The vietnam war syndrome in “forrest gump” movie scritp a critical discourse analysis

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

----------

TRỊNH THỊ VÂN

THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME
IN FORREST GUMP MOVIE SCRIPT:
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Hội chứng chiến tranh Việt Nam
trong kịch bản phim Forrest Gump:
Một phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán

MA THESIS – TYPE 1

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

8220201.01

Hanoi, 2019


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

----------

TRỊNH THỊ VÂN

THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME
IN FORREST GUMP MOVIE SCRIPT:
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Hội chứng chiến tranh Việt Nam
trong kịch bản phim Forrest Gump:
Một phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán

MA THESIS – TYPE 1

Field :

English Linguistics

Code :

8220201.01

Supervisor :

Dr. Ngô Tự Lập

Hanoi, 2019


DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis ―The Vietnam War Syndrome in “Forrest Gump”
Movie Script: A Critical Discourse Analysis‖ embodies the result of my own
special work which has been composed by myself in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at University of Languages and
International Studies.

Trịnh Thị Vân
January 05th, 2019

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would firstly like to express my thankfulness for my supervisor, Dr. Ngô Tự
Lập for all his help and guidance. Were it not his support, I would not have
the courage to complete a Master’s Thesis on this topic. His valuable
comments and suggestions also played an important part in the finalization of
this study. Furthermore, I am grateful to all the staff at ULIS Center for
Learning Resources who have been always willing to help me with the books
I need. I would also like to give thanks to all the lecturers at Faculty of Postgraduate Studies for all their adorable knowledge which made me broaden my
mind to the world of language. Special thanks, finally, to my husband and my
son who stand by me throughout the time I did my research, without whom I
could never be motivated enough to fulfil my work.

ii


ABSTRACT

The fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975 is a turning point that put the Vietnam
War into an end after 20 years of conflicts. Considered the most controversial
war in the 20th century, the Vietnam War deeply divides the American
society. Especially, it causes the Vietnam Syndrome which still is an
obsession of American people until today. The research is carried out on a
movie script of one of the most famous Hollywood films about the Vietnam
War, Forrest Gump. The collected data are analyzed on the basis Fairclough’s
three-dimensional framework for critical discourse analysis. As a result, the
study reveals the different aspects of the syndrome considered as a
psychological trauma expressing in many factors such as the topic, the plot,
the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, and the language of the
whole movie. Moreover, the movie script exposes a long period of
problematic and tragic time in the history of the United States. Hopefully, the
study will be a firm ground for further CDA research on the same topic.
Key words: critical discourse analysis, Vietnam Syndrome, movie script,
Vietnam War, American Studies

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION .............................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1
1. Rationale of the study.................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study .......................................................................................... 2

3. Scope of the study ......................................................................................... 3
4. Methods of the study ..................................................................................... 3
5. Background of the data ................................................................................. 3
6. Design of the thesis ....................................................................................... 5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT........................................................................... 6
Chapter 1: Literature Review ........................................................................ 6
1.1. The Vietnam Syndrome. ............................................................................ 6
1.2. Discourse and Discourse analysis (DA) .................................................... 9
1.2.1. Definitions of Discourse ......................................................................... 9
1.2.2. Discourse analysis ................................................................................. 12
1.3. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).......................................................... 14
1.3.1. History of CDA ..................................................................................... 14
1.3.2. Definitions of CDA ............................................................................... 15
1.3.3. Aims of CDA ........................................................................................ 17
1.3.4. Key notions of CDA.............................................................................. 17
1.3.5. Tenets of CDA ...................................................................................... 19
1.3.6. Fairclough’s approach to CDA ............................................................. 20
iv


1.3.7. Differences between CDA and other approaches to DA ...................... 20
1.4. Review of previous works ....................................................................... 21
Chapter 2: Methodology ............................................................................... 23
2.1. Research objects ....................................................................................... 23
2.2. Research method ...................................................................................... 23
2.3. Research procedure .................................................................................. 26
Chapter 3: Data analysis .............................................................................. 28
3.1. Topic, plot, and characters ....................................................................... 28
3.2. Setting and genre ...................................................................................... 31
3.3. Language ................................................................................................. 33

3.4. Theme songs............................................................................................. 39
3.5. The symbol of Forrest’s running .............................................................. 41
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions .......................................................... 45
4.1. How is the Vietnam War Syndrome reflected in the movie script from
CDA perspective ............................................................................................. 45
4.2. What are the implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War
concerning texts............................................................................................... 47
PART C: CONCLUSION............................................................................. 18
1. Summary of the study ................................................................................. 48
2. Limitations of the study .............................................................................. 48
3. Suggestions for further research ................................................................. 48
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 50

v


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
To be a young Vietnamese of the post-war generation, have you ever
raised a serious question about what happened to the generations of our
fathers and grandfathers during the Resistance War against America, that is
called the Vietnam War in the US, from the 1950s to the 1970s? Or you only
just heard about a war in which Vietnam was against the American Empire’s
invasion. And that the Americans brought tons of bombs and Agent Orange to
flow down to our country, which made us be deep inside years of depression
and smokes of war. The war, as all we know, has caused many disasters to our
country such as starvation, poverty, disability, homelessness, and etc. The
grief and loss of the war will last forever in the hearts of the Vietnamese
generation after generation.
In the United States today, ―Vietnam‖ is shorthand for their longest and

most divisive foreign war, and it is often evoked as little more than a political
or media cliché, a grip reference to a controversial war that ended badly, a
time of domestic turmoil, a history to be avoided in the future. For many
Americans, the war’s meaning has been winnowed down to the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC where they stand in silence, filled
with emotion, but unsure how to move beyond their private reflections to a
broader engagement with this daunting subject.
They, the same as many young Vietnamese in our generation, are still
going to find the answers to the questions how the war began, why it bred so
much dissert or why it lasted so long. As a result, many American filmmakers
from Hollywood have worked for years to find out the reasons why the
United States got bogged down in the war, also acted out the real nature of the
1


war under different points of view. It has been 43 years since the last US
combat troops left Vietnam, but the conflict continues to play an outsized role
in American politics and popular culture. From John Wayne’s stern-jawed
performance in the 1968 propaganda film The Green Berets to Robert
Downey, Jr.’s antics in the 2008 meta-comedy Tropic Thunder, the war’s
complexity and social impact have made it an irresistible subject for
generations of filmmakers and moviegoers.
Among those, Forrest Gump, one of the most famous films about the
Vietnam War, is an epic American film detailing a history of an America that
was locked in the revolving orbit of the Vietnam War. Also, it clearly and
deeply indicates life of veterans coming back from the war who suffered from
a serious disease called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or the
Vietnam Syndrome. Although in a speech on 1 March 1991 after the Gulf
War (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991), the US President George Bush
declared ―By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all‖

(Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1991, p.549), it actually does exist
in American veterans’ mind and soul who came back from the Vietnam War,
and in the whole society as well.
So how exactly the Vietnam Syndrome appears in the script of the
Forrest Gump movie, in order to find out the answer to this question, I
manage to do a research called ―The Vietnam War Syndrome in “Forrest
Gump” Movie Script: A Critical Discourse Analysis”.
2. Aims of the study
The research is able to argue the nature of the continuing effects of the
Vietnam War as reflected in American cinema and the extent to which the
Vietnam Syndrome is still relevant in American culture. Another aim of this

2


study is to provide experiences in applying CDA methods into cinematic
texts, especially movie scripts.
To fulfill these purposes, the study will answer the following research
questions:
(1) How is the Vietnam War Syndrome reflected in “Forrest Gump” movie
script from CDA perspective?
(2) What are implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War
concerning texts?
3. Scope of the study
In the framework of the study, this thesis only focuses on analyzing the
Vietnam Syndrome represented in the script of the film Forrest Gump which
was released in 1994 by Paramount Pictures. The factors such as the topic, the
plot, the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, and the language
of the movie are analyzed to figure out the syndrome hidden inside.
4. Methods of the study

This research is conducted based on a Critical Discourse Analysis
approach which will be further discussed in the next sections. The qualitative
method and content analysis are applied for the research. After collecting data
in the movie script, the analysis was exercised on the basis of Fairclough’s
three-dimensional framework: Description – Interpretation - Explanation.
Details of the analysis procedure are presented in the Methodology chapter.
5. Background of the data
Among a series of films about the Vietnam War, Forrest Gump was
chosen because it is interesting - a six Academy Award winner. Also, the film

3


is in English. And, it is a film with a strong Vietnam War theme. It not only
shows the criticism of American involvement in the conflicts but also an
extremely realistic Vietnam War combat scene. It also presents a cozy view of
the war by portraying it through Forrest’s innocent, uncritical, and child-like
eyes. The film honors the army and portrays the soldiers as normal, decent
young men who were doing their duty for America. Forrest’s heroic actions
add a patriotic view to American involvement in Vietnam and make the army
and soldiers look brave, loyal and chivalrous. Their innocence is also shown
in their will to get home, creating sympathy for the US. Forrest’s lack of
knowledge regarding the ―Vietcong‖ is suggestive to the lack of knowledge
displayed by the whole army regarding the policy of containment.
The conditions of war in the film are displayed as tough and the
guerrilla warfare that takes place is shown to have a high human cost. The
movie is only slightly critical of US involvement in Vietnam, but as it is
shown entirely from the US perspective, it is a largely romantic and patriotic
view of the army and the war.
The Vietnam War was one of the most controversial armed conflicts

during the 20th century. It ended in 1975 after 20 years of fighting and more
than 55,000 Americans and between three and four million Vietnamese dead.
Unlike earlier wars, however, the Vietnam War did not unite the nation to a
common cause, but tore it apart. Many people were against the war as they
believed that the soldiers were only being sent to their deaths, and that the war
was not very productive for the United States. Many of the soldiers returned
home only to be called by protesters as "baby killers." The war first started
towards the beginning of the Cold War when the United States attempted at
eliminating any Communist Presence in Vietnam. The main presidents during
this war were President Lyndon B. Johnson and President Nixon who were

4


known for authorizing hundreds of thousands of troops to be sent to Vietnam.
President Nixon was known for his idea of "Vietnamization" where he would
gradually bring troops from Vietnam home and end the war soon.
6. Design of the thesis
There are three main parts in this research paper.
Part A - INTRODUCTION - presents the rationale, aims, scope,
methodology, background, and design of the thesis.
Part B - DEVELOPMENT - consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
In this chapter, the brief introduction of the Vietnam Syndrome and the
context of the film will be mentioned. It also gives out the theoretical
background of CDA including brief introduction of the history, definition and
methodology.
Chapter 2: Methodology
In this chapter, the theory of CDA in chapter 1 is applied in analyzing the
movie script to uncover the relationship between power, ideology and

language.
Chapter 3: Data Analysis
The collected data is analyzed in this chapter.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
In this chapter, the finding from the study is mentioned and discussion on
them is also indicated.
Part C - CONCLUSION - summarizes the study and suggestions for further
studies.
References

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. The Vietnam Syndrome
In fact, the term ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ is used widely in America.
However, the title of this study refers to the ―Vietnam War Syndrome‖
because the author wants the readers to have the initial understanding about
the content of the thesis. Therefore, ―the Vietnam War Syndrome‖ will be
used changeably with ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ as can be seen below.
The Vietnam Syndrome, like other post-war syndromes, was first used
in early 1970s to describe the physical and psychological symptoms of
veterans coming back from the Vietnam War, later known scientifically as
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). By the end of 1970s, the Vietnam
Syndrome was no longer a purely medical term and it came to have a political
meaning, coined by Henry Kissinger and popularized by Ronald Reagan to
describe the US’s reluctance to send troops into combat situations overseas.
This happened because the US was afraid that they would get bogged down in
a quagmire again, like they did in Vietnam, and this which would lead to a

loss of support for the government.
They argue that bad memories of the Vietnam War such as massive
protests and riots, the Watergate scandals as well as images of killed and
wounded soldiers and civilians, have caused the American people to distrust
any type of foreign intervention. As a result, any attempt by the United States
to engage in a military conflict would be viewed by the American people as
―another Vietnam.‖ American leaders were also afraid of involvement in
other nations’ problems.

6


The Vietnam Syndrome also led to many problems in American society
and people. In other words, it is a problem of the whole society. Many
veterans came back from Vietnam had been failed in efforts to have an
ordinary life. More Vietnam veterans committed suicide due to psychological
problems after the war than those who had died during the war. At least
three-of-quarters in a million veterans become homeless or jobless.
Nearly 700,000 draftees who came from poorly educated background
hardly received honorable discharge. Even worse, many Vietnam veterans
find it too challenging to get new jobs to maintain support for their family.
There are many movies, documentaries and television programs depicting
Vietnam veterans’ difficult lives and their sad memories – what they suffered
when fighting in the war and how badly they were treated when they came
back from Vietnam.
There are considerable debates whether the war in Iraq (2003) is
―another Vietnam‖. The appearance of that phrase has caused many to believe
that Vietnam Syndrome is still alive. After the Gulf War (1990 – 1991) and its
relatively decisive victory, President George H. W. Bush declared that
Vietnam Syndrome was finally ―kicked‖: ―By God, we’ve kicked the

Vietnam syndrome once and for all‖. It is believed the U.S. had recovered
from the disaster in Vietnam. This idea is backed up by the broad support of
government in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq in first decade of 21st century.
However, those signs did not mean that the US had completely overcome the
Vietnam Syndrome. American foreign policies are usually decided based on
the political orientation of the incumbent president. Presidents who are
Democrats usually try to avoid intervening abroad unless absolutely
necessary. For example, American troops were withdrawn from Somalia after
Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 under Bill Clinton’s tenure. Barack Obama’s

7


administration was also careful when assessing problems in Libya and Syria
in 2013. They showed that Vietnam Syndrome still exists on American
foreign policies to a certain extent. Apparently, the United States decide that
they would only use military force as a last resort – where national interest is
clearly involved; when there is strong public support; and only if they could
achieve a relatively fast, inexpensive victory.
Intrinsically, the Vietnam Syndrome is a collective psychological
sickness caused by the conflicts between ideological powers and reality.
By ideological powers we mean the belief in the ―Noble‖ American
Values, Dreams, Just Cause, Strength, etc. These powers decide the way they
speak, live, and behave in their life. (Remember Thomas Paine’s statement
that the cause of the Americans is the cause of humanity). The reality is what
they see: the American soldiers went to Vietnam to become ―baby killers‖,
drop napalm, and to cause bloody massacres.
The question is whether the American government continually tell lies
to their nation in committing all these awful actions that generate
psychological disorders in the whole country while and after the war.

The demonstrations of the Vietnam Syndrome are different, but the
essential is the doubt and disbelief of American people in the so-called
American values. They raise questions such as: Is America really such a free
and great country? Does the American Army go to Vietnam to liberate a
miserable people from communists’ suppression? Does the merciful God exist
as they used to think? In general, it is their disillusions in the future and in
life. They lose their directions to the future and do not know how to move on.
The syndrome appears everywhere in every fields of American society
including in artworks, literature, newspapers, especially in movies, of which
the film Forrest Gump is a very interesting example.

8


1.2. Discourse and Discourse analysis
1.2.1. Definition of discourse
The Russian linguist, V.N.Volosinov is the first author to use the term
discourse in the sense we understand it today. In his article ―Discourse in Life
and Discourse in Art‖ (1926), Volosinov claims that verbal text, whether it is
oral or written, constitutes only a part of the language communication. The
other part is context. The unit of language communication, therefore, in not
sentence, that can be repeated, but utterance, that includes both the sentence
and the context in which it is produced, is unique. In the same way, text can
be repeated, but discourse, that includes text and the context, is unique.
Volosinov put it clearly: ―verbal discourse is clearly not self-sufficient. It
arises out of an extra-verbal pragmatic situation and maintains the closest
possible connection with that situation. Moreover, such discourse is directly
informed by life itself and cannot be divorced from life without losing its
import.‖
According to Volosinov, in order to disclose the sense and meaning of

the discourse, we must understand the ―extra-verbal context‖ that makes the
utterance a meaningful locution for the listener. The extra-verbal context of
the utterance is comprised of three factors:
(1) the common spatial purview of the interlocutors,
(2) the interlocutor’s common knowledge and understanding of the
situation, and
(3) their common evaluation of that situation.
He points out the relation between the extra-verbal purview and the
verbal discourse is that ―the discourse does not at all reflect the extra-verbal
situation in the way a mirror reflects an object. Rather, the discourse here
resolves the situation, bringing it to an evaluative conclusion, as it were.‖

9


The behavioral utterance actively continues and develops a situation,
adumbrate a plan for future action, and organize that action. It always joins
the participants in the situation together as co-participants who know,
understand, and evaluate the situation in like manner. The utterance,
consequently, depends on their real, material appurtenance to one and the
same segment of being and gives this material commonness ideological
expression and further ideological development. Thus, the extra-verbal
situation is far from being merely the external cause of an utterance – it does
not operate on the utterance from outside, as if it were a mechanical force.
Rather, the situation enters into the utterance as an essential constitutive part
of the structure of its import. As a result, a behavioral utterance as a
meaningful whole is comprised of two parts: (1) the part realized or actualized
in words and (2) the assumed part.
Of course, context is known before Volosinov, but it was seen as
something outside and separate. The new in Volosinov’s theory is that he sees

context as a constituting part of discourse.
In another masterpiece written in the 1920s, Marxism and the
Philosophy of Language, Volosinov states that expression-utterance is
determined by the actual conditions of the given utterance – above all, by its
immediate social situation. Utterance is constructed between two socially
organized persons, and in the absence of a real addressee, an addressee is
presupposed in the person, so to speak, of a normal representative of the
social group to which the speaker belongs. (1986, p. 85). He emphasized that
the immediate social situation and the broader social milieu wholly determine
– and determine from within, so to speak – the structure of an utterance (1986,
p.86). The utterance is determined immediately and directly by the
participants of the speech event, both explicit and implicit participants, in

10


connection with a specific situation. That situation shapes the utterance,
dictating that it sound one way and not another – like a demand or request,
insistence on one’s rights or a plea for mercy, in a style flowery or plain, in a
confident or hesitant manner, or so on.
In the second half of the 20th century, Michael Foucault, a key theorist
in Europe about discourse analysis, defines discourse more ideologically as
―practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak.‖ (1970:
49). He also announces that discourse is way of organizing knowledge that
structures the constitution of social relations through the collective
understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse
social fact. For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurally
related to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historical
period in which it arises. However, discourses are produced by effects of
power within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules and

categories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth
within the discursive order. These rules and categories are considered a
priori; that is, coming before the discourse. It is in this way that discourse
masks its construction and capacity to produce knowledge and meaning. It is
also in this way that discourse claims an irrefutable a‒historicity. Further,
through its reiteration in society, the rules of discourse fix the meaning of
statements or text to be conducive to the political rationality that underlies its
production. Yet at the same time, the discourse hides both its capacity to fix
meaning and its political intentions. It is as such that a discourse can mask
itself as a-historical, universal, and scientific – that is, objective and stable. In
―The Order of Things‖ (1970), he points out that in every society the
production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its

11


powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its
ponderous, formidable materiality.
Going even further, the postmodern thinkers, like Jacques Derrida,
claim that discourse is the nature of the whole humane society: Everything is
discourse. In general, discourse refers to how we think and communicate
about people, things, the social organization of society, and the relationships
among and between all three. Discourse typically emerges out of social
institutions like media and politics (among others), and by virtue of giving
structure and order to language and thought, it structures and orders our lives,
relationships with others, and society. It thus shapes what we are able to think
and know any point in time. In this sense, sociologists frame discourse as a
productive force because it shapes our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values,
identities, interactions with others, and our behavior. In doing so it produces

much of what occurs within us and within society.
1.2.2. Discourse analysis
The term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zellig Harris
(1952) as a way of analyzing connected speech and writing. Harris had two
main interests: the examination of language beyond the level of the sentence
and the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior. He
examined the first of these in most detail, aiming to provide a way for
describing how language features are distributed within texts and the ways in
which they are combined in particular kinds and styles of texts. An early, and
important, observation he made was that connected discourse occurs within a
particular situation – whether of a person speaking, or of a conversation, or of
someone sitting down occasionally over the period of months to write a
particular kind of book in a particular literary or scientific tradition. There are,
12


thus, typical ways of using language in particular situations. These discourses,
he argued, not only share particular meanings, they also have characteristic
linguistic features associated with them. What these meanings are and how
they are realized in language is of central interest to the area of discourse
analysis.
Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in
which language is

used

between

people,

both

in

written texts and

spoken contexts. Whereas other areas of language study might look at
individual parts of language, such as words and phrases (grammar) or the
pieces that make up words (linguistics), discourse analysis looks at a running
conversation involving a speaker and listener (or a writer's text and its reader).
It is "the study of real language use, by real speakers in real situations," wrote
Teun A. van Dijk in the Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 4 (1985). The
context of the conversation is taken into account as well as what is said. It can
include where they are speaking and involves a social and cultural framework
as well as nonverbal cues, such as body language, and, in the case of textual
communication, images and symbols.
Brian Partridge in his book Discourse Analysis: An introduction (2012)
defines that discourse analysis examines patterns of language across texts and
considers the relationship between language and the social and cultural
contexts in which it is used. Discourse analysis also considers the ways that
the use of language presents different views of the world and different
understandings. It examines how the use of language is influenced by
relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of language
has upon social identities and relations. It also considers how views of the
world, and identities, are constructed through the use of discourse.

13


According to Michael Foucault, discourse analysis, in contrast to the

Marxist tradition (the ruling class produces the dominant discourses), is not
concerned with discovering the truth but the truth effects among different
discourses and practices, among complex power relations: ―In seeing
historically how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in
themselves are neither true nor false. What makes power hold good, what
makes it accepted is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force
that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure,
forms knowledge, produces discourse.‖ (Foucault M., 1977).
1.3. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
1.3.1. History of CDA
In the 1970s, a form of discourse and text analysis that recognized the
role of language in structuring power relations in society emerged. At that
time, much linguistic research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects of
language which constituted the linguistic competence of speakers and which
could theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use
(Chomsky, 1957). Where the relation between language and context was
considered, as in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983), with a focus on speakers’
pragmatic/sociolinguistic

competence,

sentences

and

components

of

sentences were still regarded as the basic units. Much sociolinguistic research

at the time was aimed at describing and explaining language variation,
language change and the structures of communicative interaction, with limited
attention to issues of social hierarchy and power (Hymes, 1972). In such a
context, attention to texts, their production and interpretation and their
relation to societal impulses and structures, signaled a very different kind of
interest. The work of Kress/Hodge (1979), Van Dijk (1985), Fairclough

14


(1989) and Wodak (ed.) (1989) serve to explain and illustrate the main
assumptions, principles and procedures of what had then become known as
Critical Linguistics (CL).
An account of the theoretical foundations and sources of CL is given by
Kress (1990, 84-97). He indicates that the term CL was ―quite selfconsciously adapted‖ (1990, 88) from its social-philosophical counterpart, as
a label by the group of scholars working at the University of East Anglia in
the 1970s (see also Wodak, 1996a, Blommaert / Bulcaen 2000). By the 1990s
the label CDA came to be used more consistently to describe this particular
approach to linguistic analysis. Kress (1990, 94) shows how CDA was by that
time ―emerging as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind of
linguistics. ―He lists the criteria that characterize work in the CDA paradigm,
illustrating how these distinguish such work from other politically engaged
types of discourse analysis. Fairclough / Wodak (1997) took these criteria
further and established 10 basic principles of a CDA program (see also
Wodak, 1996b).
1.3.2. Definitions of CDA
There are several identifiable ―schools‖ or groups within CDA, and not
all the points that will be made apply equally to all the groups or individual
practitioners. It is particularly important to distinguish between the initial
British approaches embodied by Fairclough (1985, 1989) and Fowler (1991)

and its later, more developed and coherent form explained in Chouliaraki and
Fairclough (1999); the so-called ―socio-cognitive model‖ of critical discourse
analysis epitomized by van Dijk (1991) and his group; and the Viennese
―discourse historical school‖ led by Wodak (Wodak et al. 1990; Wodak 1996,
2007).

15


According to Van Dijk (2001, p.352), ―critical discourse analysis is a type
of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power
abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by
text and talk in the social and political context.‖ He also figures out the aims
of CDA are to focus primarily on social problems and political issues, rather
than on current paradigms and fashions. More specifically, CDA focuses on
the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or
challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
In Fairclough’s point of view (1995, pp. 132-3), CDA is defined as
follows: ―By “critical” discourse analysis, I mean discourse analysis which
aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and
determination between (a) discursive practices, events, and texts (b) wider
social and cultural structures, relations, and processes; to investigate how
such practices, events, and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by
relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity
of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing
power and hegemony.‖
In the opinion of Wodak (1996, p.16), CDA highlights the substantively
linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary
societies. This is partly the matter of how power relations are exercised and
negotiated in discourse. It is fruitful to look at both ―power in discourse‖,

―power of discourse‖, and ―power over discourse‖ in these dynamic terms.
In summary, as a self-conscious movement with an explicit agenda, CDA
abounds in definitions of what it purports to be and do. These declarations
range from the highly politicized: ―to explain existing conventions as the
outcome of power relations and power struggle‖ (Fairclough 1989: 2), to the
almost anodyne ―to answer questions about the relationships between

16


language and society‖ (Rogers 2005: 365), depending on the stance of the
individual researcher. However, the general consensus is that Critical
Discourse Analysis contains two essential elements: A more or less political
concern with the workings of ideology and power in society; and a specific
interest in the way language contributes to, perpetuates and reveals these
workings. Thus the more explicit definitions all emphasize the relationship
between language (text, discourse) and power (political struggle, inequality,
dominance). ―CDA takes a particular interest in the relationship between
language and power (...). This research specifically considers more or less
overt relations of struggle and conflict‖ (Weiss and Wodak 2002: 12).
1.3.3. Aims of CDA
Critical discourse analysis is a special approach in discourse analysis
which focuses on the discursive conditions, components and consequences of
power abuse by dominant groups and institutions. It examines patterns of
access and control over contexts, genres, text, and talk, their properties, as
well as the discursive strategies of mind control. It studies discourse and its
functions in society and the ways society, and especially forms of inequality,
are expressed, represented, legitimated or reproduced in text and talk.
Furthermore, CDA does so in opposition against those groups and institutions
who abuse their power, and in solidarity with dominated groups, e.g., by

discovering and denouncing discursive dominance, and by cooperating in the
empowerment of the dominated.
1.3.4. Key notions of CDA
Key concepts needed for everyone to understand this new linguistic
approach are critical, power, and ideology.

17


The notion of critical in CDA program is understood very differently.
In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2001), Ruth Wodak states that
critical is to be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data
in the social, taking a political stance explicitly, and a focus on self-reflection
as scholar doing research. CDA is critical in that it views discourse as a form
of social practice and criticizes the way discourse reproduces socio-political
inequality, power abuse or dominance. Nowadays, this term is also used more
popularly in everyday language to mean the use of rational thinking to
question arguments or prevailing ideas.
Fundamental and central to the discussions in most critical studies is
the notion of power. Power is about relations of difference, and particularly
about the effects of differences of structures. The constant unity of language
and other social matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in a
number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where
there is contention over and a challenge to power. Power does not derive from
language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter
distribution of power in the short or long term. Language provides a finely
articulated means for differences in power in social hierarchical structures.
CDA takes an interest in the ways in which linguistic forms are used in
various expressions and manipulations of power. For CDA, language is not
powerful on its own – it gains power by the use powerful people make of it.

Ideology is another important notion in the reference to critical theory’s
contribution to the understanding of CDA. For Thompson (1990), ideology
refers to social forms and processes within which, and by means of which,
symbolic forms circulate in the social world. According to Fairclough (2003,
p.128), ―ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which
contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and

18