Bài phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán về việc sử dụng quyền lực trong bài phát biểu nhậm chức của tổng thống mỹ d j trump​ 1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
******************

NGUYỄN THỊ MINH TÂM

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF POWER IN
TRUMP’S INAUGURAL SPEECH
(Bài phân tích diễn ngơn phê phán về việc sử dụng quyền lực
trong bài phát biểu nhậm chức của Tổng Thống Mỹ D.J. 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
******************

NGUYỄN THỊ MINH TÂM

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF POWER IN
TRUMP’S INAUGURAL SPEECH

(Bài phân tích diễn ngơn phê phán về việc sử dụng quyền
lực trong bài phát biểu nhậm chức của Tổng Thống Mỹ
D.J. Trump)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field

: English Linguistics

Code

: 8220201.01

Supervisor : Prof. Dr. NGUYỄN HÒA

Hanoi - 2019


DECLARATION
I hereby warrant that this thesis granted “A Critical Discourse Analysis of
Power in D.J.Trump’s inaugural Speech” is a study of my own research for the
Degree of Master of Arts at the University of language and International Studies
Vietnam National University, and the thesis has never been published in any forms.

Hanoi, 2019

Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For the fulfillment of this study, first and foremost, I would like to express
my deep gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Nguyễn Hòa, the
lecturer at Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, ULIS, VNU for his enthusiastic and
valuable suggestions, comments as well as his advice.
I would like to thank all the lecturers of Faculty of Postgraduate Studies,
ULIS, VNU, for their training and support in all my M.A.study process implement
this M.A thesis. Besides, I would like to express my thanks to all the faculty
specialists who helped me a lot.
Finally, I also would like to express my deep thanks to my family and friends
for their love, support and encouragement.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study presents a CDA of the Inaugural Speech of Presidential Donald
th

Trump which was delivered on 20 , January 2017. The data in this research is a
th

Trump‟s speech published on December 8 , 2017, on CNN channel, on YouTube.
The main purpose of this analysis is to explore and discover the relationships

between language, ideology and power through social practice, discourse process of
Donald Trump‟s speech, based mainly on Fairclough‟s CDA framework (1992,
2001): Description, Interpretation, and Explanation, it also focused on the analysis
of language features, the relationship between situational and intertextual context,
and social process. The method applied in this research is descriptive qualitative
method. The results of the analysis have shown that Trump used soft skills to
express his ideology, his own way to inspire the Americans, to give the future plans
and lead the Americans to follow him, with strategies to get vast support and trust
from the Americans.

iii


iv


TABLES OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION...................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................iii
ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ iv
TABLES OF CONTENTS...................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1

1.1. Rationale.......................................................................................................1
1. 2. Aims of the study............................................................................................... 2
1.3. Method of the study............................................................................................ 2
1.4. Scope of the study.............................................................................................. 2

1.5. Significance of the study.................................................................................... 3
1.6. Structure of the thesis

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW& THEORETICAL BACKGROUND5
2.1. Defining CDA.................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Some key concepts in CDA.............................................................................. 6
2.2.1.Ideology............................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2.Power............................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3.Discourse.......................................................................................................... 9
2.3. CDA approaches............................................................................................. 11
2.3.1.The socio – cognitive approach by Teun van Dijk.......................................... 11
2.3.2. The discourse – historical approach by Ruth Wodak..................................... 12
2.3.3.The dialectical – relational approach by Norman Fairclough.......................13
2.4. Review of previous studies............................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................ 20
v


3.1. Data................................................................................................................. 20
3.2. Social context of the speech........................................................................... 21
3.3. Analytical framework..................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.................................................. 27
4.1. Textual description and analysis................................................................... 27
4.1.1.Vocabulary analysis........................................................................................ 27
4.1.2. Grammar features......................................................................................... 32
4.1.3.Transitivity..................................................................................................... 37
4.1.4.Macro – structure of the text........................................................................... 38
4.2. Interpretation of the relationship between the productive and
interpretative processes......................................................................................... 41
4.3.Explanation of the relationship between discourse and social process........43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION............................................................................. 46
5. 1. Recapitulation and Conclusion...................................................................... 46
5. 2. Limitations.................................................................................................... 48
5. 3. Implications and Recommendations for further study................................... 48
REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 49
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 1............................................................................................................ I
APPENDIX 2
................................................................................................................................
III
APPENDIX 3
..............................................................................................................................
VIII
APPENDIX 4
..............................................................................................................................
XIII
APPENDIX 5...................................................................................................... XIX
APPENDIX 6................................................................................................... XXIV


vi


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of process types (adapted from Halliday, 1994)........................16
Table 2: Common pronouns in the speech............................................................... 32
Table 3: The summary of transitivity analysis data................................................. 38

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Socio-political and socio-historic context (Fairclough, 1992)..................15
Figure 2: Aspects of interpersonal management. (Thompson, 1996:69).................17
Figure 3: Formal features: experiential, relational and expressive values
(Fairclough, 2001, 94)............................................................................................. 22
Figure 4: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001, p. 119)................................................. 25
Figure 5: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001, p. 36)...................................................... 26
Figure 6: The analysis of the macrostructure of the speech.................................... 39

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents rationale, aims, methodology, scope, significance and
design of the study.
1.1. Rationale
Since the 1970s, critical discourse analysis (CDA) has become a new
approach of modern linguistics. It is an interdisciplinary language study that
explains social problems. CDA is used in speech as a social practice, which “implies
a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situations(s),
institution(s), and social structure(s), which frame it” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997:
258). Critical Discourse Analysis researches consider how language works within
institutional and political discourse in order to covert social inequality in a social
relationship. Norman Fairclough (1989), the use of language in a social „language is
social process, and language is a socially conditioned process‟.
Fairclough (1995; 56) states “Critical Discourse Analysis includes the larger
sociopolitical and socio-cultural contexts within which discourse is embedded, that
we are able to reveal the ideological bases of discourse.” Here is political discourse
focuses on the “abuse of such power through ideology” that is on “the ways one

person or one community control people's beliefs and actions in the interest of
dominant groups.” CDA is rooted in linguistics to produce and reproduce unequal
power relations between different personal/individual, professional groups,
ethnicities, social classes, ages, nation, and party, etc.
Many studies in CDA have focused on the presidential inaugural speech
which attracted a great deal of attention around the world, made many researchers
interested in CDA is because Critical Discourse Analysis more focuses primarily on
social problems and political issues. CDA is considered to be an effective tool to
discover the power and ideology hidden in political discourse. Donald Trump is one
of the most different the President in America's history from the previous
Presidents. He did not “play by the book” as previous Presidents made through such

1


speeches on gender, terrorism, immigration, and race, but the point he gave as a
guardian for the US country with slogan “America First”,” Make America Great
Again”, when becoming the 45th president of the United States, marked a political
turning point in his life.
Norman Fairclough (1989:256) suggests “discovery through linguistic
analysis of the hidden connections between language, power and ideology”. As the
ideology, gender, race, injustice, prejudice in society, its purpose is to recognize that
language is not a communication but language is a social act, a social process to
make social change through CDA.
Therefore, many writings discussed the speech in different directions in
CDA. Investigating the speech from CDA perspective made the researcher feel
curious to conduct this researched titled: A critical discourse analysis of power in
Donald Trump’s inaugural speech.
1.2. Aims of the study
The aim of this study focuses on exploring and discovering Trump‟s

Inaugural Speech to how Donald Trump employed power as a means of
communication in his inaugural speech.
To achieve these above aims for the study, the researcher attempts to give
answers to the following research questions:


What are (the) themes in Trump‟s speech?



How are they realized linguistically?

1.3. Method of the study
The method used in this research is Fairclough‟s CDA dialectical-relational
approach is to analyze for this study.
1.4. Scope of the study
This analysis of Donald Trump‟s speech is confined to verbal aspects and the
social context in which the speech was presented. Nevertheless, the limitations of
the time and space of the author preclude discovering all the available features in

2


the data. Only salient points relating to the aims of the study are being mentioned.
The study also excludes paralinguistic (intonation, speed, loudness, etc.) and extralinguistic (body language as facial expressions, body languages). Although the
significant factors are influential in conveying the speaker‟s ideology and message.
Finally, the research is for academic purpose only and has no relation to any for
or against any parties with the aim to change anyone‟s political standpoint.
1.5. Significance of the study
Significance of the study is that Critical discourse analysis as an analytical

method provides a reference and orientation for many researches, especially
political discourse analysis. Speaker‟s power can be revealed through analyzing the
language characteristics. This study demonstrates how linguistic elements help
address social problems is helpful in supplying a support to CDA theories.
Moreover, CDA can raise user‟s language consciousness, help people understand
the deep meaning of political speech and improve their sensitiveness to the
language. Thus, it may provide the researcher another approach with language
teaching and learning from CDA viewpoint so that the ability of critical thinking is
well focus on power in discourse.
1.6.

Structure of the thesis

This research is organized into 5 chapters as briefly summarized below:
Chapter 1: Introduction this chapter introduce about rationale, aims, method,
scope, significance and structure of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Background chapter two
discusses CDA through discourse. This chapter presents an overview of the
definition CDA, and three mainly approaches of CDA, CDA concepts of ideology
(discourse, power and ideology, and the function of ideology), and as social practice
to orientate for the study.
Furthermore, it summarizes some previous researches from CDA perspective
to provide the thorough knowledge in CDA.

3


Chapter 3: Research Methodology presents the data to be analyzed and the
context in which it was constructed. This study consists a textual analysis of the
political speech launched by Donald Trump through the presidential inaugural

address 2017 from inception to its denouement. This chapter mentions the reasons
to choose the topic and the context of the given address.
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion is devoted to the analysis of the speech. It
seeks to answer the set of research questions that motivated this study and discussed
the main findings. The goal is to reveal the ways in which Donald Trump represents
the social process, and to illustrate and demonstrate for what ideologies Donald
Trump conveys and how they are realized linguistically in his speech.
Chapter 5: Conclusion is summarized the main findings, and revisited the rationale
and research objectives that guided this research. The study is then evaluated in its
limitations in terms of data selection and future research avenues in the field of
political discourse analysis.

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW& THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presents an overview and mention some definitions of CDA that
give knowledge in understanding of CDA as a discipline. Some key concepts in
CDA including power, ideology, discourse and some approaches to CDA are also
presented in this part.
2.1. Defining CDA
The roots of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) lie in classical Rhetoric,
Textlinguistics and Sociolinguistics, as well as in Applied Linguistics and
Pragmatics.
Critical discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary study of discourse that
views “language as social practice” (Fairclough/ Wodak, 1997), which studies and
analyzes written and spoken text, with exploring the connection between the use of
language with social context and social differences. CDA studies the way social
power abuse, dominance, and inequality is enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text
and talk in the social and inequality context. Most analyses of CDA were concerned

with social inequality, included religion aspect, gender, and the other ideologies.
CDA also focuses on how political discourse constructed through linguistics
elements to persuade and present the power in society. CDA has characteristics as
social practices, influential ideologies, prevailing social problem and intertextuality.
Furthermore, CDA serves as one of the tools to analyze the linguistic within the
social context.
Fairclough (1989, p. 5) elaborates on the way CDA the relationship between
language, power, and ideology, analyzing “social interactions which focuses upon
their linguistic elements, sets out to show up their generally hidden determinants in
the system of social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have upon that
system”. Fowler (1996, p. 3) points out that CDA is “designed to get at the ideology
coded implicitly behind the overt propositions, to examine it particularly in the
context of social formations”. CDA, recognizing this capacity of power-

5


generated hierarchical structures, tends to make these hidden connections obvious to
the recipients of it. Power has the capacity to create and maintain a hierarchical
demarcation in social institutions (Fairclough, 1989).
For Van Dijk (1998), CDA makes “a connection between the textual analysis
of language and the social practice analysis”, and “analyzes the hidden power
behind language, to disclose the role of language in social change and the
constraining of social institution to discourse. CDA studies the relationship between
language, text and social structure”. Fairclough (1995) offers “critical discourse
analysis aims to investigate how events and texts are generated and ideologically
shaped by relations of power.” Fairclough (1995, p.132) suggests that CDA is to
systematically discover hidden “relationships of causality, and determination
between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural
structures, relations, and processes”.

To recapitulate, CDA‟s aim is to discover the interrelation of discourse
structure and ideology structures or how ideology constructs the discourse, and how
discourse build up one‟s ideology to set of mental belief shared by certain group or
institution about given phenomenon or any social concept. Therefore, CDA
becomes important way to reveal the use of power relation used by elite speaker in
social discourse and practices.
2.2. Some key concepts in CDA
2.2.1. Ideology
Thompson (1990) points out that the term of ideology first appeared in late
18th-century France and has thus been in use for about two centuries. The term has
been given a range of functions and meanings at different times.
For Thompson (1990: 449), “ideology refers to social forms and processes”,
and means “symbolic forms circulate in the social world”. Ideology, for CDA is
regarded as an important means of “establishing and maintaining unequal power
relations”. Thompson, J. 1984; van Dijk 1995; van Dijk 2006 definite that
ideologies consist of values, these values are essentially evaluative and provide the

6


basic guidelines for social perception and interaction, and ideologies are socially
shared. Thompson (1990:6 -7) suggests the study of ideology as a study of “the
ways in which meaning is constructed and conveyed by symbolic form of various
kinds”, and as investigating the social contexts within which “symbolic forms are
both employed and deployed”. The investigator has determined whether such forms
“establish or sustain relations of domination”. All the theories assume that „there are
specific historical reasons why people come to feel, reason, desire, and imagine as
they do‟.
The ideology is also „beliefs system‟ which are social actors. Ideologies are
basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social

groups, organizations or institutions. Ideological political discourse is generally
“organized by positive self-representation and negative other-representation” (van
Dijk 2006: 126). So, ideologies are both cognitive and social. Fairclough (1995:34)
shows that ideologies are localized between societal structures and the structures of
the minds of social members. They allow social actors identity, goal, and position,
into the knowledge and beliefs that make up the concrete models of their everyday
life experiences, that is, the mental representations of their actions and discourse.
Fairclough (2001)‟s view, “ideology is closed linked to power because the
nature of ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions and
conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the
conventions”. Moreover, ideology is closed linked to language because used
language is the commonest form of social behavior where we rely most on
“common sense” assumptions.
Since then, the beliefs and attitudes that stem from ideology may not always
be held consciously by individuals. They can be deeply ingrained in their thought
patterns and language. They can be questioned or even stood out against by
individuals; an ideology position can be hidden by the use of words. One of the
main ways in which “CDA achieves its aims is by making explicit those aspects of
ideology that underpin social interaction” (Bloor and Bloor, 2013:11).

7


One of the crucial social practices influenced by ideologies is language use
and discourse; especially when we speak as members of groups, expresses
ideologically based opinions. Therefore, values, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes,
which deeply lie in our thought and behavior. From that, we will make up in “our
mind how act and control”. These are hidden deep inside the words used to express
our purpose and decision that we want to gain through personals/individuals
experiences from at all levels of text and talk.

The function of ideology
Ideology is known as a kind of belief and there are many functions of
ideology. Firstly, they organize and ground the social representations shared by the
members of (ideological) groups. Secondly, they are the ultimate basis of the
discourses and other social practices of the members of social group as group
members. Thirdly, they allow members to organize and coordinate their (joint)
actions and interactions in view of the goals and interests of the group as a whole.
Finally, they function as the part of the socio-cognitive interface between social
structures (conditions, etc.) of groups, and their discourses and other social practice
(van Dijk, 2006).
In another ways, (Bennie Lewis cited .I. Petrovic, personal communication,
September 15, 2015), “ideology functions through legitimate when unequal power
relationships are created and maintained by being represented as legitimate and in
everybody‟s interest”. Other ideologies function is unification. This function allows
the dominant class to become a collective entity, usually in opposite to a real or
imagined enemy. This function of ideology is best seen in politics. Fragmentation is
another way ideology functions, and the opposite of unification. This ideological
function can be seen in politics, also.
In summary, the ideology is the meaning in service of power, behind
ideology is power to persuade others to follow, not to follow others. Moreover, the
ideology was born to reproduce, persuade, control behavior and control power in an
imposed manner.

8


2.2.2. Power
Power is an important concept in CDA studies. “Power exists in various
modalities, including the concrete and unmistakable modality of physical force”
(Fairclough, 2001).

Van Dijk (2008: 65, see e.g., Clegg, 1989, Lukes, 1986), “power is a property
of relations between social groups, institutions or organizations”. Power is based on
privileged access to value social resources, such as wealth, jobs, status, or indeed, a
preferential access to public discourse and communication.
Van Dijk, 1993, cited in Fairclough, 1985, power involves control, namely by
(members of) one group over (those of) other groups. Such control may pertain to
action and cognition: that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of
others, but also influence their minds. Besides the elementary resource to force to
directly control action (as in police violence against demonstrators, or male violence
against women), modern and often more effective power is mostly cognitive, and
enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to
change the mind of others in one‟s own interests. It is at this crucial point where
discourse and critical discourse analysis come in: managing the mind of others is
essentially a function of text and talk such mind management is not always bluntly
manipulative. On the contrary, dominance may be enacted and reproduced by
subtle, routine, everyday forms of text and talk that appear natural and quite
acceptable. Hence, CDA also needs to focus on the discursive strategies that
legitimate control, or otherwise naturalize the social order, and especially relations
of inequality.
In short, power is embodied through language and hidden behind language in use.

2.2.3. Discourse
The definition of discourse is dissimilar depending on the perspective theory
that used by each researcher. The term discourse derived from Latin root „discursus‟
that means conversation or speech. So in a simple comprehension discourse could be
the form of social conversation which can be spoken or written the language.

9

Discourse refers to anything the sentence involves the meaning and the
context of utterance. Discourse is anything beyond sentence; is about language use;
is a broader range of language use in social practice that includes non-linguistic and
non-particular units of language. Discourse emerges as the studies on the analysis of
language used by people in communication with others. Discourse studies on the
language use and its circumstances involves participants, situations, purpose,
outcomes in which those are associated.
Foucault (1972, p. 80), identifies discourse as “(1) sometimes as the general
domain of all statements (means the broadest and most generally applicable at a
theoretical level), (2) sometimes as an individualizable group of statements
(describes discourse as an individualizable group of statements, internally structured
and regulated, having coherence and a force in common), and (3) sometimes as a
regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements.( “a regulated practice
that accounts for a number of statements.)”
Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 258) state, discourse is socially constitutive
as well as socially conditioned-it constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and
the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. Both
of them are constituted in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social
status quo, contributes to transforming and gives rise to important issues of power.
Discourse also emphasizes the importance of context and history, explaining that
discourse is not simply a linguistic practice; it is about the representation of reality,
the practice of it, again illustrating the fundamental view that CDA has of discourse
as social practice.
Fairclough (2003) presents an interpretation of discourse that varies slightly
from Foucault, considering it “as ways of representing aspects of the world-the
processes, relations and structures of the material world, the „mental world‟ of
thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world” (p. 124). Discourses
are different conceptions of the world, connected to the different relations people
have with the world, depending on their social positions. Fairclough further
emphasizes that discourses are “projective, imaginaries, representing possible

worlds, which are different from the actual world, and tied in to projects to change
10


the world in particular directions” (p. 124). “Discourse” thus in CDA refers not to a
single piece of text, which may very well be no more than a unit of discourse, but
rather to the social process of creating meaning. Discourse, then, is the end product
of the creation and interpretation of semiotic variables.
2.3. CDA approaches
There are several profound scholars who have made significant contributions
in the development process of CDA. Among different approaches in CDA, there are
mainly three broad approaches Van Dijk (the socio – cognitive), Wodak (the
historical approach) and Fairclough (the dialectical – relational approach) are
regarded as the most insightful practitioners in this field.
2.3.1. The socio – cognitive approach by Teun van Dijk
Van Dijk is referred as practitioner of CDA, who earlier focuses on
linguistics and discourse analysis. During the 1980s, van Dijk‟s focuses to present
the various minorities and ethnic groups existing in Europe. He developed and
attempted to carry out his analysis by studying the media discourse-related studies
and also implying into researches that essentially portray the perspective politic
through CDA. Then he relates the use of language in discourse with the social
practices.
Van Dijk (1993: 96) argues that one of the vital fundamentals in the analysis
using Socio Cognitive Approach is the affiliation between power and discourses in
the prototype of the access to community discourses for different social groups.
Thus, Socio cognitive approach aimed to show the relationship between power and
discourses. The approaches to understand analysis based on van Dijk‟s theory
(1995) that concludes of social analysis, cognitive analysis, and discourse analysis.
The difference between his approach and other CDA‟s approaches is on the model
which applies the cognitive analysis as the system of mental representations and

processes of group members that are ideologically represented through social power
relation and control the act of others in actions and interactions. Van Dijk (2001)
confirms that language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication

11


belong to the micro-level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality
between social groups are typical terms that belong to a macro-level of analysis.
The analysis of this study should be applied macro to broad analysis in the
relationship between language use and the power relation in political discourse.
Van Dijk (2004) states socio-cognitive model of discourse structures as the
approach in structural aspects of linguistic includes the text and its meaning which
aims at analyzing the discourse connected to social practices through
communication and interaction among people. Macrostructure and microstructure
are contained in it. Macrostructure focuses on general meaning of the text that is
examined on theme, microstructure examines the structure and elements which is
constructed in the text. The micro level of the social context includes language use,
verbal interaction and communication. Whereas power, dominance, inequality
among different social groups belong to the macro level of analysis.
Another findings, socio-cognition comparing the social and personal context
for bringing society and discourse together, and social cognition (“the system
behavior and mental representations of group members”, personal cognition
(indirectly influenced by ideological processes as comprehend the discourse among
other actions and interactions).
2.3.2. The discourse – historical approach by Ruth Wodak
The question of delimiting borders of the distinguish in this approach from
other CDA ones is that it focuses on the historical contexts of discourse in the
process of explanation and interpretation from various analytical perspectives.
Wodak and her friend (2009) regard (1) macro-topic-relatedness, (2) pluriperspectivity, and (3) argumentativity as constitutive elements of a discourse. The

discourse historical analysis (DHA) considers intertextual and interdiscursive
relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourse.
The DHA considers intertextual and interdiscursive relationships between
utterances, texts, genres and discourses, as well as the history of an organization or
institution, and situational frames. While focusing on all these relationships, the

12


exploring how discourses, genres and texts change inrelation to sociopolitical
change. Intertextuality means that the texts , on the one hand, are linked to other
texts and signifies that discourses are linked to each other in various ways, and the
other hand, „field of action‟ (Girth, 1996) indicates a segment of social reality
which constitutes the „frame‟ of a discourse. Therefore, different fields of action are
defined by different functions of discursive practices.
Wodak (2001) suggests a dialectical relationship between discursive practices and
fields of action (situations, institutional and social structures) are situated. It means the
situational, institutional and social settings shape and affects discourses, and on the
other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political
processes and actions. Reisigl and Wodak (2009) consider discourse to be:

- a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within
specific fields of social action
- socially constituted and socially constitutive
- related to a macro-topic
- linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as truth and
normative valid-ity involving several social actors who have different points
of view
To resume, these approaches are the distinguish features in historical context
of discourse in Wodak‟s tool to analysis in CDA. The whole of her work is aimed at

explaining of the discourse linguistics.
2.3.3. The dialectical – relational approach by Norman Fairclough
Fairclough is known as a practitioner with significant contribution to CDA.
His approach is suggested as “a contribution to the general raising of consciousness
of exploitative, social relations, through focusing upon language” (1998, p.4).
In this strategy, the purpose is as participating in “properties”, and as
“extensive frameworks” of CDA, which presented by Fairclough (1992, 1993,
1995) and Chouliaraki & Fairclough (1999).

13


According to Wodak (2001, p.1)‟s view, the approach to CDA “may be as
fundamentally concerned with analyzing opaque as well as transparent structural
language”.
This approach is the sort of research into social and cultural change as the
work that foregrounds links between social practice and language, and social
practices and properties of language text. Moreover, to criticize, connections
between properties of text and social processes and relations (ideologies, power
relations) are not obvious for people to produce and interpret those texts. As the
results, Fairclough (1992), uses the term “naturalization” to “text” as the main
aspects of analysis in the socio-political and socio-historic contexts are
“production”, and “interpretation”. Discourse, and any specific instance of
discursive practice, as seen as simultaneously, “a language text, spoken or written”,
“discourse practice (text production and text interpretation)”, “sociocultural
practice”.
Therefore,

the

method

of

discourse

analysis

includes

linguistic

“description” of the language text, “interpretation” of the relationships between
the (productive and interpretive) discursive processes and the text, and
“explanation” of the relationship of the discursive processes and the social
processes. From three Fairclough‟s dimensions can be done to appl y analysis as
shown in the diagram below:

Description
TEXT
Discursive Practiceproduction, production, Interpretation distribute, consumption

Social Practice

14