ANALYSIS OF TRANSITIVITY INAUGURAL SPEECH 2000

LINK DOWNLOAD MIỄN PHÍ TÀI LIỆU "ANALYSIS OF TRANSITIVITY INAUGURAL SPEECH 2000 ": http://123doc.vn/document/563975-analysis-of-transitivity-inaugural-speech-2000.htm

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
different socio-political contexts of the U.S country. When George W.
Bush took over presidency from Bill Clinton in 2000, the U.S was
then in at peace with a prosperous economy and facing hardly
potential threat domestically and internationally. The case was
considerably opposite when Mr. Bush retook the oath of office in
2004 nevertheless. Some unprecedented and unexpected events
had happened to the country during Mr. Bush’s four years in office,
threatening the domestic and international security. Hereinafter I am
reviewing some of these events and briefly discussing the
aftermaths and effects they produce. (Appendix 2 will provide more
detailed year reviews of all related events)
First, it was the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New
York and the Pentagon in Washington on September 9/11 which
killed nearly 3,000 people and caused the collapse of three
skyscrapers. In an attempt to ‘hunt down’ the terrorists and all those
who ‘harbor’ (G.W. Bush) them, the Bush Administration decided to
went war against nations which were supposed to have links with
terrorism. In October 2001, the U.S troops (in coalition with some
others) launched war against Afghanistan. This brought victory to
the U.S and his coalition at the expense of well over 200 deaths to
the American side but the efforts to capture Osama bin Laden (the
prime suspect behind the attacks) and many of his top aides were in
vain. In March 2003, the U.S-led coalition attacked Iraq reasoning
that Iraq were storing weapons of mass destruction and maintaining
the alleged link with Al Qaeda, the international network of
terrorism. Again, US –led coalition won but bloodshed has been
continuing and so far (November 2005) this war has claimed more
than 2,000 Americans.
Second, the U.S suffered an economics downturn and went into
recession in almost all sectors with the largest job losses in 21 years
5
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
recorded in 2000. Until 2004, the U.S remained in time of
controversial war, and was recovering but had yet recovered from
economics recession by the time the second presidency of G.W.
Bush commenced.
In short, the USA can be said to be in two periods of radical
discrepancy: one in peace and the other one in war, as Mr. Bush
once acknowledged in an address in 2005. Presumably, these are
the prime factors that would create remarkable changes in the
second speech. More specifically, they will get the key persons of the
U.S to adopt a different dominant ideology and to re-outline the
vision for his new period in office. It is this very point that invites
analysis and interpretation in the light of CDA.
5. Aims of the study and research questions
In studying the two inaugural speeches by G.W. Bush in the
presidential election 2000 and 2004, I would like to find out the
relationship between language and ideology. My contrastive textual
analysis of the two texts (and social political background clarification
where necessary) is to give focus to some aspects as follows:
+ The first is the way socio-political context influences his
strategic ideology representation in the speeches, especially in
the 2004 one;
+ The second is the way President Bush deals with the
conventional paradoxes in the political speeches linguistically
to live up to the public expectations.
These attempts, though done on only a particular case, are hoped to
serve as a vivid instance of how power and ideology are achieved via
language. Also, it is expected to enhance the awareness the role of
language in general, and of Critical Discourse Analysis in particular.
Specifically, I purport to answer the following research questions:
6
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
+ What and how are ideologies reflected lexically and
syntactically in each speech?
+ What are the differences and similarities in the realization of
ideologies in the speeches?
+ What linguistic strategies does the speaker employ to solve
the paradoxes of fellowship and authority in the speeches?
6. Methodology
The study bases itself on the common sense assumptions that there
are ‘implicit conventions according to which people interact
linguistically’ (Fairclough, 2001). Regarding the presidential
speeches, there exist some aspects influencing the lexical and
syntactical choice of the speaker. It then follows the inductive
approach, that is all underlying patterns and principles are drawn
from description of data and generalization of findings.
In carrying out this research, the author relies on the following
procedure:
Firstly, several approaches to CDA are reviewed so that an
appropriate theoretical framework suited to the aims and subject of
the study could be mapped out. The study is not based on a
particular approach; rather, it is drawn upon a combination of two
most outstanding approaches proposed by two CDA practitioners,
Fairclough and van Dijk.
Secondly, qualitative data related to the U.S. presidential
election 2000 and 2004, particularly the speeches by G.W. Bush
made on two Inauguration days are assembled for the analysis,
which is done in two phases:
7
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
1, General textual description of the speeches is made in
terms of lexis and syntax towards the uncovering of underlying
ideology in the speeches;
2, Comparative analysis of the speeches is made on the
basis of elements discerned in the earlier part. This is to find
out the similarities and differences of the two speeches in
terms of how ideology is linguistically realized. Although the
study is examining two speeches at the same time, it is not
pure contrastive analysis that is the purpose of the research.
Instead, this serves as the underpinning for the interpretation
and explanation of the findings later on.
7. Design of the study
The study consists of three parts and two chapters, which are
organized as follows:
Part 1: Introduction states the reasons of the study, its
significance, its scope, aims and research questions, its
methodology.
Part 2: Development
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background & Literature review
reviews CDA history, approaches, Systemic Functional Grammar and
some background information of the data speeches.
Chapter 2: Methodology and analysis procedures describes the
data collection and the procedure of analyzing data.
Part 3: Conclusion: summarizes the findings in the previous
sections, discusses the findings of the research, provides concluding
remarks and implications and suggestions for further studies.
8
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND & LITERATURE
REVIEW
1.1. Background to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
1.1.1. Brief overview of CDA evolution
The emergence of Critical Linguistics (CL) in late 1970s marked a
considerable change in doing social linguistics research. At that time,
linguists were busy finding ways to give insights into technical
spheres of language such as ‘language variation, language change
and the structures of communicative interaction’, while neglecting
‘issues of social hierarchy and power’. (Labov: 1972; Hyme: 1972,
quote after Wodak: 2002). As Chomsky (1957) saw it, much research
was focused on the language aspects which had to do with the
competence of speakers (i.e: form and content, system, process, use
etc.,) rather than the aspects of the contexts. The birth of
pragmatics then helped create a space for investigating the
interdependence of language and social contexts though the
attempts were limited. In pragmatics, ‘sentences and components of
sentences were still regarded as the basic units’ (Wodak). Moreover,
pragmatics is limited in having mainly developed with reference to
“single invented utterances rather than the real extended discourse”
(Fairclough: 1989). As a consequence, the analytical tools are
devoted to disclosing discrete pieces of language rather than
‘placing them in a wider political and social contexts’’ and
discourage linguists from understanding the world properly.
9
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
The birth of CL was originally attributed to the seminal work of Roger
and his colleagues based at the University of East Anglia in 1979. Its
concern was reading the meaning in texts as the realization of social
processes, seeing texts as functioning ideologically and politically in
relation to their contexts. Its main assumptions, principles and
procedures can be found in a lot of work such as those by Kress and
Hodge (1979), Fowler at al. (1979), Trew (1979) van Dijk (1985) and
Wodak (ed.) (1989).
During the 1980s, CL merged with similar approaches in social
semiotics and pragmatics. It was Norman Fairclough who initiated
the term Critical Discourse Analysis, along with its abbreviation CDA
to denote a distinct and substantial body of work (Billig: 2003). Ever
since, CDA has been more systematic as it focuses more on the
critical, socio-political and socio-cultural issues. By the end of the
decade, almost all the cornerstones for doing CDA such as aims,
research interests, perspectives and methods of CDA were much
more specifically and rigidly defined.
The radical ground for doing CDA was Michael Halliday’s systemic-
functional of language. Most CDA protagonists were aware that an
understanding of the basic claims of Halliday’s grammar and the
application of his approach to linguistics was essential for a good
performance of CDA. Halliday had asserted the relationship between
the grammatical system and the social and personal needs that
language is required to serve (Halliday: 1970, in Wodak: 2001).
Following him, CL practitioners see language use as simultaneously
performing three macro-functions: ideational, interpersonal, and
textual functions. The first function refers to the experience of the
speakers of the world and its phenomena. The interpersonal
function, which constitutes relationships between the participants,
has to do with the insertion of speaker’s own attitude and
10
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
evaluations about the phenomena in question, and establishing a
relationship between speakers and listeners. The third function, also
the key one, constitutes coherence and cohesion in texts. This is the
one by which speakers are able to produce texts that can make
them understood by others. The grammar, according to him, is
structured as three major ‘networks’ of grammatical systems that
are transitivity, mood and modality, and information - including
theme-rheme and given-new (Halliday:1994). These are believed to
be corresponding to these three macro-functions of language
aforementioned.
1.1.2. Formation of theory of and some key concepts in CDA
1.1.2.1. Formation of theory
Ever since its beginning, CL has focused on the process of theory
formation and specially stressed the interdisciplinary nature of its
research. In fact, it was quite impossible to attribute CDA theory to
any particular single theory, as Meyer claims that ‘there is no such
guiding theoretical viewpoint that is used consistently within CDA,
nor do the CDA protagonists proceed consistently from the area of
theory to the field of discourse and then back to theory’ (Meyer:
2002). Among many experts, Foucault and Habermas are two
philosophers who undoubtedly had a strong influence on the theory
development of CDA. Foucault’s tool is used on both the
epistemological level and the level of discourse theory while that of
Habermas is applied as a general social theory, a microsociological
interaction theory and a discourse theory. It would be inherent that
the theoretical framework of CDA was eclectic and unsystematic.
Attentions therefore, need to be paid on the different levels and
types of theories. Nevertheless, the plurality of theories can be
considered as one strength of it, to which CDA owns its dynamics.
11
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
The ground for setting up such theory, according to Chouliaraki and
Fairclough (1999), was ‘the meditation between social and the
linguistics’ . It was the complex interrelation that linguistics and
sociology need to combine with each other. To date, no such uniform
theoretical framework of meditation has been created in CDA.
However, approaches or efforts to reach approaches by CDA
protagonists have showed great concern they spared for CDA.
1.1.2.2. CDA and some key concepts
Before going on with CDA in more details, it is necessary to give an
explanation of one of the most controversial issues which is subject
to quite a lot discussion among CDA and even non-CDA practitioners.
According to Fairclough, CDA or Critical Discourse Analysis is simply
the critical study of language. At this very point a question is raised
‘what does it mean by ‘critical’?
Wodak (2001) holds that ‘critical is having distance to the data’. This
is quite vague as one may not work out how one can keep distance
to the data. The definition by Fairclough (1992) that ‘critical implies
showing connections and causes that are hidden’ (and in so doing,
‘decoding the operations of ideology’) visualizes a clearer vision of
what task a CDA protagonist has to do, given that ideologies are
always embedded in linguistics.
With Billig (2003), however, sufficient and quite satisfactory
justification of “critical” has been made.
Firstly, critical approaches mean to be critical of the present social
order. CDA is seen to be a means of criticizing the social order, it is
not because of a technical or methodological discrepancy from other
approaches that CDA claims itself to be critical. Rather, it is because
it is rooted in a radical critique of social relations.
12
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
Secondly, CDA and critical approaches in general, distinguish
themselves from other whose theoretical and methodological
assumptions seem to exclude direct political or radical analyses. This
advocated Fairclough in his claims that ‘critical approaches not just
describe discursive practices but also show how discourse is shaped
by relations of power and ideologies’. (1992a)
Thirdly, in critical approach, academic work is related to the social
conditions of domination. By that, CDA implies that the traditional
ways of dealing with linguistics is insufficient, narrow and CDA has to
go beyond the boundary set up. Critical endeavours, therefore
require that analysts’ knowledge is to be grasped from other related
disciplines such as sociology, social theory, history and so forth. That
is why critical approach is characterized as multidisciplinary/
Interdisciplinary since it cannot accept the disciplinary structure of
the approach that it is criticizing.
To sum up, I strongly advocate Nguyen H. in his brief conclusion that
‘critical is substantially includes the unearthing of ideological nature
or unequal relations implicit in discourses.’ (Nguyen: 2005). By this,
CDA differentiates itself from the traditional Discourse analysis- DA
(even though they both have the discourse as a subject) in that
while CDA concerns a series of issues such as culture, sociality,
power, ideology etc., DA centrers solely on discourse as an
interactional process.
I would now like to quote, for convenience, some key concepts in
CDA (agreed by many CDA followers) on which this paper bases.
Discursive event: instances of language use, analysed as text,
discursive practice, social practice.
13
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE INAUGURAL SPEECHES BY

GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2000 & 2004
Text: the written or spoken language produced in a discursive
event.
Discourse practice: the production distribution and
consumption of a text.
Interdiscursivity: the constitution of a text from diverse
discourses and genres
Discourse: way of signifying experience from a particular
perspective.
Genre: use of language associate with a particular social
activity
Order of discourse: totality of discursive practices of an
institution, and relations between them.
Members’ resources (MR): are accumulated knowledge
structures which ‘people have in their heads and draw upon
when they produce or interpret texts- including their
knowledge of language, representations of the natural and
social worlds they inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions and so
on’.
(Fairclough: 1995a; 2001).
1.2. CDA-Theories and practice
1.2.1. Overview of the approaches to CDA
As mentioned above, CDA has never tried to establish one single or
specific theory. It would be comprehensible why there exist different
approaches in doing it. According to Fairclough and Wodak (1996)
there are about eight approaches to CDA which are:
14