PHÂN TÍCH SO SÁNH cấu TRÚC DIỄN NGÔN của bản TUYÊN NGÔN độc lập của mỹ và TUYÊN NGÔN độc lập của VIỆT NAM

However, this thesis will not present the aboveissues but study a very interesting aspect of discourse, that’s say, the structure of the text.The Declaration of Independence of the Unite

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE

Much language study has always been devoted to pronunciation, grammar, and vocabularyand, as a result, has examined sentences as the largest unit of communication However,

we all know that being able to produce correct sentences is not enough to use a language incommunicating suceessfully; we need to grasp a larger unit of communication Modernlinguistic tendency of research focuses on discourse analysis, which is functional analysis

of discourse involving the analysis of language in use Discourse analysis, although achallenge to researchers and learners, has attracted much of their attention

It can be said that discourse analysis touches so many issues of communicating languageboth in spoken and written form It can be analyzed in the light of critical discourseanalysis where relationship between the power, ideology and language is found, oranalyzed to find out linguistic features However, this thesis will not present the aboveissues but study a very interesting aspect of discourse, that’s say, the structure of the text.The Declaration of Independence of the United States and that of Vietnam will be chosen

as subject of the study The reason for this choice is that both share the same genre but arewritten by two different people in two different countries Moreover, the texts are quitepopular with people all over the world

1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aim of this paper is:

+) to explore discourse structure of both Declarations (the textual organisation of everyDeclaration, relationship among factors proposed by Man and Thompson, 1983)

+) to find distinction between the two Declarations (in terms of discourse structure)

In order to realize these aims, the study purports to answer the following the researchquestions:

1/ what is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of the Untied States?

2/ What is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam?

3/ What are similarities and differences between the Declaration of Independence of theUnited States and that of Vietnam?

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

As implied by the title of the study, this analysis only deals with the discourse structure oftwo Declarations Therefore, linguistic and stylistic features were ignored though they areimportant in the discourse I particularly examined how relations among the factorssuggested by Man and Thompson are organized in its network instead

1.4 METHODS OF THE STUDY

I choose an integrated discipline and analytical approach as it grants permission to myattainment of the aims This characteristic is in accord with my general research aim.Additionally, books and studies on Discourse Structure were collected and studiedthoroughly to make theoretical background of the research In this stage, special attentionwas paid to the discourse structure of every genre, especially persuasive discourse one Onthe basis of this, the researcher took those that were most suitable for the analysis and thendecided on my own method of research

Lastly, the two discourses were read comprehensively to find out what factors were used ineach part of the Declaration and how these factors were related to each other in structuringthe texts Besides, some necessary comments on similarities and differences would beaccordingly made To achieve these goals, these successive methods would be chosen forthe better research results They are analytical, descriptive and comparative General

research methodology adopted in the study is inductive in the sense that relevant factors

were respectively found out and then the typical structure model of every Declaration weredrawn upon

1.5 DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis is comprised of 5 chapters Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are Introduction and

Literature Review explaining about the purposes and reasons of the topic choosing; aims;scope; methods and theoretical background of the study They are usually necessary parts

of every paper Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 explore the discourse structure of Independent

Declaration of the U.S.A and that of Vietnam respectively There should be a separate

Chapter – Chapter 5 – for comparison, where findings of similarities and differences between the two are noted Chapter 6, as final chapter, functions to summarize major

findings and gives some concluding remarks of the study The diagrams of typicalstructure of Independent Declaration of the U.S.A and that of Vietnam are drawn at the end

of each chapter of analysis for readers to have an overall look on These two Declarationsare enclosed in the Appendix It would be good for the readers to read through full originalEnglish and Vietnamese versions of these documents

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Discourse and Discourse Structure

TEXT is “to refer to any written record of communicative event The event itself may involve oral language (for example, a sermon, a casual conversation, a shopping transaction) or written language (for example, a poem, a newspaper advertisement, a wall poster, a shopping list, a novel)”

DISCOURSE is “to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in context”(1993:6)

Accordingly, Brown and Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and theverbal record of a communicative act It seems that Blass, R shares the same view as these

linguists when he says that I intend to use DISCOURSE as a general term to refer to all acts of verbal communication, and to reserve the term TEXT for the “explicit”, or

“recorded part” of discourse Thus, text is a purely linguistic, formal object, whereasdiscourse has both linguistic and non-linguistic properties (Blass, R, 1990: 10)

For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech

This distinction apparently leads to the distinction between Discourse Analysis (D.A) andText Analysis (T.A) According to Nunan (1993:7), D.A involves the study or analysis oflanguage in use within context whereas T.A is concerned with an analysis of the structuralproperties of language divorced from their communicative functions In Blass (1990:12)’s

words, the goal of D.A is tracing the hearer’s route in the interpretation of the speaker’sintention.

In this thesis, the term TEXT is referred to any written record of communicative event andregarded as the product of DISCOURSE Therefore, the study does involve a great deal ofconsideration of how the discourse is produced

2.1.2 Discourse Structure

2.1.2.1 The concept of Discourse Structure

Discourse structure (DS) is more difficult to define We are taking DS broadly, to cover allaspects of the internal organizational structure of a discourse The concept of D.S has beenstudied and expanded in the theory of discourse analysis with a variety of terms by

different researchers Halliday and Hasan (1976:324) uses the term “macro-structure” to

refer to the overall global meanings, or the schematic organization of the discourse orconversation as a whole, usually also described in terms of topic, gist or upshot

Rosalind Horowwitz (1977:124) proposes using the term “rhetoric structure”, which is

high-level organization pattern of information order in text Meanwhile, Ross sees the text

structure in the light of pragmatics He says that text structure is merely “expectation structures” However, though the terms used are different and stem from different schools

of ideas, they are essentially the same They try to establish the relationship between D.Sand the purpose or implication of the speakers, and finally, they give out the method ofanalyzing D.S based on the relationship of the factors of discourse The relations betweeninformation in the discourse and the intentions of the user help us to infer a hierarchicalstructure of discourse Basically, researchers admitted that texts, in spite of their confusinglook, have their own structure

2.1.2.2 Approaches to an analysis of discourse structure

My objective in this section is to review ways of analyzing structure of text: Rhetoricalgenre analysis and Rhetorical structure theory The two types of analysis share some of

their goals (discovering the structure) and differ in others (whether the analysis shouldcentre on the intentions and goals of authors and readers…)

2.1.2.2.1 Rhetorical genre analysis

The issue of discourse structure is closely related to the phenomenon commonly known asgenre Each genre has a slightly different structure Basically, genre can be narrative,descriptive, procedural and argumentative discourse, which are the types most frequentlypresented in language arts In this section, I pay special attention to argumentativediscourse because it fits the text in this work

Argumentation theory or argumentation exists from way before the 19th century, where theAristotle’s logical theory is found first This indicates that argumentation was an importantfactor already in society An argument occurs when the author of the argument attempts toconvince certain his/her audience to do or believe something by an appeal to reasons, orevidence The propositions which are used in offering evidence in support of that claim arethe argument’s premises By contrast, the proposition that an author supports by an appeal

to evidence, on a particular occasion, is the argument’s conclusion Finally, the goal ofargumentation is to justify one’s standpoint or to refute someone else’s It is concernedprimarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based onpremises

2.1.2.2.2 Rhetorical structure theory

Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is a theory of text organization described by Mann andThompson (1983) which is about how text works and how coherence in text is achieved It

is one theory of discourse structure, based on identifying relations between segments of thetext

RST addresses text organization by means of relations that hold between parts of a text Itexplains coherence by postulating hierarchical, connected structure of texts, in which everypart of a text has a role, a function to play, with respect to other parts in the text According

to RST, relations can be identified on more than one level

RST establishes two different types of units Nuclei are considered as the most importantparts of a text whereas satellites contribute to the nuclei and are secondary.

In this work, the discourses are analyzed based on this theory aiming to find out how twotexts are structured in a network of relations To show relations in a more formal way, it issuggested that the sentences or the propositions in the text should be numbered and thenuse diagrams to show how the nucleus and satellite are connected as spans of the text Anarc with the relation name connects the underlined spans of the text The numbers stand forthe sentences and propositions identified in the figures For example, the U.S discourse isnumbered from s1 to s37 and the Vietnamese one numbered from s1 to s43 Each of thesetext span is then connected to other spans until the set contains one final span for the entiretext Therefore, the analysis covers all the relations among all the clauses in the text in away that shows how coherence is established by the author and hopefully, is discovered bythe readers

Non-volitional cause Volitional cause Non-volitional result Volitional result Purpose

Motivation Evidence Eaboration Justify Concession Background

RST

relations

Subject matter

Presentation

It can be said that coherence is the core of discourse analysis Nguyen Thien Giap (2000:

192) states: “The thing that turns a product of language into a discourse or text is merely coherence” Coherence is made not only by cohesive devices but structure of the text, or

the way of organizing of a discourse Thus, discourse structure is also a basic and vitalmeans of creating text coherence The structure of discourse seen to include two aspectsthat are closely related to each other is the way of organizing and coherence Do Huu Chaugives his comments that the arrangement of nuclei in the text is called its layout and isconstructed into a certain order And the order of construction is an expression of contentrelations in that text

Additionally, Cook, G (1989) says that, the quality of being meaningful and unified isknown as coherence It is a quality which is clearly necessary for communication andtherefore for foreign language learning And it is structural unity that contributes to makethe text more and more coherent

2.3 Thematisation.

According to Ng Hoa (2000), thematisation is a discoursal process completing twofunctions: i) to connect back and link into the previous discourse, maintaining a coherentview, and ii) serve as a point of departure for further development of the discourse Whatthe speaker puts first, or thematises will have an influence on the way we interpretdiscourse Thus, a title will influence the interpretation of the text which follows it A more

general, more inclusive term than thematisation is staging Clements (1979: 287) suggests:

“staging is a dimension of prose structure which identifies the relative prominent given to various segments of prose discourse.” The notion of relative prominent has led many

researchers, especially psycholinguistics, to consider staging as a crucial factor indiscourse structure because they believe, the way a piece of discourse is staged, must have

a significant effect both on the process of interpretation and on the process of subsequentrecall Thus, thematisation is the process of giving prominence to certain elements in asentence or utterance by placing theme at the beginning of the sentence or utterance

CHAPTER 3: AN ANALYSIS ON DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

3.1 Socio-political background leading to the birth of Declaration of Independence of the United States

The American Revolution began in 1763, when the French military threat to British NorthAmerican colonies ended Adopting the view that the colonies should pay a substantialportion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire, Britain imposed a series

of taxes followed by other laws that proved extremely unpopular Because the colonieslacked elected representation in the governing British Parliament many colonistsconsidered the laws to be illegitimate and a violation of their rights as Englishmen.Beginning in 1772, Patriot groups began to create committees of correspondence whichwould lead to their own Provincial Congress in each of most of the colonies In the course

of a few years, the Provincial Congresses or their equivalents effectively replaced theBritish ruling apparatus in the former colonies, culminating in the unifying ContinentalCongress In 1776, representatives of the Thirteen Colonies voted unanimously to adopt aDeclaration of Independence, by which they established the United States

By June 7, 1776, events had progressed to a point that Richard Henry Lee, a delegate fromVirginia, made a motion to dissolve all ties to Great Britain and declare independence After the motion passed, the Continental Congress appointed a committee comprised offive men John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R Livingston, andRoger Sherman, to draft a Declaration of Independence That committee subsequentlyassigned Thomas Jefferson the task of producing a draft document for its consideration.Some minor changes were suggested by Franklin and Adams, and these were incorporated

in the document Congress also made a few alterations.³ But the finished work wassubstantially what Jefferson had presented to the committee Congress acted quickly oncethe Lee resolution came before it again on July 1 The next day it was approvedunanimously by 12 colonies, though the New York delegation abstained And then — onthe July 4 date which was to be celebrated by posterity — Congress approved theDeclaration of Independence

3.2 An analysis of the structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

In the light of rhetorical analysis, the Declaration of Independence is written in the form of

an argument It begins with a statement of premises and assumptions, and then listsevidence to support those premises in the series of claims beginning with "He" (inreference to King George of England) Having asserted its premises and itemized itsevidence, the Declaration then proceeds to draw its conclusion, introduced by that clearest

of conclusion indicators, "therefore."

However, in the process of studying structure of both Declarations, theory of text structure(RST) will be applied First and foremost, in terms of layout, the Declaration can bestructured into the following three parts:

The Beginning part is comprised of the first two paragraphs, of which the first is apreamble, which explains the reasons for the second that states theoretical justification ofrevolution and independence

The Body part is an enumeration of the abuses suffered at the hands of the British,organized into two different sub - sections labeled as follows: (1) The Indictment of theKing George III; (2) The colonist’s active attempt and the British brethren’s uninterestedrespond

The Conclusion part is an actual Declaration - the legal part of the document It is thatparagraph by which each of the thirteen original States assumed its independence

First of all, let’s look at the title of the Declaration

3.2.1 The title of the Declaration

The title is the initial signal in a discourse that introduces the discourse content to readers

To uncover the macrostructure of the Declaration, first we would look at it “In Congress, 4, July, 1776 The unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America” The titleanswers such questions as what it is about, who it says about, when and where it happens

As implied by the title, this is a declarative speech about independence of thirteen colonies

in the North America agreed by the Continental Congress on 4, July, 1776 The location

“In Congress” printed on the first line of the discourse shows the place where it was written

and also refers to the right authoritative agency What follows is the precise point of time

on which the Declaration was issued Then, a short and bold-printed subject title ofdiscourse with smaller letters appears and briefly introduces the topic of the wholediscourse The subject title is in the form of noun phrase with only nine words According

to Ng Hoa’s (2003) statistics, using nominalization for the title takes up 50.4% amongpolitical discourse This accounts for the preference of the written discourse Additionally,employing formal words with no burden of two or more meanings helps make the titleclear, concise, yet informative of the discourse content

3.2.2 The Beginning part

The preamble identifies the purpose of the Declaration as simply to declare – to announce

publicly in explicit terms – the “causes’ impelling America to leave the British Empire.

The Preamble consists of a short paragraph but is made up of just a complex sentence, so it

conveys a lot of information Not only does it give reasons for writing down a declaration but to provide a justification for dissolving the ties binding the colonies to Britain

To sum up, the Title and Preamble of the Declaration of the United States provide readerswith such information as

+ the topic, objectives and scope of the Declaration, which can be realized right in its title.Additionally, the date of issuing the discourse is usually pulled together with its Title

+ the purposes, basis (theoretical, practical and legal basis) and reasons for making theDeclaration

From an analysis above, it can be seen that purpose relation holds between the title and the

preamble The opening paragraph functions to state the purpose of the Declaration, that’ssay, to declare the “causes” which impel American to the separation This relationship isillustrated as follows: (T stands for the title and s1 means the sentence 1 – the preamble)

by mankind It sets forth a philosophy of government that justifies revolution of America

In other words, this part functions to justify what is stated in the preamble and is one of theessential grounds impelling American to separate the British It is also possible to interpretthat man’s right and government’s motivate American to declare independence This

would be both justification and motivation relation Its relationship to the preamble and the

title is shown as follows: This sub – section is numbered s2 to s6

T s1 – s6 s1 s2 – s6

Figure 3: Relationship between the beginning part and the title

Like the preamble, this section is universal in scope It capsualizes in five sentences - 202words Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes

and follows The propositions are connected by the cohesive relation “that” The following

diagram is drawn to show that relation Pro (1)…Pro (5) is an abbreviation of propositionfrom 1 to 5:

sequence elaboration solutionhood condition

pro1 pro2 pro1 – pro2 pro3 pro1 – pro3 pro4 pro1 – pro4 pro5

Figure 4: Relations among the first five propositions

From the above model, it can be seen that the first nucleus in P1 is related to a satellite inP2 (relation: Elaboration), which in turn, is a nucleus of P3, which has its own satellite inP4 (relation: Solutionhood) Thus, relations in P2 to P4, which act as its satellite for anucleus P5, provide the basis of an intentional relation of Conclusion in P5 Looking at allfive propositions in the light of rhetorical purpose, it comes to our notice that it is a verypersuasive argumentation The first three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into thefifth And it is the fifth, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomesdestructive of the people's unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument ofthe Declaration The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to givephilosophical grounding to the fifth The final proposition-asserting the right of revolution-

is logically derived from the first four propositions Indeed, this section has a powerfulsense of structural unity that is achieved by chronological progression of thought, in whichthe reader is moved from the creation of mankind, to the institution of government, to thethrowing off of government when it fails to protect the people's unalienable rights, to thecreation of new government that will better secure the people's safety and happiness

3.2.3 The Body part

3.2.3.1 The Indictment of King George III and the British

3.2.3.1.1 Grievances of King George III

The indictment of George III is the longest part of the document that makes up almostexactly two-thirds of the text It begins with a transitional sentence immediately following

the previous section with the parallel structure “such ” The next sentence states that

indictment with the force of a legal accusation:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which

constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government (s7) The history of the present King

of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the

establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States (s8)

This sentence plays a nucleus part, that’s say, the history of the present King of Great

Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations Next comes the evidences for

“repeated injuries and usurpations” through 28 sentences from s10 to s37 corresponding

to 28 specific grievances which function as satellite information, and are used as proofsjustifying/documenting the king's indictment The following model illustrates internalstructure of this section:

s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2

Figure 5 : Internal structure of the indictment of the King George III

As seen from the model, the grievances against George III are not listed in random orderbut are arranged topically including four distinct groups All of these group serve assatellite evidence for nucleus sentence from s7 to s9

The first group, consisting of s10 to s21, refers to such abuses of the king's executivepower as suspending colonial laws, dissolving colonial legislatures, obstructing theadministration of justice, and maintaining a standing army during peacetime

evidence

evidence

purpose

The second group includes s22 with nine propositions elaborating what is said in s22 It,therefore, plays a role of both satellite and nucleus This group of charge attacks the kingfor combining with "others" (Parliament) to subject America to a variety ofunconstitutional measures, including taxing the colonists without consent, cutting off theirtrade with the rest of the world, curtailing their right to trial by jury, and altering theircharters

The third set of charges, numbers s23 - s37, assails the king's violence and cruelty inwaging war against his American subjects

The war grievances are followed by the final charge against the king (s38 and s39) that the

colonists' "repeated Petitions" for redress of their grievances have produced only

"repeated injury” In s38, there are two propositions which are related to each other by concession, of which, pro2 is used as nucleus sentence for pro1.

Obviously, this section, together with the previous one, continues to provide the reasons

why the thirteen colonies had thrust upon them the high obligation of dissolving “the political bands” On the other hand, relation that holds between these two parts is sequence

because they are equally important, where the preceding part mentions moral and legalbasis of the document and followed is to exhibit the facts which are contrary to thatphilosophy

Regarding the form, these paragraphs achieve the maximum effect by developing a singleidea in each paragraph Throughout this part of the Declaration, the author began eachcharge against the king by a new paragraph with each ‘he has’ in sixteen successive

sentences or, in the case of one grievance, "He is.": ‘he has refused his assent’; ‘he has forbidden his governors’; ‘he has refused to pass laws’; ‘he has called together legislative bodies’; ‘he has refused for a long time

In term of using language, whereas the first twenty-two grievances describe the king's acts

with such temperate verbs as "refused," "called together," "dissolved," "endeavored," "made,"

"erected," "kept," and "affected," the war grievances use emotionally charged verbs such as

"plundered," "ravaged," "burnt," and "destroyed" These verbs, accompanied by the repetition

of "He has” draws attention to the accumulation of grievances and contributes to build upimages of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse the passions andfeelings of readers, and to awaken those Americans who had yet to be directly touched bythe ravages of war

3.2.3.1.2 Grievances of the British through their desperate rebellion despite the colonists’ peaceful efforts

The Declaration continues to command an international audience and has created anindelible popular image of George III as a tyrant In addition to petitioning Parliament andGeorge III, the colonies had also appealed to the people of Great Britain but in vain

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren (s30) We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us (s31)

… (s33) They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity (s34) We must,

therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, …… (s35).

The first sentence, beginning "Nor ," shifts attention quickly and cleanly away from George III to the colonists' "British brethren." The "have we" of the first sentence is neatly reversed in the "We have" at the start of the second Sentences two through four, containing four successive clauses beginning "We Have ," underline the colonists' active efforts to reach the British people The repetition of "We have" here also parallels the repetition of "He has" in the grievances against George III, which make a sharp

contrast between the previous section and and its following one and which, in turn, unifythe structure of the whole discourse

Figure 6: Relationship between sub- section 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3

These paragraphs are all more effective as an indictment of the king because of the sharpcontrast between the colonists’ active effort and the charges the King as well as the Britishbrethren brought

3.2.4 The Conclusion

3.2.4.1 The Actual Declaration

The conclusion composes of a - two sentence 157 word – paragraph with two nuclei, or,two main contents The first sentence numbered s36 is a complex one conveying the mostsignificant of the conclusion part In s36, pro2 to pro5 serve as nuclei which has the same

satellite in pro1 which provides background information for pro2 – pro5 These propositions are, in turn related to each other in a relation of sequence A single sentence

numbered s37 is also another nucleus It is a commitment, a pledge and a vow, expressingAmerican’s determination It is noteworthy that s36 and s37 provide so much background

information, for example: Who (We, the Representatives of the united States of America); what do? (solemnly publish and declare); Where (in General Congress); Reason (by Authority of the good People of these Colonies) The nucleus clauses can be recognized by linking word “that” whose content plays a role of elaborating what is confirmed in the

title

3.2.4.2 Signatures:

The Declaration ended with signature by Congress president John Hancook Followed isthe name of the thirteen states of America which is bold – printed with signatures of 56delegates below it

Below is diagram on RST structure of the U.S discourse as a whole

T – s37

Justification

evidence

result

pro1- pro2 pro3 s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2 s30 – s33 s34

Figure 7 : RST structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United States

CHAPTER 4: AN ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF THE

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF VIETNAM

Like studying Declaration of America in chapter III, we would also find out the typicaldiscourse structure of that of Vietnam by looking throughout its organization

condition

concession

evidence

eviden

evidence

evidence

concession

reason

evidence

solutionhood

elaboration

elaboration

4.1 Socio-political context leading to the birth of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam.

When the Japanese surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our nationalsovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam On August, 9, 1945,Vietnam regained its national sovereignty On August, 26, 1945, returning from therevolutionary area of Viet Bac to Ha noi President Ho Chi Minh drafted the Declaration

of Independence at No 28 Hang Ngang street On September, 2, 1945, He, on behalf ofmembers of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, read the

Declaration in front of the crowd of Vietnamese people at Ba dinh square.

The Declaration was announced in a special historic context: our people had just won thevictory after a general uprising, established a New Vietnam However, the colonialists andimperialists was piloting to violate our country again They hid behind the Allies to disarmthe Japanese troops: approaching from the North is Chinese Party nationalist troops,behind it American imperialist; from the South British troops and behind it the Frenchcombat troops The French colonists declared: Dong Duong is their protecting - land whichwas violated by the Japanese; now the Japanese surrendered, so Dong Duong is, of course,under the French’s authority In that context, the Declaration was not only read beforefellow citizens but before the World, particularly to imperialists and colonists aiming todissolve decisively those words

4.2 An analysis of the structure of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam

In similar fashion, the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam is also developed into threeparts, or the Beginning part, the Body part and the Conclusion First of all, we start thischapter with looking at the title of the discourse of concern

4.2.1 The title of the Declaration

Written in capital and bold – printed letters, the title of the Declaration of Vietnam appears

in the form of noun phrase that indicates the preference in formal writing Also, it providesthe readers with such information as discourse content, subject of the discourse The

document formally entitled “Tuyên Ngôn Độc Lập Nước Việt Nam Dân Chủ Cộng Hoà” is