Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu phát động chiến dịch tranh cử tổng thống mỹ năm 2015 của donald trump

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

LÊ THỊ YẾN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DONALD TRUMP’S 2015
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECH
(Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu phát động chiến dịch
tranh cử Tổng thống Mỹ năm 2015 của Donald Trump)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201.01

Hanoi, 2019


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

LÊ THỊ YẾN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DONALD TRUMP’S 2015
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECH
(Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu phát động chiến dịch
tranh cử Tổng thống Mỹ năm 2015 của Donald Trump)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field

: English Linguistics

Code

: 8220201.01

Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Hòa

Hanoi, 2019


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald
Trump‟s 2015 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech ” 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.

Lê Thị Yến

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Professor
Nguyễn Hòa 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
The study aimed to investigate how the language used in Donald Trump‟s
Announcement Speech positions various actors. It not only attempted to reveal how the
language used serves ideology and power but also how it provided a better understanding
of the political purpose of the speech. Data was chosen from selected representative
excerpts resident in Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech. The study was oriented on
the theoretical basis of Critical Discourse Analysis. It used Systemic Functional Linguistics
as an adjunct theory and employs Fairclough‟s (1989, 2010) three tier model of
description, interpretation and explanation for the analysis. The study approached

qualitative research design. The findings shown that linguistic representation helped bring
out power imbalance among the participants involved. Mexico, Saudi Arabia and the
Islamic Terrorists were portrayed as having the capacity to act upon the others while USA
was cast as lacking the ability or capacity to perform certain duties or tasks. The study also
shown that Donald Trump positions himself in the first place of the sentence with biggest
emphasis, which, in my opinion, describes him as arrogant and divisive.

Key words: Discourse analysis, Critical discourse analysis, political speech, Donald
Trump‟s speech, systemic functional grammar, ideology

iii


LIST OFABBREVIATIONS

DA

: Discourse Analysis

CDA : Critical Discourse Analysis
SFL

: Systemic Functional Linguistic

ISIS

: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

Pr

: Process

Rel

: Relational

Circ

: Circumstance

iv


LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

Table 4.1

Frequency of process types in the selected text

27

Table 4.2

Frequency of modals in the selected text

39

Table 4.3

Deontic modals by sub-category in the texts

41

Table 4.4

Frequency of counts of modals of desirability

41

Table 4.5

Frequency count of modals of obligation in the selected data

44

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………..........i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………........ii
ABSTRACT………………………………………………..………………………...iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………..………………………….…......iv
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………….……......v
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….......vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………...1
1.1

Rationale……………………………………………………………………....1

1.2

Research Objectives …………………………………..……………………...2

1.3

Research Questions ………………………………………….…………….....2

1.4

Scope of the Study……………………………………….…………..………..2

1.5

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………......3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………...4
2.1

Literature Review……………………………………………………....….......4

2.1.1 An overview of DA …………………………………………………..…............4
2.1.2 An overview of CDA…………………………………………...…………...…...4
2.2

Key Concept to the study………………………………………………..........5

2.2.1

CDA……………………………...………………………………………..........5

2.2.2

Discourse……………...……………………………………………………….6

2.2.2.1 Discourse as social practice……………………………………………….…...7
2.2.2.2 Discourse and Power Relations……………………………………………......8
2.2.3

Ideology………………………………………………………………………..8

2.2.3.1 Main views of ideology……………………………………………………….8
2.2.3.2 Implicit or explicit ideology…………………………………………………..9
2.2.4 CDA and SFL……………………….…………………….....………….............10
2.2.4.1 Transitivity Systems as a Framework of Experiential Meaning…………..….11
2.2.4.2 Modality System as A Framework of Interpersonal Meaning……………......12
2.3

Main approaches to CDA ………………………………………….…….…14

2.4

Review of previous studies on political discourse……………………....…15

vi

2.5
Chapter summary……………………………………….……………....….16
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY……………………………………........18
3.1

Research Method………………………..……………………………….......18

3.2

Research Design………………………………………………………….......18

3.3

Data and its social context…………………………………………………..18

3.4

Data analysis procedure………………………….……………………….....20

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISSCUSSION…………………..……....23
4.1

Ideology realized in the recurring themes…………..………...….…........23

4.1.1

Ideology of self- promotion and other- rejection…………………….…….23

4.1.2

Ideology as a tool of Persuasion…………………………………………....24

4.1.3

Ideology as a tool of Negotiation……………………………………….......26

4.2

Transitivity systems realizing the recurring themes………...………......27

4.2.1

Process Types and Participant Roles in the Theme of Immigration…….......28

4.2.1.1 Material processes………………………………………………………......28
4.2.1.2 Mental processes…………………………………………………………....29
4.2.1.3 Relational processes…………………………………………………….......30
4.2.1.4 Verbal processes……………………………………………………….…....31
4.2.1.5 Existential processes………………………………………………………...31
4.2.1.6 Behavioral processes……………………………………………………......31
4.2.2

Process Types and Participants roles in the Theme of National Security......32

4.2.2.1 Material processes………………………………………………………..….32
4.2.2.2 Mental processes…………………………………………………….……....36
4.3.2.2 Relational processes……………………………………………………......37
4.3

Modality types realizing the recurring themes…………………….........39

4.3.1

Epistemic Modality…………………………………………………………………40

4.3.2

Deontic Modality………….…………..…………………………….….………....40

4.3.2.1 Modal of Desirability in the selected text………………………………......41
4.3.2.2 Modal of Obligation in the selected text…………………………………....43
4.3.2.3 Modal of Permission in the selected text…………………………………...45
4.4

Chapter Summary……………………………………………...………....46

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………..47
5.1

Main findings of the study…………………….…………….…………...47

vii


5.2

Conclusion………………………………………………………………...48

5.3

Implications ……………………………………………………………....49

5.4

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research………….....49

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….....51
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………..………..I
Appendix : Donald Trump‟s Presidential Announcement Speech.………….….........I

viii


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights the statement of the problem, the objectives of the study, the
research questions, the scope of the study as well as the significance of the study.
1.1 Rationale
Political discourse just like any other genre of discourse has its own unique structures of
language and an investigation on the particular nature of such a structure is an important
academic pursuit. According to Fairclough, political discourses are decision and action
oriented. He also added that such decisions are made in the context of uncertainty and
disagreement as can be seen in campaign speeches where politicians not only use language
to express their ideas and feelings but also to re-shape the opinions of the electorate. In this
study, we attempted to bring out some descriptive and interpretive aspects of Donald
Trump‟s Announcement Speech.
I chose Trump‟s Speech for the following reasons. First, it is easy to see that so far there
have been many research papers on political speeches of famous and influential people like
Barrack Obama, John McCain, Tony Blair, etc. However, little attention has been given to
seemingly banal speech such as Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech. Secondly, as a

representative of the most powerful country in the world, his political ideologies, if any,
may have implications for the rest of the world.
This study therefore intends to fill this gap by investigating how the experiential and the
interpersonal meanings are realized through the systems of transitivity and modality
choices. Since representations in texts are socially, politically and economically motivated
and since they are increasingly becoming influential, it is important to try and find out how
these hidden meanings should be understood.
1.2 Research Objectives
The current study utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model to unmask the use of
power and hidden strategies through language use. Also the study analyzes and uncovers
the experiential, interpersonal meanings of the wordings and grammatical structures of
Trump‟s language use.

1


In summary, the specific objectives are to provide a critical analysis of Donald Trump‟s
political discourse based on Fairclough‟s framework to find out the way hidden power and
ideologies are shown in the speech and to study Donald Trump‟s use of language to win
favor with his audience.
1.3 Research Questions
To obtain the aims of the study, the following research questions have been posed:
1. How is ideology represented in Donald Trump‟s Campaign Announcement speech?
2. How does Donald Trump use language to achieve his goals?
2.1 How do the choices of Process Types and Participant Roles made in the
Announcement Speech realize experiential meaning?
2.2 How do the Modality choices made in the Announcement Speech realize the
interpersonal meaning?
1.4 Scope of the Study
The study adopted Fairclough‟s (1989, 1995, 2010) tenets of CDA as well as the works of

the CDA theorists such as Van Dijk (195, 2001) and Wodak (1997). It only concerned
itself with the principles of CDA in sync with the research questions. It also employed
Systemic Functional Linguistics by Halliday (1985, 1994, 2004) to provide analytic tools.
It similarly, made references to other theoretic studies on Systemic Functional Linguistics.
Specifically, reference was made to Halliday‟s model of transitivity and modality patterns.
On this, the study analyzed the major process types: Material, Mental and Relational
processes. The other process types: behavioral, verbal and existential were only analyzed
when their occurrence was salient in the selected text. The study similarly, analyzed
modality purely as contextually conceived in modal auxiliary.
Within the Announcement Speech, the study only concerned itself with the transitivity
systems and the modality choices within the themes of Immigration and National Security
because they were the most salient. The other themes: Obamacare, Economy, Education
and Unemployment were only used to illustrate the concepts: Ideology and Power.

2


1.5 Significance of the study
This is one of the newest attempts to explore and discover interrelation of discourse
structures and ideological structures of Donald Trump‟s Presidential Campaign
Announcement speech in the United States Presidential Election, 2016 as a good sample of
his language use in presidential campaign.
Theoretically, this study provides a support to CDA theories. From an objective view as
linguists when approaching discourses, 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 Donald Trump‟s speech
it may provide the researcher another approach to political speech analysis from CDA
viewpoint.

3


CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presents literature review which includes an overview of DA and CDA. Then
it goes to introduce some key concepts for the study which focuses on both CDA and SFL.
2.1

Literature Review

2.1.1 An overview of DA
Discourse analysis is a broad field which is related to use of language in context.
According to Tistcher (2000, p. 42), ''discourse is a broad term with different definitions,
which 'integrate a whole palette of meanings''. Discourse analysis takes into account
different theoretical and methodological approaches such as linguistic, anthropology,
philosophy, psychology and sociology. The nature of language is closely related to the
demands that we make on it and the functions it has to serve. In the most concrete terms,
these functions are specific to a culture. ''The particular form has taken by the grammatical
system of language is closely related to the social and personal need that language is
required to serve'' (Halliday, 1978, p. 142).
One of the important features of DA is to study authentic texts and conversations in the
social context. The early DA was concerned with the internal structure of texts. Halliday's
systematic functional linguistics is a new evolution against internal structure of texts.
According to Halliday (1978), texts should encode both personal and social processes. In
other words, texts should be generated, comprehended and put into a social context.
Discourse analysis is based on micro and macro levels. Therefore, both linguistic and social
analyses are important. Discourses are interpreted as communicative events because
discourses between people convey messages beyond that of what is said at directly. What
is important in such discourse is the social information which is transferred allusively.

2.1.2 An overview of CDA
At the end the 1970s, CDA was established as one of the domains of research in discourse
studies. It is known as an approach that is based on the union of language studies and
social theory (Fairclough, 1992). CDA investigates how social power is misused and how

4


text and talk represent, procreate, and resist dominance and inequality in the social and
political context. The most notable figure in this domain is Norman Fairclough, who has
developed a three dimensional framework for studying discourse. The aim of this
framework is to integrate three dimensions into another analysis of language text. In other
words, it refers to analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution
and consumption) and analysis of discourse events.
Critical Discourse Analysis is not merely analytic. It is critical in the sense that it sets out
to discern the relationship between language and other hidden elements in the social strata.
These elements include: (a) how language figures social relations of power and dominance;
(b) how language works ideologically; (c) how language negotiates personal and social
identities.
One of the most important linguistic theories used as a basis for a critical discourse
approach is that of Halliday's systematic functional grammar. It is supported by some
linguists such as (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, Fairclough, 1992, 1995 a and b, Kress,
1985) who used it for analyzing the text because systematic functional grammar has a
significant role in critical interpretation of linguistic expression in various discourses. As a
matter of fact, systematic functional linguistic (SFL) model has been applied as a tool for
analyzing the texts.
In short, according to many scholars, the main difference between DA and CDA is that DA
mainly concerns with communication and information sharing while CDA is problemoriented, which considers discourse as a social practice.
2.2 Key concepts to the study
2.2.1 CDA

CDA can be viewed as an analytic approach whose major concern is the way dominance,
social power and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted in a text, social and
political contexts (Van Dijk 2001: 352, 2003: Fairclough: 2010). According to Young and
Harrison (2004: 3), CDA focuses on espousing ideologies hidden in language. Such
ideologies naturalize the unequal power relations but once they are brought to the fore,
they can be contested. The primary concern of CDA, therefore, is to show the relationship

5


between language, power and ideology on the one hand and that of social change and
social identity on the other. CDA does this by looking at the role discourse plays in the
production and maintenance of unequal power relations and dominance (Weiss and Wodak
2003; Mr. Gregor 2011:4). These roles are summarized by Wodak and Fairclough into
seven principles namely: (a) the role of discourse in social problems; (b) the relationships
between power and discourse; (c) how discourse constitutes culture and society; (d) how
discourse is ideologically marked; (d) the historical nature of discourse; (e) the mediated
relationship that exists between text and society; (f) the interpretive and explanatory orientation
of CDA.
Although significant variations exist in CDA‟s approaches, Haig (2011) argues that two key
facets of CDA still remain consistent; the relationship between language and power on the
one hand and the way language creates and maintains an unequal power relations on the
other hand.
CDA is used in this study to find out how transitivity patterns and modality choices
construct experiential and interpersonal meanings in Donald Trump‟s Announcement
Speech. These choices will then be subjected to Fairclough‟s (1989, 1995, 2010) three tier
framework of doing CDA: description, interpretation and explanation.
2.2.2 Discourse
CDA develops discourse socially in such a way that it involves social conditions of
production (e.g., text) as well as social conditions of interpretation. It is the linguistic form

of social interaction that is either embedded in social context of situation or that it
interprets the social system that constitutes the culture of institutions or society as a whole.
It is a product of its environment and it functions in that environment through the process
of interaction and semantic choice. Text is the realization of such environment. It treats
discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the like
that represent and endorse it. On the other hand, texts are produced by socially situated
speakers and writers. For participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not
always equal: there will be a range from complete solidarity to complete inequality.
Meanings come about through interaction between readers and receivers and linguistic

6


features come about as a result of social processes, which are never arbitrary. In most
interactions, users of language bring with them different dispositions toward language,
which are closely related to social status (Fairclough, 1989). In CDA, discourse is defined
in terms of social practice.
2.2.2.1 Discourse as Social Practice
In CDA, discourse is defined as a type of social practice and the context of language is
crucial (Fairclough, 1989, 1993, 2003; van Dijk 1993, 1997, 2001;; Wodak, 1996, 2000,
2001). Discourse involves both written and spoken language as a form of social practice
(Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 35). Following Fairclough (1995), Reisigl and Wodak
(2000) consider discourse as "a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice
from a particular perspective". In seeing discourse as a social practice, Fairclough (1989)
shows that a critical analyst is not only concerned with analyzing texts, but with analyzing
the relationships between texts, processes, and their social conditions. In doing so, three
dimensions of critical discourse analysis arise accordingly: description that concerns the
formal properties of the text that concerns with what a text says, interpretation that
concerns the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation that concerns the
relationship between interaction and social context, (Fairclough, 1989).

There is a dialectical relationship between particular discursive practices and the specific
fields of action (including situations, institutional frames and social structures) in which
they are embedded. Social settings affect and are affected by discourse. In other words,
discourse shape social settings and it is shaped by them (Wodak, 2007). Social structures
as well as social events are parts of social reality and the relationship between social
structures and social events depends upon mediating categories, which Fairclough called
„social practices‟, the forms of social activities, which are articulated together to constitute
social fields, institutions, and organizations (Fairclough, 2003).
Van Dijk (1993, p. 251) argues that CDA 'prefers to focus on the elites and their discursive
strategies for the maintenance of inequality' through studying top down relations of
dominance than to bottom-up relations of resistance, compliance and acceptance. To him,
this will often be effective and adequate, because it is easy to assume that directive speech

7


acts such as commands or orders may be used to enact power, and hence also to exercise
and to reproduce dominance. Similarly, it is easy to examine the style, rhetoric, or meaning
of texts for strategies that aim at the concealment of social power relations, for instance by
playing down, leaving implicit or understating responsible agency of powerful social actors
in the events represented in the text. CDA, hence, studies the relation between society,
discourse and social cognition, which is the necessary theoretical and empirical interface
that should be examined in detail. Social cognition is the missing link between discourse
and dominance, a feature that distinguishes CDA from other non-critical approaches.
2.2.2.2 Discourse and Power Relations
In this respect, Critical Discourse Analysis looks at the way elements of both spoken and
written texts are organized. It does this with the goal of trying to establish the salient political
and ideological features resident in the texts.
Van Dijk (1993:249: Fairclough 1989: Wodak 2001: Holmes 2005:33) agreed with the
notion of power in CDA by pointing out that it is an integral part of it. He added that

discourse entails manifestations of power imbalances made worse and reinforced by either
explicit or implicit references. Similarly, Fowler and Kress (1979:188) posit that language
is a consolidation of the structures which shape it and it is not only used to manipulate
people but also to establish and maintain the power of state agencies, corporations and
institutions. This is made possible by use of direct and indirect speech acts or by processes
in which the ideology of a culture or a group is linguistically marked, articulated and tacitly
affirmed. The present study hinges on these assertions because through transitivity choices
some power relations are foregrounded while others are backgrounded. An analysis of
process types, for instance, may show the participants favoured by the power relations.
2.2.3 Ideology
Ideology has been a central area of investigation in Critical Discourse Analysis (Kress and
Hodge, 1979; Fairclough, 1989, 1992; Wodak 1989; Van Dijk, 1989). This is so because
discourse or any other semiotic behaviour has been identified by major linguistic scholars
as a location of ideology.
2.2.3.1 Main views of ideology

8


One major problem immediately noticeable to anyone attempting to study Ideology is the
difficulty in trying to establish its specific definition. To enable us proceed with the present
study, two approaches to the definition Ideology are explored as follow.
First is the view of Ideology as a „specific set of symbolic representations (Blommaert,
2005:158). These include: discourses, images, arguments and so forth. Such symbolic
representations Blommaert adds are operated by particular groups or actors who are
identifiable by their use of such ideologies. This view could involve reference to particular
positions within a political system (factionalism) such as progressivism, conservatism,
reactivism and so forth. These Ideologies characterize participants who subscribe to them
as seen, for instance, in actors who exhibit socialist symbolic representations because they
subscribe to the Ideology of Socialism.

The second approach to the definition of Ideology relates to its view as a general
phenomenon that characterizes the totality of a particular social or political system. Such
Systems are practiced by every member of the group that subscribes to it. This view
emphasizes that Ideology represents the „cultural,‟ Ideational aspects of a particular sociopolitical system. Ideology relates to both the normal perceptions individuals have of the
world as a system as well as natural activities involved in it. Such activities sustain social
relations, power structures and the patterns of thought which serve to reinforce the
common sense.
The present study adopts this latter view of Ideology as a common sense and defines it as a
form of influence or manipulation in order to win acceptance.
2.2.3.2 Implicit or explicit Ideologies
In texts, ideological notions can be implicit or explicit. Explicit ideologies can be usually
seen in the form of offensive and insensitive language to the institutional subjects such the
use of the word „rapists‟ in reference to Mexican Immigrants by Donald Trump. It can also
entail the use of ingroup or outgroup depiction to refer to different participants in the
selected text.
Further, it can additionally contain the use of language that portrays „self‟ in a positive
light while painting the „other‟ in a negative light. Such a view is supported by van Dijk
who considers that such method emphasizes the speaker‟s good things but de- emphasizes

9


the other participant‟s good things or backgrounds the speaker‟s bad things but
foregrounds the bad things of the other actors.
On the other hand, implicit ideologies take the form of promotion. This can be illustrated
by the following example drawn from Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech: I would
build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. Scholars of Critical Discourse Analysis concur
that dominant Ideologies are characterized by the following features:


They are stabilized and legitimized by discourse such a manner that obscures the

effects of power and Ideology.


They have the ability to naturalize discourse by making it appear „normal‟ or „common

sense.‟


They flourish and are sustained by hegemony.



They may be sustained by the dominated individuals albeit unawares. Such dominated

groups even if aware of the dominant Ideologies, may find it difficult to wriggle their way
out.
The present study employs the context of use to study how linguistic features bring out both
implicit and explicit Ideologies in the selected text.
2.2.4 CDA and SFL
The SFL model is anchored on the idea that language is a system of meaning which affords
a speaker a number of grammatical choices in the course of a communicative event. The
meaning of language, therefore, is configured through these choices which are also
embodied in the structure of the clause. As Bloor & Bloor (2013:3) point out, „SFL
involves the idea that a language consists of a set of systems which offer speakers or writers
unlimited choices and ways of creating meaning.‟ Halliday (as cited in Fontaine, 2013:22)
agree with this view by pointing out that „the clause is a multifunctional unit of language.‟
This implies that the clause is an embodiment of different meanings at the same time.
The three meanings of the clause pointed out by Halliday (1985) as working together

include (a) the experiential metafunction (which represents the human experience and
corresponds to the view of the clause as representation); (b) the interpersonal metafunction
(enacts personal and social relationship and corresponds to the view of clause as

10


exchange); (c) the textual metafunction (which relates to the discursive flow of the text and
corresponds to the view of the clause as a message) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014).
It can, thus, be seen that each metafunction is a distinct in its functions. However, the
present study focuses only on the experiential and interpersonal metafunctions. Two
systems are employed to realize them; Transitivity as an element to bring out the
experiential meaning in the Announcement speech and Modality as a tool to reveal the
relationship between Donald Trump as a speaker and his audience.
2.2.4.1 Transitivity Systems as a Framework of Experiential Meaning
Transitivity system according to Halliday (1985:101-102) refers to the experiences of
language structures as semantic arrangements comprising process types, participants and
circumstantial elements. Transitivity, thus, relates to how meanings are expressed in the
clause and how processes are manifested in language (Simpson, 2004:22).
These experiences are expressed through six processes including material, mental,
relational, .verbal, existential and behavioral processes.
Material process is known as process of doing and happening. It expresses the notion that
some entity „does‟ something which may be done „to‟ some other entity. In this type of
process, there are two participants role, namely: Actor and Goal. The actor is able to affect
the flow of events of another participant in the clause known as the Goal or Beneficiary.
Mental process is known as process of sensing. It refers to the process of remembering,
knowing, and other mental actions that involve the use of the mind. There are two
participants, namely: Senser and Phenomenon. An analysis of the mental process with
regards to the issue of immigration is important because through mental clauses that the
speaker uses, his opinion, perception and his particular identity may be revealed.

Relational process is known as process of being. It can be differentiated into three types:
Attributive process with Carrier and attribute participants, Identifying process with Token
and Value participants and Possessive process with Possessor and Possessed participants.
According to Halliday and Simpson, these processes are key grammatical tools for
classifying, assessing, identifying and evaluating people, concepts or objects (Halliday,
2004:214; Simpson, 2004:25-26). It is important to investigate relational processes in order

11


to find out how immigrants are classified based on the types of attributes attached to them
and the meanings ascribed to those attributes.
Verbal Process is known as process of „saying‟ (Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014:252). In the
theme immigration, verbal processes involve the sayer, the verbiage and the target.
Existential Process is known as process of existence and happening. This type of process
suggests that something exists (Simpson 2004:25).
Behavioral process is known as the process of behaving. Grammatically they are
intermediate between material and mental process. This means that behavioral process
includes the action process but the action is done with consciousness, for example:
breathing, dreaming, smiling, waving, laughing, coughing, watching, listening etc. The
majority of behavioral process clauses have one participant that is called as Behaver (the
agent who behaves). If there is any second participant, it will be called as Behaviour.
2.2.4.2 Modality System as A Framework of Interpersonal Meaning
Modality can be expressed through the mood of sentences, auxiliary verbs, modal adjuncts
and tense (Kress and Fowler 1979; Halliday 1985; Faweet 2008:68-83). Its analysis is used
in the present study to attempt to bring out the interpersonal meaning and to express social
roles between the speaker and the hearer. Fowler and Kress (1979:200) define modality
thus: Linguistic constructions which express speaker‟s and writer‟s attitudes towards
themselves, towards their interlocutors, towards their subject matter, their social and
economic relationships with the people they address; and the actions which are performed

via language (ordering, accusing, promising and leading.
It can thus, be inferred that the use of modality in the clause to establish the judgment and
the opinion of the speaker towards his topic and hearers. Modality, therefore, relates to the
validity of what is being predicated, stated, questioned, commanded or offered. It may also
refer to social relationship within the clause. (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:177). Further,
it relates to the intermediate between the positive and negative poles (the gap between the
choices of „yes‟ and „no‟ that allows speakers to attach expressions of attitude, belief and
obligation to what they say (Simpson, 2004:123). This intermediacy varies in propositions
and proposals. In proposition, in between certainties of „it is‟ and „it isn‟t lie the relative
probability of „it must be,‟ „it will be,‟ and „it may be.‟ Whereas in proposals, in between

12


the definitive „do‟ and „don‟t‟ lie the discretionary options „you must do.‟ „You should do‟
and „you may do.‟ Modals can help unpack the writer‟s standpoint to the reader by bringing
out tentativeness or other aspects of interpersonal meaning. Similarly, as Simpson
(2004:23) posit, it can also be a significant part of establishing personal identity.
Two main types of modality, epistemic modality and deontic modality, were chosen for the
analysis in this study.
Modalization known as epistemic modality is a sub-type of linguistic modality that deals
with a speaker's evaluation/judgment of, degree of confidence in, or belief of
the knowledge upon which a proposition is based. In other words, epistemic modality refers
to the way speakers communicate their doubts, certainties, and guesses - their "modes of
knowing". More technically, epistemic modality may be defined an evaluation of the
chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it)
will occur, is occurring, or has occurred in a possible world which serves as the universe of
interpretation for the evaluation process. Downing and Locke (1992: 332) hold similar
view and point out that the knowledge the speaker has about what he is saying; his
knowledge of the world or simply his assessment of the truthfulness of the preposition in

terms of possibility, probability and certainty. The present study looks at Epistemic
Modality along the same line.
Deontic Modality also known as Modulation in Systemic Functional Linguistics, is also
connotative in meaning. Unlike Epistemic Modality, it entails obligation, permission,
willingness, ability or appeal. These expressions include „must‟, „should‟, „ought‟, „may‟, „can‟
and the like. The deontic modal concepts, which these words are often used to express, are
interesting in many ways. First, there are logical connections between them – for example, they
can be ordered in terms of strength. That I must go home now entails that I ought to go home
now, and that proposition furthermore entails that I may go home now. Yet, the inferences in
the other direction from „may‟ to „ought‟ and from „ought‟ to „must‟...
The view of speaker involvement in deontic modality is supported by Halliday (1970:335) who
posits that it is “a form of participation of the speaker in the speech event” which serves a
crucial role in negotiating interpersonal meaning through language. Halliday adds that it
expresses wants, desires, commands, obligations, permission and undertakings. This can be

13


exemplified as captured below:
Deontic modal of

Example

Permission

may, can, may

Obligation/ necessity

must, should, ought to, have to

Expectations

ought to

Advisability

ought to

Volitions – desirability

should, would

Prohibition

must, must not

2.3 Main approaches to CDA
Fairclough‟s (1989, 2000, 2010) approach to CDA is also the main base of this study, the
approach looks at language as a crucial element in constituting, maintaining and changing
social relations of power. Fairclough‟s interest is in not only trying to find out how
language figures in everyday talk but also in how it constructs identity and portrays
ideology and power. He considers language as a part of the society. That is, language shapes
the society and the society shapes language in the sense that: (a) people communicate in
ways that are socially conditioned. (b) People‟s communication embodies social effects as
seen in both conscious and private communicative events. On the other hand, the society is
shaped by language in the sense that language is an integral part of the social process.
Fairclough, further, adds a three-layered method of doing Critical Discourse Analysis
which conforms to the implications mentioned above. These include: description,
interpretation and explanation.

Besides the work of Fairclough, Van Dijk (1995, 2001, 2003) takes a socio cognitive
perspective in his analysis of discourse. He looks at what role discourse plays in the (re)
production and resistance of dominance. Further, he views dominance as the exercise of
institutional social power leading to social, cultural, political, ethnic, class, racial and
ethnic inequality. Van Dijk identifies mental control where those in control of discourse
dominate the less powerful through mind control, as being used to actualize dominance. This
mental control, as Van Dijk points out, does not only involve the censure of information
conveyed to the dominated but also the manner in which it is relayed. Van Dijk further
adds that it entails the control of discourse context such that: the communicative event,

14


time, place and the participants involved are defined.
Wodak (2001) takes a historical perspective to the study of discourse. Her approach,
similarly, sheds more light to the present study because just like Fairclough‟s approach, it
acknowledges the dialectical relationship between discourse and society. Besides, it views
language as possessing the power and ideology which is used by the dominant participants
to convey their norms and values. Further, Wodak‟s approach just like Fairclough‟s proffers
that readers and participant‟s interpretation of texts differ not only on the basis of their
background knowledge but also on the basis of their position. This notion is used in the
present study to account for the varied ideologies and power relations in the selected text
2.4 Review of previous Studies on Political discourse
CDA has been used widely by many researchers to analyze political speeches. The
following studies have been conducted on political discourses.
Post (2009) employed CDA to analyze the selections of social actors and social actions from
the 2008 campaign speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain. He found that language was
used to make salient the most notable linguistic images and socio- semantic features
implemented by the texts‟ writers to facilitate not only the nominee‟s perceived societal
values, but to also shape individual interaction within society through such perceived

social values as articulated by representations of social actors and social actions. He also
showed how Obama shaped his identity through the manipulation of social actors and
social actions to facilitate not only the ideological positions the nominees would strive to
reproduce, but also the textual personas they have assiduously created for themselves via
their ideological positions and representations of meaning. For Obama, meaning was
utilized to shape the majority of categories within his discourse
Similarly, Alvi and Abdul Baseer (2002) investigated how Obama used rhetorics and his
linguistic ability to convince and persuade his listeners of his propositions. They showed
how he used story-telling, rhetorical questions and answers, appeal to authority, salutations
as emotion booster, free verbal repetitive constructions, verbal and syntactic parallelism.
They pointed out how he uses his linguistic artisanship to draw his credible image in the
minds of his listeners, and to convince them that a war on Iraq is not a solution.

15