Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu chia tay của barack obama

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATES STUDIES

NGÔ THỊ MAI HẠNH

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
OF BARACK OBAMA’S FAREWELL ADDRESS
( Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài phát biểu chia tay của Barack Obama)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 822020101

Hanoi, 2019


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authority of the study entitled ―A critical discourse
analysis of Barack Obama’s farewell address” submitted in fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree of Master in English language. Except where
the reference is indicated, I have not used other person‘s work without due
acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.

Hanoi, 2019
Ngô Thị Mai Hạnh

Approved by

SUPERVISOR

Assoc. Prof. Ngô Hữu Hoàng
Date: …………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to give my warmest thanks to many people but the first

person is my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Ngô Hữu Hoàng. Not only does he give
me great advice, invaluable suggestions but also critical comments for my
better version.
I want to express deepest gratitude to my family and friends for their
emotional support in accomplishing this graduation thesis.

Hanoi, 2019
Ngô Thị Mai Hạnh

ii


ABSTRACT

The thesis aims at exploring how power and ideology are manifested
through the analysis of the U.S President Barack Obama‗s farewell address in
2017 using one of the discourse analysis approaches –critical discourse
analysis (CDA). The research examines the theoretical framework of CDA,
the concepts of power and ideology. Accordingly, the framework of CDA

procedure which is of great importance for the analysis of the farewell address
will be analyzed and interpreted. The analysis consists of three stages namely:
description, interpretation and explanation. By description, vocabulary,
grammar feature including: the use of personal pronoun, the use of voice,
mode of sentence, modality and cohesive devices are analyzed. By
interpretation, situational context, inter-textual context and the President‘s call
to believe in nation‘s democracy and system; and the President‘s call to foster
solidarity and union are analyzed. By explanation, the relationship between
discourse and America‘s institution and social structure are explored. Lastly,
the finding and conclusion of the thesis prove the author‘s assumption about
the ideological power relations in the speech.

iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis

CL

Critical Language

DA

Discourse Analysis

US

United States

MR

Member resources

App

Appendix

iv


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

The triangle of discourse analysis: language, practice and
context

Figure 2

Three dimensional framework proposed by Fairclough (1992)

Figure 3

Interpretation

Figure 4

Explanation

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

The occurrence of synonyms in the speech

Table 2

The occurrence of formal words in the speech

Table 3

The occurrence of personal pronoun in the speech

Table 4

Number and percentage of active and passive sentences in the
speech

Table 5

The words with high frequency of using throughout the farewell
address by Barack Obama

Table 6

Summary of the findings

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.

Rationale .........................................................................................................................1
Aims of the research ........................................................................................................2
Significance of the research .............................................................................................2
Scope of the research .......................................................................................................2
Methodology of the research ...........................................................................................3
Structure of the thesis......................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................4
2.1.
Previous studies ...............................................................................................................4
2.2.
Theoretical background ...................................................................................................6
2.2.1
A brief introduction on CDA ................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2
DA and CDA .......................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 12
3.1. Reason to choose the speech ................................................................................................. 12
3.2. Data collection techniques .................................................................................................... 12
3.3. Data analysis procedure ....................................................................................................... 12
3.4. Fairclough’s CDA framework.............................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 18
4.1. Textual analysis ................................................................................................................... 18
4.2. Analysis in terms of vocabulary ........................................................................................... 19
4.3. Analysis in terms of grammar features ................................................................................ 24
4.3.1. The use of personal pronoun ................................................................................................... 24
4.3.2. The use of voice ....................................................................................................................... 27
4.3.3. Mode of sentence ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.3.4. Modality ................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.5. Cohesive devices ...................................................................................................................... 32
4.4. Interpretation process .......................................................................................................... 35
4.4.1. Situational context ................................................................................................................... 35
4.4.2. Intertextual context .................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.3. The President’s call to believe in nation’s democracy and system ......................................... 38
4.4.4. The President’s call to foster solidarity and union.................................................................. 40
4.5. Explanation.......................................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 43
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.

Recapitulation ............................................................................................................... 43
Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................... 43

Limitations of the research ............................................................................................ 45
Recommendations for further study .............................................................................. 46

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 47

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Rationale

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an approach to study language which is
different from discourse analysis (DA). CDA explores the relationship among
language, ideology and power. In this thesis, CDA is an important tool to find out
how effective language can be in expressing Obama‘s ideas or ideology.
Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on
November 3, 2008. After defeating the other presidential candidates, he became the
first African American president in American story. He was a powerful person of
high position holding the office. He took office at the worst moment of Americathe Great Depression happened. At that time, America was on the verge of crisis ―a
nation at war, a planet in peril, the American Dream itself threatened‖. However,
under a visionary leadership of the U.S President Barack Obama, America was
rescued from crisis and a stronger economy, a more equal society, a more secure
nation was gradually stabilized. After serving two terms in the White House,
Obama left office and returned to his home town to give his presidential farewell
speech. Through his 50-minute speech, Barack Obama delivers a call to action as
well as a subtle warning: the last major political rally of his career. As an excellent
politician, he has a great awareness of how language plays a significant role in any
discourse. Therefore, in his political speech, each word, each structure is carefully

chosen as function of ideological communicative implication.
Having a close look at his speech, it is obviously seen that the President
Obama strategically produces the discourse just days before the inauguration of his
successor with a view to show his ideologies and implications. He takes advantage
of vocabularies, lexical, arguments and many other features of discourse structure in
his speech. He is the person who understands the power of language more than
anyone else. Especially, his farewell address on January 10, 2017 shows his power
and ideology as he delivers his final public speech from a stage in his hometown of
Chicago after the myriad accomplishments of his two-term presidency.

1


For the above reasons, the author carries out the research entitled ―A critical
discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s farewell address”.
1.2.

Aims of the research

The research examines not only linguistics strategies but also the President‘s
ideologies and power. The study aims at presenting an analysis of the U.S President
Barack Obama‘s farewell address under the light of critical discourse analysis.
Based on the theory of critical discourse analysis, some linguistic features of the
speech are pointed out.
In doing CDA of his speech, the author intends to answer the following
question:
-

What linguistic features does Barack Obama use to express his ideology in
his farewell address?

1.3.

Significance of the research

Regarding the theoretical significance, this study has not only attracted the
interests of political scientists and historians, but also drawn much attention from
linguists. Linguists who carry out research on this field will take advantage of
considerable knowledge of the concepts of critical discourse analysis and raise the
awareness of how power and ideology are embedded in language in particular and
the relation between language and society in general.
Regarding practical significance, as a graduate of English language, the
thesis is of great importance for me. It helps me understand more about English
language and then enhance my professional development. Besides, I can gain much
knowledge not only about language but also America‘s culture, society and politics.
Therefore, I have great understanding about America. I hope that my thesis make
contribution to CDA approach in particular and English studying in general.
1.4.

Scope of the research

This research is a case study. Because scope of the research is limited, I only
analyze one speech of Obama and apply Fairclough‘s approach instead of going
deeply in functional grammar of Halliday.
Based on Fairclough‘s theory of CDA, I focus on three stages: description,
interpretation and explanation. In descriptive process, I would like to point out

2

vocabulary, grammar features including the use of personal pronoun, the use of
voice, mode of sentence, modality and cohesive devices. In the second stageinterpretation, I go into detail these features above and analyze situational context
and intertextual context. And the last process is explanation.
1.5.

Methodology of the research

This study applies a discourse analysis in which one of the most
comprehensive frameworks of CDA, that is, Fairclough‘s qualitative approach is
used. It involves three levels of discourse analysis: description, interpretation and
explanation. This framework is presented more clearly in 3.4 Fairclough’s CDA
framework.
1.6.

Structure of the thesis

The study is divided into 5 chapters as follow:
-

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION includes rationale, aims, specific objectives,
scope and significance of the study.

-

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW presents previous studies on critical
discourse analysis of the President Barack Obama‘s speech. This chapter
also introduces theoretical background that being in charge of the theories
used in the study including the definition of DA and CDA, key concepts in
critical discourse analysis, discourse and power.

-

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY mentions the reasons to choose
the topic, data collection techniques, data analysis procedure and
Fairclough‘s CDA framework.

-

Chapter 4: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BARACK
OBAMA‘S FAREWELL ADDRESS shows the result of the study. The
analysis of data and the findings are also indicated in this chapter.

-

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION summarizes main findings and providing
concluding remarks, limitations of the current research as well as suggestions
for further study.

3


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Previous studies
Among a variety of studies on CDA of the U.S President Barack Obama‘s
speech, there is a similar study named A critical discourse analysis of Barack
Obama’s speeches, 2010 by Junling Wang. This study applies Halliday‘s systemic
functional grammar in CDA theory to analyze the speech and show readers the
ideology and power of the President.
According to Halliday‘s systemic functional grammar, the study indicates
some features of Barack Obama‘s speech as follow. Firstly, the way he uses simple

words, short sentences and colloquial language shortens the distance between him
and the audience. Secondly, from transitivity analysis, it is clearly seen that material
process- a process of doing used most in his speeches shows us what the
government has achieved, what they are doing and what they will do. Thirdly, in
terms of modality, we can see that the audience can easily understand and accept
Barack Obama‘s political speech by means of modal verbs, tense and first personal
pronouns. Furthermore, the use of first personal pronouns shortens the distance
between the speaker and the audience, makes the audience feel close to the speaker
and his points.
By applying CDA, it is obvious that the study shows the President‘s ideology
and power through his linguistic strategies. It also provides implications of CDA for
teaching and studying English. Moreover, the study also shows the linguistic
strategy which is used to express the ideology and power of the U.S President
Barack Obama. However, the research‘s importance should be emphasized from
beginning by clearly pointing out rationale, aims and significance of the research.
Also, to make reader well understand outline of the research as well as to make the
research become more coherent and logical, the author should give structure of the
research. It presents main information in each part of the research so that readers
can have a brief overview and easily follow what the author is analyzing. Besides
the research needs to focus more on theoretical background because it includes the
essential framework which provides a sound basis for the author to depend on and
develop his ideas.
4


Another study named ―Critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s 2012
speeches: Views from systemic functional linguistics and rhetoric‖, 2014 by
Bahram Kazemian and Somayyeh Hashemi is an obvious example applying CDA.
The authors apply Halliday‘s ideational grammatical metaphor, rhetoric and CDA
in order to investigate and analyze Barack Obama‘s 2012 five speeches.

It is obvious that there are multiple linguistic and rhetorical strategies
exploited so as to achieve the efficiency in the speeches. The tendency to apply
more nominalization, passivization and modal verbs in Obama‘s speeches is the
main key to make his language powerful, impressive, persuasive and ambiguous as
well. Besides, nominalization is a useful way to assist him to expand his discussion
cohesively. Finally, nominalization contributes to generalization, impersonality,
objectification, cohesion, ambiguity and of course, beauty of the texts. Upon
listening as well as reading Obama‘s speeches, it is apparent that President Obama
relies heavily on rhetorical devices, particularly, parallelism tropes and unification
strategy. Rhetorical devices investigated in the study are used to enhance
persuasiveness, improve the effectiveness, clarity and beauty of the speeches. The
aims of these strategies above are to persuade and convey personal ideologies, to
signify differentiation and to demonstrate speaker‘s solidarity with audience.
In general, the study shows Barack Obama‘s ideologies through a wide range
of linguistic strategies. Besides, the study shows political purposes and some
implications for political reading and writing, for translators and instructors entailed
in reading and writing pedagogy. However, the research also has its own
limitations. From the very beginning of the analysis, rationale, aims and
significance of the research should be pointed out in order to make reader
understand clearly the purpose of this research. Another point is that the author
should give structure of the research so that readers can have a brief overview and
easily follow what the author is analyzing. Moreover, in every research, theoretical
background and framework are of great importance because it is a firm basis for
researchers applying to their analysis. However, Bahram Kazemian and Somayyeh
Hashemi‘s theoretical background does not go into detail, especially theory about
CDA and some concepts related in critical discourse analysis.

5

Next, the study named ―A critical discourse analysis of the U.S President
Barack Obama’s Inaugural speeches in 2009 and 2013‖ by Nguyễn Thu Trang1is
another example applying CDA. The study uses Fairclough‘s approach and
Systemic Functional Grammar (SFL) by M.A.K Halliday. The speeches are also
analyzed in terms of transitivity and thematization in order to find out the power
and ideology hidden behind words.
The study covers in details three levels of discourse analysis: Description,
Interpretation and Explanation. In descriptive part, the author analyzes vocabulary
and grammar features. For grammar features, she points out the use of personal
pronouns, the use of voice, mode of sentence, modality, cohesive devices,
transitivity, thematization and macro-structure of the text. In terms of interpretation,
the authors analyze situational context and intertextual context.
The study is quite well-organized with 5 chapters including: introduction,
literature review, methodology, a critical address of the text and conclusion.
Through the author‘s analysis, we can see how language could transfer the power
and ideology of Barack Obama. However, the study only points out features of DA
and CDA separately without telling the difference between them. This distinction is
necessary because readers can understand why author chooses CDA instead of DA.
Besides, in chapter 3: methodology, the author should divide each part again in
order to avoid overlap. Next, in terms of interpretation, it should be better if the
analysis of Obama‘s ideology and power is deeply pointed out instead of only
examining situational context and intertextual context.
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1 A brief introduction on CDA
According to Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (2001), CDA is a term used to
denote a former theory known as critical linguistics. It first originated in Britain in
1980s when the work Language and Control was published. Both the term CDA
and CL can be used interchangeably.
Van Dijk (1993) stated that CDA is a type of discourse analytical research
that aims at addressing social problem such as social power abuse, dominance and

Nguyễn Thu Trang, 2016.A critical discourse analysis of the U.S President Barack Obama’s Inaugural
speeches in 2009 and 2013.
1

6


inequality. According to Fairclough (1989), CDA is a ―transdisciplinary approach‖
to the study of discourse and discourse analysis, which views ―language as a form
of social practice‖ and concentrates on the ways social and political domination and
how the distribution of ―social goods‖ are represented and reproduced through text
and talk. Critical discourse analysts try to understand and resist social inequality
(Van Dijk, 1985).
The object of CDA tends to be public speech, such as newspaper,
advertisement, political propagandas, inaugural address, farewell address, official
documents and so on. Its aim is to explore the relationships among language,
ideology and power. CDA comes up with an explicit and implicit objective which
represents language as an indispensable tool for the manipulation of unrevealed
intent. In other words, CDA tries to explore the relationship between text and events
in social and cultural discourse practices which may not appear explicit to others.
Fairclough (1989) stated in ―CDA as dialectical reasoning: critique,
explanation and action‖ that ―the power behind discourse rather than just power in
discourse, how people with power shape the order of discourse as well as the social
order in general, versus how people with power control what happens in specific
interactions‖ (P.2). The research makes people realize the importance of language
to the domination of some people by others.
Moreover, the author emphasizes contextual knowledge and the connection
of CDA and explanation how it relates to the existing social reality. In ―Discourse
studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2006‖, he claims that ―CDA sees itself not
as a dispassionate and objective social science, but as engaged and committed, a

form of intervention in social practice and social relationship‖ (P.358). Fairclough
(1993: 135) defines CDA as ―discourse analysis which aims to systematically
explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a)
discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures,
relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise
out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power;
and to explore how the capacity of these relationships between discourse and
society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony‖.

7


Ruth Wodak agrees that ―CDA is rooted on the idea that there is unequal
access to linguistic and social resources, resources that are controlled
institutionally in which the pattern of access to discourse, social practices and
communicative events is an essential element for CDA‖ (P.253). Accordingly, CDA
aims at examining critically social, political and cultural inequality. Fairclough
(1995) considers CDA as an approach that tends to exam the relationship between
discursive practices and the social structures in which they are employed. The
relationship is not usually open to the reader or listener. Therefore, CDA
investigates to unpack the causal and determinative relation existing between the
two.
Moreover, CDA explores the ways such practices are constructed by the
ideology which is shaped by the power relations practiced in the community.
According to Fairclough (1995, 2002), language is of great importance in both
revealing social processes and interactions in practice and constructing them; it
glazes through ―the thick-opaque side of social life: social structures, social
practices and social events‖. Fairclough (1989:22) regards language as ―a form of
social practice‖. By viewing language as ―a socially conditioned process‖,
Fairclough (1989) considers that language does not only play role as a passive

reflection of the society and the social interaction but it is also an necessary part of
the social process. Hence, Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 353) summarize the key
point of CDA as follow:
-

CDA addresses social problems and shows that power relations are
discursive.

-

Besides, discourse constitutes society and culture, and it does ideological work

where the link between text and society is mediated. Discourse analysis is interpretative
and explanatory that oftentimes is historical in the form of social action.
In conclusion, the main focus of CDA is to answer the question of language
and power, discovering the connection among discourse practices, social practices
and social structures.

8


2.2.2 DA and CDA
It is evident that the two concepts CDA and DA (discourse analysis) do not
mean the same thing. According to Jorgensen and Phillips (2002:12), DA belongs to
interdisciplinary approaches that can be used to examine many different social
domains in a variety types of studies. It means that discourse analysis can be
applied to all areas of research and uses a method of analysis intrinsically linked to
its theoretical and methodological foundations. Brown & Yule (1983:26) claim that
doing discourse analysis involves not only ―doing syntax and semantics‖, but also
―doing pragmatics‖.

In terms of CDA, it ―focuses on social problems, and especially on the role
of discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination‖ (van
Dijk, 2001:96). CDA, then, tends to explore relationship between language and
power. In that sense, Wodak (2001) considers it as ―fundamentally concerned with
analyzing opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance,
discrimination, power and control as manifested in language‖.
Related to the difference between CDA and DA, Rogers (2004:3) views that
CDA makes distinction between other discourse analysis methods in that it includes
a description and interpretation of discourse in context and gives an explanation of
why and how discourses work as well.
According to Wodak (2001), the distinctions between CDA and other DA
may be most clearly seen through the general principles of CDA. In that regard,
Fairclough and Wodak (1997, cited in van Dijk, 1993) explain eight basic principles
of CDA which, as viewed by Rogers (2004), ―are a useful starting point for
researchers interested in conducting CDA‖.
Locke (2004) claims that in common parlance, the word ―critical‖ refers to
the evaluation of an object or situation based on a system of rules, principles and
values. With regard to CDA, ―critical‖ does not always means criticizing, or being
negative. Wodak (2001) claims that ―critical‖ means ―opening up complexity,
challenging reductionism, dogmatism and dichotomies, being self-reflexive in one‘s
research, and through these processes, making opaque structures of power relations
and ideologies manifest‖. Therefore, ―critical‖ does not imply the common sense

9


meaning of ―being negative‖- rather ―skeptical‖. Rogers (2004:3) believes that with
this framework of ―critical‖, the analyst has intention to explore power relationships
and find out inequalities embedded in society.
In general terms, CDA is an approach that combines some sort of textual

(linguistic) theories and analysis with sociopolitical and critical theories and
analysis (Gee 2004). The significant difference between CDA and other kinds of
DA is that CDA is the constitutive problem-oriented interdisciplinary approach and
it does not focus on linguistic units per se, but on complex social phenomena which
are necessarily complex and thus require a multi-transdisciplinary and multimethodical approach (Wodak/Meyer 2009). The objects under investigation do not
have to be implied to negative or exceptionally ‗serious‘ social or political
experiences or events. Chilton, Tian&Wodak (2010) view that it is a frequent
misunderstanding of the aims and goals of CDA and the term ‗critical‘ does not
mean ‗negative‘ as in common sense usage. From my point of view, any social
phenomenon can be under critical investigation.
Another approach to CDA rooted in postmodern theory from The University
of Texas views that CDA is not primarily related to linguistics nor to text analysis;
rather, CDA is considered as a meta-approach to solving problems in a quite
intuitive and unsystematic way (cf. Wodak, 2011a):
[…] rather than providing a particular method, Discourse Analysis can be
characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. In this sense,
Discourse Analysis is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative research method, but
a manner of questioning the basic assumptions of quantitative and qualitative
research methods. […] Expressed in today’s more trendy vocabulary, Critical or
Discourse Analysis is nothing more than a deconstructive reading and
interpretation of a problem or text […] Discourse Analysis is meant to provide a
higher awareness of the hidden motivations in others and ourselves and, therefore,
enable us to solve concrete problems – not by providing unequivocal answers, but
by making us ask ontological and epistemological questions.
Besides, DA needs to deal with at least three components: a language, a
practice and a context and they work as the triangle following:

10

Language

Discourse
analysis

Context

Practice

Figure 1: The triangle of discourse analysis: language, practice and context (The
Discourse Studies Reader by Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau,
Ruth Wodak, 2014: 8)
In short, DA is the general term for a number of approaches and different
school of thoughts to analyze discourse while CDA is a school of thought that tries
to analyze discourse critically. While DA is a general term, CDA which is specific,
set of tools which allow analyzing discourse in a certain way.
Briefly, this chapter summarizes some previous studies from CDA
perspective to provide the considerable knowledge in CDA. Besides, theoretical
background including a brief introduction on CDA and the differences between DA
and CDA are also presented.

11


CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Reason to choose the speech
It is clearly seen that citizens‘ solidarity and union is of great importance for
nation‘s democracy and system. These issues are mentioned a lot in address of
many Presidents. According to President Obama in the speech ―A more perfect
union‖ at the Constitution center on March 18, 2018, ―a union could be and should

be perfected over time‖. As President Thomas Bach highlighted the importance of
solidarity to the unity of the Olympic Movement at the meeting in the Qatari
capital, Doha: ―To achieve our mission, we must keep solidarity, political neutrality,
respect and unity in mind. There can be no individual can put his or her interests
first. We must all put our mission first. We must keep solidarity, respect and unity in
mind‖. As Jean-Claude Juncker- President of the European Commission
emphasized in the speech ―State of the Union 2015: Time for honesty, union and
solidarity‖ that: ―If we want to promote a more peaceful world, we will need more
Europe and more Union in our foreign policy‖. It is evident that solidarity and
union are key factors to maintain nation‘s democracy and system. When citizens in
society unite, they create strength to defeat their enemies and protect their nation as
well. As a result, this topic is chosen in the study; in detail, I choose Obama‘s
farewell address when he leaves office with a view to remind citizens to promote
solidarity and union.
3.2. Data collection techniques
The President Obama‘s farewell address is collected from the website:
. Although there are a wide range of websites
including the President Obama‘s speech, is
highly reliable because it is the official website of the White House and is owned by
the United States Government.
3.3. Data analysis procedure
In this thesis, CDA is applied to find out how language and ideologies are
related and explore ideologies hidden behind the discourse. In particularly, CDA is
used to see how the relation between ideologies and language are manifested
linguistically in Obama’s farewell address, and what his ideologies are constructed.

12


The use of data analysis techniques is based on the theoretical background of

the study. The linguistics and grammatical features would be analyzed and then the
insightful investigation is made to explore the ideological assumptions that are
hidden within discourse.
Specifically, basing on the theory of Fairclough, the speech will be analyzed
in three stages. In description stage, the speech will be examined in terms of lexical,
grammatical characteristics and macro-structure. In the second stage-interpretation,
the situational context and intertextual context will be two aspects investigated.
Situational context aims at answering four main questions: what is going on, who is
involved, what relationship is at issue, and what is the role of language. In view of
intertextual context, the farewell address will be put in the relation with some other
Obama‘s related speeches. In explanation stage, the effects of the speech on
American will be discussed in terms of institutional and societal levels.
3.4. Fairclough’s CDA framework
According to Fairclough (1989), "discourse refers to the whole process of
social interaction of which a text is just a part" (p. 24). He claims that critical
analysts should not only concentrate on the texts, the process of text production and
interpretation of the texts, but also examine the interrelationship among texts,
production processes, and their social context. From this point of view, Fairclough
(1989; 1992; 2003) established his framework including three dimensions: text
(speech, writing, visual images or a combination of these); discursive practice
which involves the production and consumption of texts; and social and cultural
context where discursive practices are embedded
Fairclough‗s three dimensional model for CDA thus suggests three main
stages involved in CDA. And this study follows Fairclough‘s framework of CDA
including 3 stages. They are 1) description of textual analysis, 2) interpretation of
production and reception, 3) explanation of social conditions which affect
production and reception as seen in Figure 2 below:

13

Figure 2: Three dimensional framework
(Discourse and Social change, Fairclough, 1992:93)
Description
The very first stage is description. It is of great importance to begin with
dealing with the text itself or describing a particular property of a text by the use of
particular words. This stage of analysis encompassing linguistic features such as
choices in vocabulary (wording), grammar (transitivity, passivization) and text
structure (thematic choice, turn-taking system). On the other hand, this stage deals
with lexical and grammatical parts of texts and discourses can also show an
ideological role, identity and social power of any agents being represented.
Fairclough (1989) states that "description is the stage which is concerned with
formal properties of text‖ (p. 26). In other words, linguistic features of the text are
to be examined in the descriptive stage. To make the purpose become clear,
Fairclough (1989) provides us with a list of ten main questions and a number of
sub-questions, which could be addressed when analyzing a text. These questions are
mainly involved with vocabulary section, grammar section, and textual structures
section.
1. What experiential values do words have?
- What classification schemes are drawn upon?
- Are there words which are ideologically contested?
- Is there rewording or over-wording?
- What ideologically significant meaning relations are there between words?
2. What relational values do words have?
- Are there euphemistic expressions?
14


- Are there markedly formal or informal words?
3. What expressive values do words have?

4. What metaphors are used?
Grammar
5. What experiential values do grammatical features have?
- What types of process and participant predominance?
- Is agency unclear?
- Are processes what they seem?
- Are nominalizations used?
- Are sentences active or passive?
- Are sentences positive or negative?
6. What relational values do grammatical features have?
- What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?
- Are there important features of relational modality?
- Are there pronouns we and you used? and if so, how?
7. What expressive values do grammatical features have?
- Are there important features of expressive modality?
8. How are sentences linked together?
- What logical connectors are used?
- Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?
- What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?
Textual structures
9. What interactional conventions are used?
- Are there ways in which one participant control the turns of others?
10. What larger-scale structures does the text have?
Interpretation
The second stage of CDA is supposed to be ―the interpretation which is
concerned with the relationship between text and interaction with seeing the text as
the product of a process of production, and as recourse in the process of
interpretation" (Fairclough, 1989). This stage deals with what is going on, who is
involved, what relationship is at issue, and what is the role of language. It means

15


that a discourse analyst needs to analyze how and why one uses a particular kind of
language within a specific field such as advertising, politics or feminist discourse.
CDA also needs to investigate how receivers of texts make use of those existing
discourses to consume and interpret meaning (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, p.66).
In the interpretation stage, discourse is not only considered as text but also a
discursive practice, which means beside analysis of linguistic features and text
structure, attention should be drawn to other factors such as speech act and
intertextuality. These factors link the text to its context. The dimension regards text
as discursive practice includes two processes. They are: institutional process
(editorial procedure), and discourse process (the alteration that the text goes through
in production and consumption). To make a better understanding of discourse
process, this step explores inter-textual relations among discourse, texts and setting.
In short, the interpretation process is summarized as the following figure:

Figure 3: Interpretation (Language and power, Fairclough, 2001:119)

16


Explanation
The third level of CDA is explanation ―which is concerned with the
relationship between interaction and social context with the social determination of
the process of production and interpretation, and their social effects", Fairclough
(1989). This stage involves explaining the relationship between the processes and
the social, cultural, environmental and historical conditions. Besides, this part will
investigate and explain the undiscovered information of power, ideology and
language by two contexts, institutional context and societal context (Fairclough,

1995). In the stage of explanation, discourse would be seen as part of social
practice, pointing out how it is determined by social structures more precisely
"socio-cultural practice‖. In this final stage, discourse analyst need to apply cultural
and social theory to explore the links between the language used and social and
cultural practice. Moreover, factors like ideology or power are taken into
consideration in order to fully explain the connection between social-cultural
context and the production and consumption of texts.

Figure 4: Explanation (Language and power, Fairclough, 2001: 122)

In short, the chapter Methodology mentions the reasons to choose the topic
and data collection techniques, data analysis procedure of Barack Obama‘s farewell
address and Fairclough‘s CDA framework.

17


CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Textual analysis
President Barack Obama serves as the 44th President of the United States for
two terms from January 2009 to January 2017. He has a black African father and a
white American mother. He is the first African-American President so his voice has
significant impact on both African and American community. He is aware of the
importance of his speech to express his power and ideology than anyone else.
Therefore, the way he uses every single words and clauses in the farewell address
also serves for certain purpose. On January 10th, 2017, President Barack Obama
delivered his farewell speech to the American people in Chicago following a
divisive election.
The farewell address traditionally marks the end of the President Barack
Obama‘s time in office and looks to the future. In this case, it occurred following

the election of Donald Trump. Donald Trump won the electoral vote, however
Hillary Clinton- his Democratic opponent won the popular vote. This made many
people become in despair and anger, which demonstrated by various protests. Being
a Democrat, President Obama decided to make his speech to reassure all citizens of
the US and begin a smooth transition of power. The President opted to deliver the
speech in his hometown of Chicago rather than hold the farewell address at the
White House as usual because it was the place he started his political journey. This
context created a friendly atmosphere among the President and audiences. The
audiences tend to be closer to the leader and the leader regards them as his ardent
supporters so that he can comfortably express his power and ideology.
There are a wide range of issues that have been reflected frankly in his
farewell address and the President is wise enough to talk about democracy first in
the speech. President Obama uses this speech to inspire the American people to
continue upholding democracy and to believe in the system. He focused on the state
of democracy in the nation and how it must improve. Besides, President Obama
praised the American people‘s ability to enact change and better the country for
future generations. In order to call on citizens to maintain faith in democracy and
uphold the country‘s value, President Obama focused on combinations of
organizational patterns, rhetorical devices, and styles. Moreover, he also aims to use
18