtained support
the idea that Churchill's skillful use of dysphemism is closely connected with his

overall political goals of instilling courage and maintaining optimism of British
victory in the darkest days of World War II as those of war against powerful Nazi
Germany.
Lori Maguire (2014) offers a rhetorical analysis of Churchill's "We shall fight on
the beach" speech. It considers the different audiences that Churchill was writing
for and the message he was attempting to give to each. It also studies the different
levels that the prime minister sees to the conflict: the concrete one in which he
describes the actual combat and the abstract one in which Good battles Evil on a
cosmic stage. On the first level, Dunkirk is a disaster that cannot be denied or
hidden from the British people. On the second, however, it is a victory-a moral one
only but one that has its own importance for Churchill. The context of the time is
also examined. In particular, the famous last paragraph is given an in-depth analysis
that leads to some rather surprising results.

17