Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài diễn văn về chủng tộc của barack obama istic

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ NỮ THU HẰNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
ON BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGƠN PHÊ PHÁN
BÀI DIỄN VĂN VỀ CHỦNG TỘC CỦA BARACK OBAMA)

MA COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - 2010


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ NỮ THU HẰNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
ON BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGƠN PHÊ PHÁN
BÀI DIỄN VĂN VỀ CHỦNG TỘC CỦA BARACK OBAMA)
MA COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Assoc. Professor, TRẦN HỮU MẠNH, PhD

HÀ NỘI - 2010


vi

CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ iii
LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES ......................................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ v
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1

Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 1

2

Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................... 2

3

Aims of the study ....................................................................................................................... 2

4

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 3

5

Design ....................................................................................................................................... 5

6

Significance of the study ............................................................................................................ 5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 6
1.1 What is CDA? ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.2. Concepts of CDA and clarifications ............................................................................................. 8
1.2.1.

Critical, Ideology, Power and Dominance, Racism ....................................................... 8

1.2.2.

Discourse and racism ................................................................................................ 10

1.3 CDA in the world and in Vietnam ............................................................................................. 11
1.3.1 CDA in the world ............................................................................................................. 11
1.3.2 CDA in Vietnam ............................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Fairclough’s analytical framework............................................................................................ 14
1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar and its role in CDA .................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH ..................... 22

2.1 Context of the speech .............................................................................................................. 22
2.1.1

Sociocutural and historical context ........................................................................... 22

2.1.2

Barack Obama’s campaign and Reverend Wright’s controversy ................................ 23


vii

2.2 Discourse analysis.................................................................................................................... 29
2.2.1

Vocabulary analysis .................................................................................................. 29

2.2.1.1

Experiential value of words..................................................................... 29

2.2.1.2

Relational value of words........................................................................ 33

2.2.1.3

Expressive value of words....................................................................... 37

2.2.1.4

Metaphors ............................................................................................... 41

2.2.2

Grammar analysis ..................................................................................................... 43

2.2.2.1

Experiential value of grammar ................................................................ 43

2.2.2.2

Relational value of grammar ................................................................... 47

2.2.2.3

Expressive value of grammar .................................................................. 50

2.2.3

Macro-structure and argumentative strategy analysis .............................................. 52

2.2.4

Rhetoric techniques analysis..................................................................................... 58

2.3 Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 61
2.3.1

Situational context ................................................................................................... 61

2.3.2

Intertextual context .................................................................................................. 64

2.3.2.1

Obama’s race speech in relation with his previous speeches and the

collective language .................................................................................................. 64
2.3.2.2

Presuppositions and speech acts .............................................................. 68

2.4 Explanation ............................................................................................................................. 71
2.4.1

The determination of social structures on Obama’s discourse .................................. 71

2.4.2

The effects of the discourse on social structures ....................................................... 73

PART C: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 75
1

Summary of the discourse analysis .......................................................................................... 75

2

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 78

3

Implications and suggestions for further study ........................................................................ 78

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Barack Obama’s speech on race “A more perfect union” ………………………………………………I
Appendix 2: Transitivity analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………XI
Appendix 3: Barack Obama’s announcement for presidency………………………………….....................XXXIII


iv

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES

LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Dimensions of discourse and discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995a: 98) ........................... 14
Figure 2: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)............................................................................... 16
Figure 3: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136) ................................................................................. 18
Figure 4: Examples of Material clauses ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 5: Examples of Mental clauses .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 6: Examples of Relational clauses ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Examples of Verbal clauses .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 8: Example of Behavioral process ......................................................................................... 21
Figure 9: Example of Existential clause ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 10: Summary of transitivity analysis ..................................................................................... 43

LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1: The Preamble ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 2: The race problem in the campaign ...................................................................................... 54
Table 3: The current situation .......................................................................................................... 55
Table 4: The solutions ..................................................................................................................... 56


v

ABBREVIATIONS

CDA: Critical discourse analysis
MLK: Martin Luther King
JFK: John Fitzgerald Kennedy
RFK: Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy


1

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1

Rationale

Barack Hussein Obama, the Illinois Senator, was elected the 44th president of the United
States on Tuesday, 3 November, 2008, ―sweeping away the last racial barrier in politics with
ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive‖ (The New York Times, 4,
November, 2004). The Guardian commented: ―What is not open to doubt is that Mr Obama's
win is a milestone in America's racial and cultural evolution.‖ (The Guardian, Wednesday 5

November 2008, italics mine). Obama's campaign was marked by his eloquent speeches,
passionate supporters and worldwide fanfare for the Democratic candidate. In speech after
speech, Barack Obama ―fired up‖ millions of enthusiastic supporters with his compelling
rhetoric and charismatic presence.
However, during his campaign, Obama had to face a fraught moment: while his campaign
was conducted to transcend the issue of race and try to build a coalition of racial and ethnic
groups favoring change, his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright declared that ―God damn
America‖ for its mistreatment of blacks and that the country had provoked the September,
11, 2001 attacks. The incendiary excerpts of Wright’s sermons dominated airwaves and
generated great anger among white Americans, threatening to undermine Obama’s promise
to bind up racial and political divisions. Being between the devil and the deep blue sea,
Obama decided to give a speech. His campaign said that he wrote the speech himself
overnight two days before he delivered it.
His race speech ―A more perfect union‖ on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 in Philadelphia is
considered historic by the American mass media and drew praise of American people and the
political spectrum. The speech electrified the whole America and stimulated millions of
comments on televisions, radio talk shows, newspapers, websites, blogs, and discussions in
offices, academic institutions and churches all over America. Commentators employed a lot
of words to describe the speech: ―eloquent, brilliant, exemplary, sweeping, stirring, moving,
passionate, emotional, courageous, gutsy, sophisticated, exceptional, breathtakingly


2
unconventional, etc‖. The speech tactfully ―rescued‖ Obama from the scandal, stably
consolidated his position as a heavy candidate for presidency, and more importantly, opened
up a national conversation about race – a very sensitive topic that people only ―tiptoe‖
around. It did help him lift up the racial barrier on the way to obtain the highest powerful
position as the chief commander of the United States of America.
Therefore, the speech proves to be worthy of close study to find out the power of the
language by Barack Obama - a black politician - in the fight against racism and inequality.

The study is an attempt to clarify why the speech was such a success, how Obama handled
his language to obtain power and contribute significantly to change social reality. The study
is an effort to give an explanation to the unbelievable success of the Illinois Senator in the
USA society from linguistic point of view, under the light of Critical Discourse Analysis.
2

Scope of the study

The analysis of Barack Obama’s race speech is restricted in verbal aspects of the speech and
some characteristics of the United States context at the time the speech was given.
Paralinguistic factors are also important in the effect of a discourse, but they exceed the
limits of an M.A thesis. Hence, these factors are excluded.
The speech is quite long; it contains 4,909 words and lasts 37 minutes. Therefore, I just
investigate the most salient linguistic aspects of the speech such as vocabulary, some
grammatical properties (transitivity, pronouns, modality), textual features (macro-structure,
rhetoric techniques) and some pragmatic traits. Themes and mood are not examined.
3

Aims of the study

The proposed study serves the following aims:
- First, to examine the political discourse Barack Obama’s race speech from CDA
perspectives with a view to uncovering how he exercises ideology and obtains his power,
how he persuades people through his language use, what has made the speech great and what
the relations between Obama’s individual language and the USA collective language are.


3
- Second, to promote critical thinking of language users and learners in approaching political
discourse by raising their awareness the role of language - a sharp weapon in power and

ideology struggles to create social changes.
In order to achieve these aims, the research questions are:
1. How are Obama’s power and ideology manifested in terms of linguistic features
such as lexicon, grammar, macro-structure, pragmatic properties and rhetoric
techniques? How can these linguistic features contribute to the eloquence of the
speech?
2. What are the relations between the production and interpretation of the discourse in
terms of situational context and intertextual context? What are the relationships of
Obama’s invidual language and the collectival language?
3. How is the speech constituted by social structures? And what are the effects of the
speech on social structures?
4

Methodology

Approach and methods
This study is attached to Fairclough's approach with the reason that his analytical framework
founded on SFL has been one of the most comprehensive frameworks of CDA. It covers in
details three levels of discourse analysis: Description, Interpretation and Explanation. This
framework will be described more clearly in Part B, Chapter 1, section 1.4 Fairclough’s
analytical framework.
When carrying out Fairclough’s three stages, I resort to both quantitative and qualitative
methods, with the dominance of the later. In Description stage, these two methods will be
carried out to examine some linguistic features and their use in the speech. Quantitative
method will be used to analyze linguistic features such as the vocabulary, the pronouns,
processes etc. in terms of quantity. Qualitative method will be employed to assess the effects
of such linguistic features to express power, ideology and create the persuasiveness of the
speech. In Interpretation stage, qualitative method will be applied to do socio-cultural,
historical factors analysis and pragmatic analysis in order to clarify the social, historical and
cultural relations between Obama and the contemporary U.S society, how these relations

4
influence the creation and reception of the discourse. In Explanation stage, qualitative
method will also be made use of to find out how the discourse is determined by society and
what influences the speech might have on Obama invidually and the US society in general.
Data collection
Firstly, the race speech is collected from the website www.obamaspeeches.com. Next, some
of Obama’s previous speeches are collected. They are The Keynote Address at the
Democratic National Convention 2004 and Announcement for President, February 2007.
The former marked the first appearance of Obama as a rising star on the political stage. The
latter is related to the content of the analyzed discourse. Particularly, it is said that Obama’s
language echoes many orators in the past, so some famous speeches are selected: I have a
dream (Martin Luther King), the Cooper Union Speech and the Gettysburg Address
(Abraham Lincoln), the Address to a Greater Houston (John F. Kennedy). Lastly, some
related online articles are also compiled from Internet to get more insight in the production
and interpretation of the text, as well as evaluate the effects of the speech on social processes.
They are articles from the most popular websites such as The Times, The New York Times,
The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc.
Data analysis
First of all, the major features of context are provided so that the readers can understand
more about the appearance of the speech. Then, the speech will be analyzed in three stages.
In Description stage, the speech will be interpreted in terms of discoursal features, which
include lexical, grammatical characteristics, macro-structure and rhetoric techniques. In
Interpretation stage, the speech will be investigated in terms of situational context and
intertextual context. Situational context will be looked at from social, cultural, and historical
features. With regard to intertextual context, the race speech will be put in the links with
some of Obama’s previous related speeches and other speeches by Abraham Lincoln, Martin
Luther King and John Kennedy. Besides, pragmatic analysis will reveal how effectively
Obama employs presuppositions and speech acts to convey his ideology and messages to the

audience. In Explanation stage, the impacts of the discourse on American society in terms
of the fight against racism and the securing Obama’s power will be discussed.


5
5

Design

The study comprises three parts. They are:
PART A: INTRODUCTION. This part contains the rationale, scope, aims, methodology and
the significance of the study.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT. This main part includes two chapters. Chapter 1 Literature
review includes a description of CDA, some basic concepts of CDA, a summary of CDA
works in the world and in Vietnam and a procedure of doing CDA. Chapter 2 A critical
discourse analysis of Barack Obama's race speech comprises four main sections: Section
2.1 mentions the major contextual features of the speech: where, when, how and why.
Section 2.2 analyzes the linguistic features. Section 2.3 interprets discourse practices. This
section will investigate the discourse situational context and intertextual context. Section 2.4
explains the relationship between the discourse processes and social processes.
PART C: CONCLUSION. This part presents a summary of the main findings, draws
conclusions and makes some implications on language teaching. Additionally, appendixes
and references are enclosed.
6

Significance of the study

The study tries to explain what has led to the eloquence of the race speech and indicate how
the power and ideology of Barack Obama, - are realized in terms of linguistic features. Next,
the study is also hoped to clarify the role of the individual Obama to the USA in terms of his

language use in the fight against racism in particular and in the struggle for political power in
general. The study is a contribution to find out the role of language in maintaining and
attaining power of the politician Barack Obama – who rocketed from political obscurity to
become the first black African American to head the ticket of a major political party and
finally became the first black President of the United States of America. The results of the
study is hoped to make readers more aware of the powerful strength of language in the
ideological struggle in order to achieve more equality and more power in contemporary
society.


6

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.

What is CDA?

Over the past 20 years or more, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has emerged as one of the
greatest interests of specialists in linguistics. CDA considers discourse (or language in use) to
be socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned. Because discourse is a consequence
of society, it brings forth significant issues of power. ―Discursive practices may have major
ideological effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations
between (for instance) social classes, men and women, and ethnic/cultural majorities and
minorities – through the ways in which discourse practices represent things and position
people‖ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 258).
Thus, CDA is particularly concerned about the people who suffer most from inequalities and
critically analyzes the language use of powerful people, who take responsibility for such
inequalities and have the means and opportunity to make improvements of social conditions.

Critical discourse scholars take interest in getting more insight into the crucial role of
discourse in the reproduction of dominance and inequality and the struggles of power. Their
hope is change through critical understanding. Academics have shown their presence and
contributions in large processes of change such as class struggles, decolonization, the Civil
Rights movements and Women’s movements (van Dijk, 1993a: 253). Nowadays,
globalization, knowledge-based economy and wars against terrorism are important features
of the new era we are living in. And CDA has the task to study the role of discourse in these
processes and the effects of discourse to social changes (Nguyen Hoa, 2006: 238).
Van Dijk (1998a) states that CDA is a field that is engaged with studying and analyzing
language in use (both spoken and written texts) to reveal the discursive sources of power,
dominance, inequality or bias. It investigates how these discursive sources are sustained and


7
reproduced in specific social, political and historical contexts. Similarly, Fairclough (1993:
135) defines CDA as:
discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore 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 ideological 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.

Weiss and Wodak (2003: 15) maintain that CDA is ―fundamentally interested in analyzing
opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power
and control as manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically
social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimized, and so on, by language use‖.
From linguistic dimension, Nguyễn Hoà (2006: 40) argues that the main object of CDA is
discourse itself, not social relations. He strongly emphasizes that analysis of linguistic
features should be the focus of CDA. CDA practitioners must take into consideration the
descriptions of linguistic features, structures and orders at all levels in order to disclose how

they are utilized in discourse practices and socio-cultural practices to preserve and secure
power and social relations. Besides, he also stresses that discourse analysis must pay
attention to both presences and absences in text, such as presupposition and implication.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action
In short, CDA is associated with showing up opaque the connections between language and
other aspects of society and culture that might be difficult to understand to the layperson.


8
The practical techniques of CDA are derived from various disciplinary fields. It is a shared
perspective encompassing a range of approaches such as linguistics, pragmatics,
sociolinguistics, conversational analysis, rhetorics, ethnography, etc. CDA uses analytic tools
from these fields to address persistent questions about larger, systemic relations of power and
social relations. CDA distinguishes itself in the way that it requires CDA practitioners to take
a clear-cut political-social standpoint in doing analysis.

1.2. Concepts of CDA and clarifications
1.2.1.

Critical, Ideology, Power and Dominance, Racism

The typical vocabulary which characterizes CDA are such terms as ―critical‖, ―ideology‖,

―power‖, ―dominance‖, ―racism‖, etc.
Critical
The adjective ―critical‖ stems from the Frankfurt school of philosophy, and it means both
―self-reflexive‖ and ―socio-historically situated‖ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 261).
"Critical implies showing connections and causes which are hidden" (Fairclough, 1995b:
9). According to van Dijk (2003: 352), ―crucial for the critical discourse analysts is the
explicit awareness of their role in society‖. That means critical discourse analysts take
explicit position in understanding, exposing and ultimately resisting social inequality. In a
similar vein, Wodak (2002: 9) asserts: ―Basically, ―critical‖ could be understood as having
distance to the data, embedding the data in the social context, taking a political stance
explicitly, and having a focus on self-reflection as scholars doing research‖.
Ideology
CDA treats ideology as an important means of constructing and supporting unequal power
relations. However, there exist many various concepts of ideology because it is studied from
different angles: sociology, philosophy, political economics, linguistics, etc. For Thomson
(1990), a sociologist, ―ideology refers to social forms and processes within which, and by
means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world‖. In my study, I apply the
definition of ideologies proposed by Van Dijk (1995: 17, 18) as follows:
Ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social
groups, organizations or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive and social. (…..) As


9
systems of principles that organize social cognition, ideologies are assumed to control, through the
minds of the members, the social reproduction of the group. Ideologies mentally represent the basic
characteristics of a group, such as their identity, tasks, goals, norms, values, position and resources.

Van Dijk essentially perceives discourse analysis as ideology analysis, because ideologies are
typically expressed and reproduced in discourse and communication (van Dijk, 1995: 17).
This is what Fairclough and Wodak mean when they contend that discourse can do

ideological work, regarding ideologies as particular ways of representing and constructing
society which reproduce unequal relations of power, relations of dominance and exploitation
(Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 275). Therefore, one of the aims of CDA is to ―demystify‖
discourses by deciphering ideologies.
Power and Dominance
CDA is featured with its concern to power and language: how discourse contributes to
maintain and reproduce social power and dominance. ―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. (…) Modern and often more effective power is mostly cognitive,
enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change
the mind of the others in one’s own interests‖ (van Dijk, 1993a: 254, italics mine).
It is the managing the mind of others that is a crucial function of text and talk (ibid). This is
the point where CDA joins in. CDA seeks to make transparent the relationship between
language and social power: language indicates and manifests power; language takes part in
contention to obtain power; language can also challenge or defy power; overturn it or change
distributions of power in the short and long term (Wodak, 2002: 4).
Dominance is seen as ―the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups, that
results in social inequality, including political, cultural, class, ethnic, racial and gender
inequality‖ ‖(van Dijk, 1993a: 250). The term refers to ―power abuse‖ in ―breaches of laws,
rules and principles of democracy, equality and justice by those who wield power‖ (van Dijk,
1993a: 255). In contemporary society, discourse can be handled as a useful means to
persuasively enact dominance through controlling the minds of the others by making them


10
comply out of their own free will. Hence, CDA gives particular attention to the relationship
between dominance and discourse.
Racism
According to van Dijk (2002: 145), racism is a complex societal system of ethnically or

―racially‖ based dominance and its resulting inequality. Racism system includes social and
cognitive subsystems. The social subsystem is formed by social practices of discrimination
and relationships of power abuse by dominant groups, organizations and institutions. The
cognitive subsystem is mentally involved with biased models of ethnic events and
interactions, which are rooted in racist prejudices and ideologies. Discourse is thought to play
a fundamental role in this cognitive aspect of racism.
1.2.2.

Discourse and racism

Racism – a kind of inequality that ethnic/minority people have to confront - is one of the
most popular topics of critical discourse analysts. Discourse plays a prominent role in
production and reproduction of racism, in the ways it represents, transmits and legitimates
ethnic or racial stereotypes and prejudices. Wodak and Reisigl argue:
The starting point of a discourse analytical approach to the complex phenomenon of racism is to realize
that racism, as both social practice and ideology, manifests itself discursively. On the one hand, racist
opinions and beliefs are produced and reproduced by means of discourse; discriminatory exclusionary
practices are prepared, promulgated, and legitimated through discourse. On the other hand, discourse
serves to criticize, delegitimate, and argue against racist opinions and practices, that is, to pursue
antiracist strategies (Wodak and Reisigl, 2003: 372).

According to Wodak and Reisigl (2003, 378-390), there are five discourse analytical
approaches to racism:
1. Prejudices and stereotypes approach: Uta Quasthoff is the representative. He
investigates stereotypes on the empirical basis of their use in very different kinds of
discourse.
2. The sociocognitive approach: Teun van Dijk is the proposer of this approach. He
focuses on the rationalization and justification of discriminatory acts against minority
groups. He gives priority to the cognitive dimension in the analysis of racism.

11
3. Discourse strands and collective symbols: Sieg Jager and the Duisburg group are the
most prominent researchers. The main focus in many of the Duisburg studies is discourse
semantics, especially the uncovering of ―collective symbols‖.
4. The Loughborough group:

Margaret Wetherell and Johnathan Potter are two

representatives. They stress the context dependence of racist discourse and mainly pay
attention to narratives and argumentation.
5. The discourse-historical approach: Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl are the most
outstanding scholars. One of the most distinguishing features of this approach is its
endeavor to work interdisciplinarily, multimethodologically, and on the basis of a variety
of different empirical data as well as background information.
Van Dijk makes great contributions in his studies on discourse and racism. He examines elite
discourse in the mass media, education, politics and business to disclose inherent,
institutional racism (van Dijk 1987, 1991, 1993b, 1997, 2002). He asserts that discourse
occupies a noticeable role in the reproduction of racism, ―especially in contemporary
information societies, discourse lies at the heart of racism‖ (van Dijk, 2002: 145).
Among the means of public communication, political discourse occupies a significant part in
the issue of racism, because it is involved in legislation and policymaking in ethnic affairs,
and it has great influences on public opinion through the mass media as well. Politicians may
effectively contribute not only to the reproduction of racism but also to the struggles of antiracism. In such a context, black politicians’ discourse is significant in the fight against racist
ideologies and activities.

1.3

CDA in the world and in Vietnam

1.3.1 CDA in the world
Evolution of CDA
The late 1970s saw the emergence of Critical Linguistics (CL), which was developed by a
group of linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia (Fowler et al., 1979,
Kress & Hodge, 1979). CL scholars assume that ideology is encoded in texts and this can
manipulate the reader and/or mystify textual subject matter (O’Halloran, 2003: 14), and their
target was showing how ideology and ideological processes are manifested as systems of


12
linguistic characteristics and processes, whether or not intentional, by forming CL’s
analytical tools based on Halliday’s SFL.
Further developments
The term Critical Linguistic (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used
interchangeably. Recently the term CDA has been preferred and is being used to denote the
theory formerly identified as CL. Fairclough (1995b) has raised two issues with earlier works
in CL. The first is that CL did not adequately take into account the role of audiences and their
interpretations of discourse possibly different from that of the analyst. The second is that CL
did not pay enough attention to the intertextual analysis of texts. Mentioning these limitations
largely reflect shifts of focus and developments of CDA theory. However, CDA still does not
have a unitary theoretical framework, because CDA is an interdisciplinary perspective
involving with many approaches.
Some directions in CDA
Van Dijk with Socio-cognition model
Teun van Dijk is among the best-known CDA scholars. Van Dijk (1995a) considers
discourse analysis as ideology analysis. His approach of ideology analysis is a triangle
consisting of society – cognition – discourse analysis. What distinguishes Van Dijk’s
approach from other CDA approaches is that he emphasizes cognitive analysis. For him, it is
socio-cognition – social cognition and personal cognition – that mediates between society
and discourse (van Dijk, 2001: 113-115).Van Dijk takes care of examining the properties of

language in discourse that can vary as a function of social power. He suggests concentrating
on the following linguistic markers: stress and intonation, word order, lexical style,
coherence, local semantic moves, topic choice, speech acts, schematic organization, rhetoric
figures, syntactic structures, preposition structures, turn takings, repairs and hesitation. He
further puts forward the steps in a CDA analysis (Wodak and Meyer, 2001: 26).
Ruth Wodak with Discourse Sociolinguistics
According to Wodak (1996: 3):
Discourse Sociolinguistics …is a sociolinguistics which not only is explicitly dedicated to the study of the
text in context, but also accords both factors equal importance. It is an approach capable of identifying
and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are


13
embedded in a particular context – whether they be in the structure and function of the media, or in
institution such as a hospital or a school – and inevitably affect communication.

Wodak introduces a new approach which is known as the discourse historical method. The
term historical means an effort ―to integrate systematically all available background
information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or a spoken
text‖ (Wodak, 1995: 209). It is focusing on the historical contexts of discourse in the process
of explanation and interpretation that sets off Wodak’s approach from other CDA paradigms.
Norman Fairclough and the Systemic Functional Grammar Approach.
Fairclough’s theory has been significant to the growth of CDA in recent years. His approach
directs at contributing ―to the general raising of consciousness of exploitive social relations,
through focusing upon language‖ (Fairclough, 1989: 4). Fairclough maintains that CDA
should be used as a resource in struggles against exploitation and domination (Wodak, 2006:
11). He ―focuses upon social conflict in the Marxist tradition and tries to detect its linguistic
manifestations in discourses, in particular elements of dominance, difference and resistance‖
(Meyer, 2001: 22).
For Chuliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 6), CDA ―brings social science and linguistics

…together within a single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue
between them‖. However, Fairclough’s main focus is intertextuality, ―how in the production
and interpretation of a text people draw upon other texts and text types which are culturally
available to them‖. (Fairclough, 1998: 143). Fairclough proposes a three-dimensional
framework, including text (spoken, written or involving semiotic modalities), discourse
practices (the process of text production, distribution and consumption) and socio-cultural
practices (social and cultural structures which frame discourse practices and texts)
(Chuliaraki and Fairclough, 1999: 113).
1.3.2 CDA in Vietnam
CDA now is a subject in English postgraduate curriculum in Vietnam. However, as far as I
know, CDA is still new to Vietnamese learners of English. The book “Phân tích diễn ngôn
phê phán. Lý luận và phương pháp” by Nguyễn Hoà (2006) seems to be the only and
greatest study about CDA in Vietnam. The book introduces quite fully theories and
approaches in CDA, Nguyen Hoa’s study is an endeavor to contribute to the development of


14
CDA in Vietnam and has raised attention among English lecturers and learners. Apart from,
there are some M.A theses on CDA in College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi. Out of these theses, Trần Hồng Vân and Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà’s research
were published on the Tạp chí Ngơn ngữ of Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
Among MA theses on CDA in Vietnam, there seems to have been no study related to
discourse on race by black politicians yet. My study on Obama’s race speech is an attempt to
bring about some understandings on the relations between discourse, power and racism from
the language use by the politician Barack Obama. Under the light of linguistics, the study
will help to partly provide an answer for the Obama mania, not only in the USA but also in
many countries in the world.

1.4

Fairclough’s analytical framework

Fairclough’s analysis consists of three components: Description, Interpretation and
Explanation. Linguistic properties of texts are described, the relationship between the
productive and interpretative processes of discursive practice and the texts is interpreted, and
the relationship between discursive practice and social practices is explained. The dimensions
of Fairclough’s method of analysis are shown in Figure 1.1:

Process of production
Text

Process of interpretation

Discourse practice

Description (text analysis)

Interpretation (processing analysis)

Explanation (social analysis)

Sociocultural practice
(Situational, institutional, societal)

Dimensions of discourse
Sociocultural practice

Dimensions of discourse analysis

Figure 1: Dimensions of discourse and discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995a: 98)

(Situational, institutional, societal)

The connection between text and social practice is mediated by discourse practice: processes
of text production and interpretation can help form and be formed by the nature of social


15
practice; at the same time, the production determines the text and the interpretation works on
―cues‖ in the text.
The first level of discourse analysis is Description, which deals with formal properties of the
text. Fairclough (2001: 91-116) states ten questions and their subquestions based on the three
sections of vocabulary, grammar and textual structure.
A. Vocabulary.
1. What experiential values do words have?


What classification schemes are drawn upon?



Are there words which are ideologically contested?



Is there rewording or overwording?



What ideologically significant meaning relations are there between words? (synonyms,
antonyms, collocations)

2. What relational values do words have?


Are there any euphemistic expressions?



Are there markedly formal or informal words?

3. What expressive values do words have?
4. What metaphors are used?
B. Grammar
5. What experiential values do grammatical features have?


What type of process and participant predominate?



Is agency unclear?



Are processes what they seem?



Are nominalizations used?



Are sentences passive or active?



Are sentences positive or passive?

6. What relational values do grammatical features have?


What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?



Are there important features of relational modality?



Are the 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?

C. Textual structures.
9. What interactional conventions are used?


Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?

10. What larger scale structures does the text have?


16
The framework is constructed through three values: experiential, relational and expressive.
Experiential value is connected with the worldview of the discourse producer. Relational
value is associated with what social relationships between the text producer and the
participants are created and sustained in discourse. Finally, expressive value is related to how
the text producer evaluates what is being discussed.
The second level of discourse analysis is Interpretation. Fairclough gives a detailed
description of Interpretation stage and he summarizes this stage in the diagram below:

Interpretative procedures (MR)

Resources

Interpreting

Social orders

Situational context

Interaction history

Intertextual context

Phonology,
grammar,vocabulary

Semantics, Pragmatics

Surface of utterance

Meaning of utterance

Cohesion, Pragmatics

Local coherence

Schemata

Text structure and point

Figure 2: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)

In the right-hand column of the diagram are six domains of interpretation. The two upper
domains are involved with the interpretation of context, while the four lower domains are


17
associated with the interpretation of text. In the left-hand column are major elements of MR
which work as interpretative procedures. The central column is the range of Resources which
are drawn upon for each of the domains of interpretation on the right.
The upper section relates to the interpretation of context: situational context and intertextual
context. Situational context is interpreted partly on external cues – features of the physical
situation, properties of participant – and partly on aspects of participants’ MR. Fairclough
states four questions that associate with four main dimensions of the situation: what’s going
on (activity, topic, purpose), who’s involved, what relationships are at issue and what’s the
role of language in what’s going on. Intertextual context is interpreted on the basis of
assumptions which previous discourses the current one is linked to. Intertextuality is
Fairclough’s main interest. Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It
can refer to an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s
referencing of one text in reading another. Fairclough distinguishes between 'manifest
intertextuality' and 'constitutive intertextuality,' (Fairclough 1992: 117). The former signifies
intertextual elements such as presupposition, negation, parody, irony, etc. The latter signifies
the interrelationship of discursive features in a text, such as structure, form, or genre.
Constitutive Intertextuality is also referred to interdiscursivity.
The third level of analysis is Explanation, which is associated with how a discourse is
shaped by social structures and what reproductive effects the discourse can have on those
structures, maintaining or changing them. These determinations and effects are acted with
MR mediator: social structures make up MR, which in turn form discourses, and discourses
have impacts on preserving or modifying MR, which later have influences on social
structures, sustaining or altering them. The analyst is supposed to find out how the process of
producing and interpreting discourse are determined by the social and institutional structures
that contextualize a situation; and how social processes and practices are manifested in

discourse and work ideologically to create effects on existing power relations. Institutional
and social structures are relations of power, and the social processes and practices are
processes and practices of social struggle. Discourse is seen as a part of social struggles.
Explanation, therefore, includes two dimensions involving with the emphasis on processes of
struggle or relations of power. The analyst may focus on the social effects of discourse on
structures, on creativity and on the future. Or she may concentrate on the social


18
determination of discourse – on what power relationships form discourse, and on the past –
on the results of past struggles. The analysis of both social effects and social determination
should be carried out at three levels: societal, institutional and situational, as shown clearly in
Figure 3 below:
Societal

Societal

MR

Institutional

Discourse

MR

Institutional

Situational

Situational

Determinants

Effects

Figure 3: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)

Fairclough (2001: 138) then summarises the Explanation stage by suggesting three questions
for investigating a particular discourse:
1. Social determinants: what power relationships at situational, institutional and societal levels help
shape this discourse?
2. Ideologies: what elements of MR which are drawn upon have an ideological character?
3. Effects: is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional and societal
levels? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is the discourse normative with respect to MR or creative?
Does it contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or transforming them?

1.5

Systemic Functional Grammar and its role in CDA

Fairclough’s analytical model focuses on the multifunctional linguistics theory embodied in
Halliday’s (1978, 1994) Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). The term ―systemic‖ refers to
the view that language is ―a network of systems or interrelated sets of options for making
meaning‖ (Halliday, 1994: 15). The term ―functional‖ indicates that the approach is
concerned with meaning, on the contrary with ―formal grammar‖, which is related with word
classes such as noun and verbs. SFG stresses that language cannot be isolated from meaning;
it considers functions and semantics as the basis of human language and communicative
activity. SFG looks at how language acts upon social context and is constrained and
influenced by this social context. CDA analysts also investigate this dialectical relationship

19
between language and social context; they view language in use (discourse) forms society
and is socially formed. Therefore, SFG is apparently a very useful tool in doing CDA.
SFG considers that ―language is it is as because of its function in the social structure‖
(Halliday, 1973: 65, cited from O’Halloran, 2003: 16). For Halliday, language serves three
overarching functions – the metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual. Each
function is about a different aspect of the world and is concerned with a different mode of
meaning of clauses.
The ideational function is about the natural world in the broadest sense, including the world
in our own minds. Language is used to represent people, objects, events and states of affairs
in the world. The ideational function is concerned with clauses as representations and
realized through the Transitivity system. In the transitivity system, a clause is analyzed into
Process, Participants and Circumstances. In English, six process types are recognized:
Material, Mental, Relational, Verbal, Behavioral and Existential. Material process is the
process of doing and happening, involving physical actions such as running, throwing,
cooking, and so on. Any material process has an Actor, and in many cases, it has a second
participant called Goal. For example:
Figure 4: Examples of material clauses
The young girl

bounded

out of the gate.

The fire

destroyed

everything.

Actor

Process: Material

Goal

Circumstances

(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 80)

The Actor may not appear explicitly in the clause, especially in passive clauses.
Mental process is the process of activities in people’s mind such as thinking, liking, feeling,
sensing, wanting, etc. The participants related to mental process are Senser and Phenomenon.
There are three sub-categories: affection, or reaction; cognition (deciding, knowing,
understanding, etc); and perception (seeing, hearing, etc). For example:
Figure 5: Examples of Mental clauses
She

seemed to be puzzled

by this new.