Rationale of the study
To be a young Vietnamese of the post-war generation, have you ever raised a serious question about what happened to the generations of our fathers and grandfathers during the Resistance War against America, that is called the Vietnam War in the US, from the 1950s to the 1970s? Or you only just heard about a war in which Vietnam was against the American Empire’s invasion And that the Americans brought tons of bombs and Agent Orange to flow down to our country, which made us be deep inside years of depression and smokes of war The war, as all we know, has caused many disasters to our country such as starvation, poverty, disability, homelessness, and etc The grief and loss of the war will last forever in the hearts of the Vietnamese generation after generation
In the United States today, ―Vietnam‖ is shorthand for their longest and most divisive foreign war, and it is often evoked as little more than a political or media cliché, a grip reference to a controversial war that ended badly, a time of domestic turmoil, a history to be avoided in the future For many Americans, the war’s meaning has been winnowed down to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC where they stand in silence, filled with emotion, but unsure how to move beyond their private reflections to a broader engagement with this daunting subject
They, the same as many young Vietnamese in our generation, are still going to find the answers to the questions how the war began, why it bred so much dissert or why it lasted so long As a result, many American filmmakers from Hollywood have worked for years to find out the reasons why the United States got bogged down in the war, also acted out the real nature of the war under different points of view It has been 43 years since the last US combat troops left Vietnam, but the conflict continues to play an outsized role in American politics and popular culture From John Wayne’s stern-jawed performance in the 1968 propaganda film The Green Berets to Robert Downey, Jr.’s antics in the 2008 meta-comedy Tropic Thunder, the war’s complexity and social impact have made it an irresistible subject for generations of filmmakers and moviegoers
Among those, Forrest Gump, one of the most famous films about the
Vietnam War, is an epic American film detailing a history of an America that was locked in the revolving orbit of the Vietnam War Also, it clearly and deeply indicates life of veterans coming back from the war who suffered from a serious disease called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or the Vietnam Syndrome Although in a speech on 1 March 1991 after the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991), the US President George Bush declared ―By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all‖
(Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1991, p.549), it actually does exist in American veterans’ mind and soul who came back from the Vietnam War, and in the whole society as well
So how exactly the Vietnam Syndrome appears in the script of the
Forrest Gump movie, in order to find out the answer to this question, I manage to do a research called ―The Vietnam War Syndrome in “Forrest
Gump” Movie Script: A Critical Discourse Analysis”.
Aims of the study
The research is able to argue the nature of the continuing effects of the Vietnam War as reflected in American cinema and the extent to which the Vietnam Syndrome is still relevant in American culture Another aim of this study is to provide experiences in applying CDA methods into cinematic texts, especially movie scripts
To fulfill these purposes, the study will answer the following research questions:
(1) How is the Vietnam War Syndrome reflected in “Forrest Gump” movie script from CDA perspective?
(2) What are implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War concerning texts?
Scope of the study
In the framework of the study, this thesis only focuses on analyzing the Vietnam Syndrome represented in the script of the film Forrest Gump which was released in 1994 by Paramount Pictures The factors such as the topic, the plot, the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, and the language of the movie are analyzed to figure out the syndrome hidden inside.
Methods of the study
This research is conducted based on a Critical Discourse Analysis approach which will be further discussed in the next sections The qualitative method and content analysis are applied for the research After collecting data in the movie script, the analysis was exercised on the basis of Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework: Description – Interpretation - Explanation
Details of the analysis procedure are presented in the Methodology chapter.
Background of the data
Among a series of films about the Vietnam War, Forrest Gump was chosen because it is interesting - a six Academy Award winner Also, the film is in English And, it is a film with a strong Vietnam War theme It not only shows the criticism of American involvement in the conflicts but also an extremely realistic Vietnam War combat scene It also presents a cozy view of the war by portraying it through Forrest’s innocent, uncritical, and child-like eyes The film honors the army and portrays the soldiers as normal, decent young men who were doing their duty for America Forrest’s heroic actions add a patriotic view to American involvement in Vietnam and make the army and soldiers look brave, loyal and chivalrous Their innocence is also shown in their will to get home, creating sympathy for the US Forrest’s lack of knowledge regarding the ―Vietcong‖ is suggestive to the lack of knowledge displayed by the whole army regarding the policy of containment
The conditions of war in the film are displayed as tough and the guerrilla warfare that takes place is shown to have a high human cost The movie is only slightly critical of US involvement in Vietnam, but as it is shown entirely from the US perspective, it is a largely romantic and patriotic view of the army and the war
The Vietnam War was one of the most controversial armed conflicts during the 20th century It ended in 1975 after 20 years of fighting and more than 55,000 Americans and between three and four million Vietnamese dead
Unlike earlier wars, however, the Vietnam War did not unite the nation to a common cause, but tore it apart Many people were against the war as they believed that the soldiers were only being sent to their deaths, and that the war was not very productive for the United States Many of the soldiers returned home only to be called by protesters as "baby killers." The war first started towards the beginning of the Cold War when the United States attempted at eliminating any Communist Presence in Vietnam The main presidents during this war were President Lyndon B Johnson and President Nixon who were known for authorizing hundreds of thousands of troops to be sent to Vietnam
President Nixon was known for his idea of "Vietnamization" where he would gradually bring troops from Vietnam home and end the war soon.
Design of the thesis
There are three main parts in this research paper
Part A - INTRODUCTION - presents the rationale, aims, scope, methodology, background, and design of the thesis
Part B - DEVELOPMENT - consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
In this chapter, the brief introduction of the Vietnam Syndrome and the context of the film will be mentioned It also gives out the theoretical background of CDA including brief introduction of the history, definition and methodology
In this chapter, the theory of CDA in chapter 1 is applied in analyzing the movie script to uncover the relationship between power, ideology and language
The collected data is analyzed in this chapter
In this chapter, the finding from the study is mentioned and discussion on them is also indicated
Part C - CONCLUSION - summarizes the study and suggestions for further studies
Literature Review
The Vietnam Syndrome
In fact, the term ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ is used widely in America
However, the title of this study refers to the ―Vietnam War Syndrome‖ because the author wants the readers to have the initial understanding about the content of the thesis Therefore, ―the Vietnam War Syndrome‖ will be used changeably with ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ as can be seen below
The Vietnam Syndrome, like other post-war syndromes, was first used in early 1970s to describe the physical and psychological symptoms of veterans coming back from the Vietnam War, later known scientifically as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) By the end of 1970s, the Vietnam Syndrome was no longer a purely medical term and it came to have a political meaning, coined by Henry Kissinger and popularized by Ronald Reagan to describe the US’s reluctance to send troops into combat situations overseas
This happened because the US was afraid that they would get bogged down in a quagmire again, like they did in Vietnam, and this which would lead to a loss of support for the government
They argue that bad memories of the Vietnam War such as massive protests and riots, the Watergate scandals as well as images of killed and wounded soldiers and civilians, have caused the American people to distrust any type of foreign intervention As a result, any attempt by the United States to engage in a military conflict would be viewed by the American people as
―another Vietnam.‖ American leaders were also afraid of involvement in other nations’ problems
The Vietnam Syndrome also led to many problems in American society and people In other words, it is a problem of the whole society Many veterans came back from Vietnam had been failed in efforts to have an ordinary life More Vietnam veterans committed suicide due to psychological problems after the war than those who had died during the war At least three-of-quarters in a million veterans become homeless or jobless
Nearly 700,000 draftees who came from poorly educated background hardly received honorable discharge Even worse, many Vietnam veterans find it too challenging to get new jobs to maintain support for their family
There are many movies, documentaries and television programs depicting Vietnam veterans’ difficult lives and their sad memories – what they suffered when fighting in the war and how badly they were treated when they came back from Vietnam
There are considerable debates whether the war in Iraq (2003) is
―another Vietnam‖ The appearance of that phrase has caused many to believe that Vietnam Syndrome is still alive After the Gulf War (1990 – 1991) and its relatively decisive victory, President George H W Bush declared that Vietnam Syndrome was finally ―kicked‖: ―By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all‖ It is believed the U.S had recovered from the disaster in Vietnam This idea is backed up by the broad support of government in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq in first decade of 21st century
However, those signs did not mean that the US had completely overcome the Vietnam Syndrome American foreign policies are usually decided based on the political orientation of the incumbent president Presidents who are Democrats usually try to avoid intervening abroad unless absolutely necessary For example, American troops were withdrawn from Somalia after Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 under Bill Clinton’s tenure Barack Obama’s administration was also careful when assessing problems in Libya and Syria in 2013 They showed that Vietnam Syndrome still exists on American foreign policies to a certain extent Apparently, the United States decide that they would only use military force as a last resort – where national interest is clearly involved; when there is strong public support; and only if they could achieve a relatively fast, inexpensive victory
Intrinsically, the Vietnam Syndrome is a collective psychological sickness caused by the conflicts between ideological powers and reality
By ideological powers we mean the belief in the ―Noble‖ American Values, Dreams, Just Cause, Strength, etc These powers decide the way they speak, live, and behave in their life (Remember Thomas Paine’s statement that the cause of the Americans is the cause of humanity) The reality is what they see: the American soldiers went to Vietnam to become ―baby killers‖, drop napalm, and to cause bloody massacres
The question is whether the American government continually tell lies to their nation in committing all these awful actions that generate psychological disorders in the whole country while and after the war
The demonstrations of the Vietnam Syndrome are different, but the essential is the doubt and disbelief of American people in the so-called American values They raise questions such as: Is America really such a free and great country? Does the American Army go to Vietnam to liberate a miserable people from communists’ suppression? Does the merciful God exist as they used to think? In general, it is their disillusions in the future and in life They lose their directions to the future and do not know how to move on
The syndrome appears everywhere in every fields of American society including in artworks, literature, newspapers, especially in movies, of which the film Forrest Gump is a very interesting example.
Discourse and Discourse analysis (DA)
The Russian linguist, V.N.Volosinov is the first author to use the term discourse in the sense we understand it today In his article ―Discourse in Life and Discourse in Art‖ (1926), Volosinov claims that verbal text, whether it is oral or written, constitutes only a part of the language communication The other part is context The unit of language communication, therefore, in not sentence, that can be repeated, but utterance, that includes both the sentence and the context in which it is produced, is unique In the same way, text can be repeated, but discourse, that includes text and the context, is unique
Volosinov put it clearly: ―verbal discourse is clearly not self-sufficient It arises out of an extra-verbal pragmatic situation and maintains the closest possible connection with that situation Moreover, such discourse is directly informed by life itself and cannot be divorced from life without losing its import.‖
According to Volosinov, in order to disclose the sense and meaning of the discourse, we must understand the ―extra-verbal context‖ that makes the utterance a meaningful locution for the listener The extra-verbal context of the utterance is comprised of three factors:
(1) the common spatial purview of the interlocutors,
(2) the interlocutor’s common knowledge and understanding of the situation, and
(3) their common evaluation of that situation
He points out the relation between the extra-verbal purview and the verbal discourse is that ―the discourse does not at all reflect the extra-verbal situation in the way a mirror reflects an object Rather, the discourse here resolves the situation, bringing it to an evaluative conclusion, as it were.‖
The behavioral utterance actively continues and develops a situation, adumbrate a plan for future action, and organize that action It always joins the participants in the situation together as co-participants who know, understand, and evaluate the situation in like manner The utterance, consequently, depends on their real, material appurtenance to one and the same segment of being and gives this material commonness ideological expression and further ideological development Thus, the extra-verbal situation is far from being merely the external cause of an utterance – it does not operate on the utterance from outside, as if it were a mechanical force
Rather, the situation enters into the utterance as an essential constitutive part of the structure of its import As a result, a behavioral utterance as a meaningful whole is comprised of two parts: (1) the part realized or actualized in words and (2) the assumed part
Of course, context is known before Volosinov, but it was seen as something outside and separate The new in Volosinov’s theory is that he sees context as a constituting part of discourse
In another masterpiece written in the 1920s, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Volosinov states that expression-utterance is determined by the actual conditions of the given utterance – above all, by its immediate social situation Utterance is constructed between two socially organized persons, and in the absence of a real addressee, an addressee is presupposed in the person, so to speak, of a normal representative of the social group to which the speaker belongs (1986, p 85) He emphasized that the immediate social situation and the broader social milieu wholly determine – and determine from within, so to speak – the structure of an utterance (1986, p.86) The utterance is determined immediately and directly by the participants of the speech event, both explicit and implicit participants, in connection with a specific situation That situation shapes the utterance, dictating that it sound one way and not another – like a demand or request, insistence on one’s rights or a plea for mercy, in a style flowery or plain, in a confident or hesitant manner, or so on
In the second half of the 20 th century, Michael Foucault, a key theorist in Europe about discourse analysis, defines discourse more ideologically as
―practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak.‖ (1970:
49) He also announces that discourse is way of organizing knowledge that structures the constitution of social relations through the collective understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse social fact For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurally related to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historical period in which it arises However, discourses are produced by effects of power within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules and categories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth within the discursive order These rules and categories are considered a priori; that is, coming before the discourse It is in this way that discourse masks its construction and capacity to produce knowledge and meaning It is also in this way that discourse claims an irrefutable a‒historicity Further, through its reiteration in society, the rules of discourse fix the meaning of statements or text to be conducive to the political rationality that underlies its production Yet at the same time, the discourse hides both its capacity to fix meaning and its political intentions It is as such that a discourse can mask itself as a-historical, universal, and scientific – that is, objective and stable In
―The Order of Things‖ (1970), he points out that in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality
Going even further, the postmodern thinkers, like Jacques Derrida, claim that discourse is the nature of the whole humane society: Everything is discourse In general, discourse refers to how we think and communicate about people, things, the social organization of society, and the relationships among and between all three Discourse typically emerges out of social institutions like media and politics (among others), and by virtue of giving structure and order to language and thought, it structures and orders our lives, relationships with others, and society It thus shapes what we are able to think and know any point in time In this sense, sociologists frame discourse as a productive force because it shapes our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values, identities, interactions with others, and our behavior In doing so it produces much of what occurs within us and within society
The term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zellig Harris
(1952) as a way of analyzing connected speech and writing Harris had two main interests: the examination of language beyond the level of the sentence and the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior He examined the first of these in most detail, aiming to provide a way for describing how language features are distributed within texts and the ways in which they are combined in particular kinds and styles of texts An early, and important, observation he made was that connected discourse occurs within a particular situation – whether of a person speaking, or of a conversation, or of someone sitting down occasionally over the period of months to write a particular kind of book in a particular literary or scientific tradition There are, thus, typical ways of using language in particular situations These discourses, he argued, not only share particular meanings, they also have characteristic linguistic features associated with them What these meanings are and how they are realized in language is of central interest to the area of discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which language is used between people, both in written texts and spoken contexts Whereas other areas of language study might look at individual parts of language, such as words and phrases (grammar) or the pieces that make up words (linguistics), discourse analysis looks at a running conversation involving a speaker and listener (or a writer's text and its reader)
It is "the study of real language use, by real speakers in real situations," wrote Teun A van Dijk in the Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol 4 (1985) The context of the conversation is taken into account as well as what is said It can include where they are speaking and involves a social and cultural framework as well as nonverbal cues, such as body language, and, in the case of textual communication, images and symbols
Brian Partridge in his book Discourse Analysis: An introduction (2012) defines that discourse analysis examines patterns of language across texts and considers the relationship between language and the social and cultural contexts in which it is used Discourse analysis also considers the ways that the use of language presents different views of the world and different understandings It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of language has upon social identities and relations It also considers how views of the world, and identities, are constructed through the use of discourse
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
In the 1970s, a form of discourse and text analysis that recognized the role of language in structuring power relations in society emerged At that time, much linguistic research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects of language which constituted the linguistic competence of speakers and which could theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use (Chomsky, 1957) Where the relation between language and context was considered, as in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983), with a focus on speakers’ pragmatic/sociolinguistic competence, sentences and components of sentences were still regarded as the basic units Much sociolinguistic research at the time was aimed at describing and explaining language variation, language change and the structures of communicative interaction, with limited attention to issues of social hierarchy and power (Hymes, 1972) In such a context, attention to texts, their production and interpretation and their relation to societal impulses and structures, signaled a very different kind of interest The work of Kress/Hodge (1979), Van Dijk (1985), Fairclough
(1989) and Wodak (ed.) (1989) serve to explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and procedures of what had then become known as Critical Linguistics (CL)
An account of the theoretical foundations and sources of CL is given by Kress (1990, 84-97) He indicates that the term CL was ―quite self- consciously adapted‖ (1990, 88) from its social-philosophical counterpart, as a label by the group of scholars working at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s (see also Wodak, 1996a, Blommaert / Bulcaen 2000) By the 1990s the label CDA came to be used more consistently to describe this particular approach to linguistic analysis Kress (1990, 94) shows how CDA was by that time ―emerging as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind of linguistics ―He lists the criteria that characterize work in the CDA paradigm, illustrating how these distinguish such work from other politically engaged types of discourse analysis Fairclough / Wodak (1997) took these criteria further and established 10 basic principles of a CDA program (see also Wodak, 1996b)
There are several identifiable ―schools‖ or groups within CDA, and not all the points that will be made apply equally to all the groups or individual practitioners It is particularly important to distinguish between the initial British approaches embodied by Fairclough (1985, 1989) and Fowler (1991) and its later, more developed and coherent form explained in Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999); the so-called ―socio-cognitive model‖ of critical discourse analysis epitomized by van Dijk (1991) and his group; and the Viennese
―discourse historical school‖ led by Wodak (Wodak et al 1990; Wodak 1996,
According to Van Dijk (2001, p.352), ―critical discourse analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.‖ He also figures out the aims of CDA are to focus primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society
In Fairclough’s point of view (1995, pp 132-3), CDA is defined as follows: ―By “critical” discourse analysis, I mean discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events, and texts (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes; to investigate how such practices, events, and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.‖
In the opinion of Wodak (1996, p.16), CDA highlights the substantively linguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporary societies This is partly the matter of how power relations are exercised and negotiated in discourse It is fruitful to look at both ―power in discourse‖,
―power of discourse‖, and ―power over discourse‖ in these dynamic terms
In summary, as a self-conscious movement with an explicit agenda, CDA abounds in definitions of what it purports to be and do These declarations range from the highly politicized: ―to explain existing conventions as the outcome of power relations and power struggle‖ (Fairclough 1989: 2), to the almost anodyne ―to answer questions about the relationships between language and society‖ (Rogers 2005: 365), depending on the stance of the individual researcher However, the general consensus is that Critical Discourse Analysis contains two essential elements: A more or less political concern with the workings of ideology and power in society; and a specific interest in the way language contributes to, perpetuates and reveals these workings Thus the more explicit definitions all emphasize the relationship between language (text, discourse) and power (political struggle, inequality, dominance) ―CDA takes a particular interest in the relationship between language and power ( ) This research specifically considers more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict‖ (Weiss and Wodak 2002: 12)
Critical discourse analysis is a special approach in discourse analysis which focuses on the discursive conditions, components and consequences of power abuse by dominant groups and institutions It examines patterns of access and control over contexts, genres, text, and talk, their properties, as well as the discursive strategies of mind control It studies discourse and its functions in society and the ways society, and especially forms of inequality, are expressed, represented, legitimated or reproduced in text and talk
Furthermore, CDA does so in opposition against those groups and institutions who abuse their power, and in solidarity with dominated groups, e.g., by discovering and denouncing discursive dominance, and by cooperating in the empowerment of the dominated
Key concepts needed for everyone to understand this new linguistic approach are critical, power, and ideology
The notion of critical in CDA program is understood very differently
In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2001), Ruth Wodak states that critical is to be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data in the social, taking a political stance explicitly, and a focus on self-reflection as scholar doing research CDA is critical in that it views discourse as a form of social practice and criticizes the way discourse reproduces socio-political inequality, power abuse or dominance Nowadays, this term is also used more popularly in everyday language to mean the use of rational thinking to question arguments or prevailing ideas
Fundamental and central to the discussions in most critical studies is the notion of power Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of differences of structures The constant unity of language and other social matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power Power does not derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter distribution of power in the short or long term Language provides a finely articulated means for differences in power in social hierarchical structures
CDA takes an interest in the ways in which linguistic forms are used in various expressions and manipulations of power For CDA, language is not powerful on its own – it gains power by the use powerful people make of it
Ideology is another important notion in the reference to critical theory’s contribution to the understanding of CDA For Thompson (1990), ideology refers to social forms and processes within which, and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world According to Fairclough (2003, p.128), ―ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and exploitation They may be enacted in ways of interaction and inculcated in ways of being identities Analysis of texts is an important aspect of ideological analysis and crique‖ Simpson (1993, p.161) considers ideology is
―a mosaic of cultural assumptions, political beliefs, and institutional practices‖ Since language is regarded as the physical form of ideology and language is thus an indispensable part of any attempt to study ideology
Ideology, for CDA, is seen as an important aspect of establishing and maintaining unequal power relations
Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b;
Rasmussen 1996) Its current focus on language and discourse was initiated with the ―critical linguistics‖ that emerged at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al 1979; see also Mey 1985) CDA has also counterparts in ―critical‖ developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences, some already dating back to the early 1970s Besides, CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often ―asocial‖ or ―uncritical‖) paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s
Critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271—80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
3 Discourse constitutes society and culture
6 The link between text and society is mediated
7 Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8 Discourse is a form of social action
Methodology
Research objects
As the title suggests, this research was conducted on the movie script of the film Forrest Gump released in 1994 by Paramount Pictures But I have also read the novel by Winston Groom on which the film was based both in English (published in 1984 by Black Swan) and Vietnamese (reprinted in
2017 by Youth Publishing House) They are considered as additional documents to support the process of carrying out this research Furthermore, the comparison between two versions of the novel is also carried out by the researcher The purpose of all these actions above is to see the difference between the novel and the movie script It can be concluded that the Vietnam Syndrome in all images of the film is much clearer and realer Eric Roth, the screenplay writer, brought many important historical events of the United States in the period time of the Vietnam War which did not appear in the book into the script The comparison, therefore, has provided a lot of basic evaluation of the data for the analysis in the next steps
Furthermore, before this research was carried out, the author has seen the movie for several times and compared the script with all the scenes of the film as well.
Research method
Among a wide range of qualitative research method, as the title of the research suggests, the approach of critical discourse analysis was chosen for this study in order to highlight the Vietnam Syndrome reflected in all the factors of the movie script
In my research, the analysis was implemented on the basis of Fairclough’s three- dimensional framework for studying discourse as stated in Chapter 1
Fairclough’s three-dimensional approach to analyzing discourse including text, discursive practice and social practice (See Figure 1) The smallest dimension in the diagram is ―text‖ which refers to the linguistic feature of the discourse It is the movie script in this research Questions like
―How the discourse is produced? Why is it produced this way? Is there any alternative way to present the same discourse?‖ helps navigate the first level of analysis (Fairclough 1995: 202) The second dimension is called interaction or discursive practice This section looks at the process of producing and consuming discourse Concerning the largest dimension, discourses are analyzed in relation to the sociocultural practice The ideology, norms, culture, and power relations that surround the discourse are taken into consideration Besides, analyzing each ―block‖ of the three dimensions requires different procedures namely description, interpretation and explanation, respectively
Figure 1: Three-dimension conception of discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992: 73)
As shown in Figure 1, Fairclough identifies three levels of discourse, these being firstly, social conditions of production and interpretation, i.e the factors in society that have led to the production of a text and how these factors effect interpretation Secondly, the process of production and interpretation, i.e how the text has been produced and this effects interpretation Thirdly, the product of the first two stages, the text
Corresponding to the three levels or dimensions of discourse, he proscribes three stages of CDA:
Description is the stage concerned with identifying formal properties of the text In this stage, the analysis of the language structures produced is exercised By discourse structure, we mean the components of the movie script such as the topic, the plot, the characters, the setting, the theme songs, and the language used in the film
Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction – with seeing the text as a product of a process of production, and as a resource in the process of interpretation In the chosen discourse from the movie script, they are often understood in a different way compared to the real meaning of the writer
Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context – with the social determination of the processes of production and interpretation, and their social effects
To sum up, according to Fairclough’s analytical framework, CDA researchers center on not just analyzing texts, nor just analyzing processes of production and interpretation, but analyzing the relationship between texts, processes, and their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the situational context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social structures
In this study, the data analysis focusing on the Vietnam Syndrome follows a three-stage process: Description, interpretation, and explanation
In the stage of description, I will particularly focus on the factors that constitute the movie script such as topic, plot, characters, setting, genre, theme songs, and the language used in the script
In the stage of interpretation, I will show how the expressions should be interpreted in the specific context of the movie script of which the syndrome displays explicitly and implicitly
In the stage of explanation, I will demonstrate how those expressions are affected by socio-cultural powers, such as situational, social, or institutional, in this case by the Vietnam Syndrome.
Data analysis
Topic, plot, and characters
The topic of the movie, as we see, is about the Vietnam War which ended many years ago By the time the movie is created, there are already many films, books, documentaries, articles, etc that have been referred to the war throughout the United Stated and all over the world However, the director still chose this topic This fact indicates that the questions about the war never come to an end in Americans’ conception They are always urged to go and find out the ways to solve the problems of American society as the effects of the war It means that the Vietnam Syndrome still persists - it can hardly ever fade away from American history
It is interesting to note that the war has different names in Vietnam and in the US In Vietnam it is an Anti-American Nation Saving Resistance War, while in the US, it is the Vietnam War, which implies that it is just a war among other wars – and ―victories‖ - in the US history It is clear how the ideological powers form the names and concepts of wars in the US
The movie Forrest Gump follows the life events of a man who shares the name as the title of the film Forrest faces many tribulations throughout his life, but he never lets any of them interfere with his happiness From wearing braces on his legs, to having a below average IQ and even being shot, Forrest continues to believe that good things will happen and goes after his dreams When several unlucky things occur during Forrest's life, he manages to turn each setback into something good for him, such as when he finally gets his braces off he discovers that he is capable of running faster than most other people This skill allows Forrest to not only escape his bullies while he is a child in Greenbow, but also to gain a football scholarship, save many soldiers' lives and become famous for his ability While Gump eventually achieves the majority of the things he hoped to throughout the movie, it proved a much more difficult task to win the heart of his life-long friend
The movie is centered on Forrest Gump who is always called an idiot or a stupid man throughout the film, and the incidents that occur during his life Interestingly, Forrest’s life journeys take place at the same time as the Vietnam War (1955-1975) Therefore, the questions he asks himself about his life appear to be the questions of Americans about the war
The image of Forrest Gump symbolizes that of the United States during the Vietnam War America is considered to behave as an idiot in the conflict In the end, they do not know how to move on or how to leave it The Vietnam War is forever a black eye in American history
As mentioned above in the plot, the film focuses on life journeys of the main character Forrest Gump who shares the same name as the title of the movie He was named after a soldier in the American Civil War (1861-1865)
When I was a baby, Momma named me after the great Civil War hero, General Nathan Bedford Forrest
General Nathan Bedford Forrest is also the person who starts up the club called Ku Klux Klan ―They’d all dressed up in their robes and their bed sheets and act like a bunch of ghosts or spooks or something‖ It is one way that the director uses to recall the Vietnam War Behind that is the presence of the Vietnam Syndrome expressed in the film
There are three other major characters of the movie who stick to Forrest’s life They are Jenny, Lieutenant Dan Tayler (Lt Dan) and Bubba
Jenny is Forrest's childhood friend whom he immediately falls in love with and never stops loving throughout his life A victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of her bitterly widowed father, Jenny embarks on a different path than Forrest, leading a self-destructive life and becoming part of the hippie movement in the 1960s and the 1970s drug culture She takes part in the anti- Vietnam war protests, and travels all around the country with strangers She dies at the end of the movie
Lt Dan is Forrest and Bubba's platoon leader during the Vietnam War, whose ancestors have died in every American war, and he regards it as his destiny to do the same After losing his legs in an ambush and being rescued against his will by Forrest, he is initially bitter and antagonistic towards Forrest for leaving him a "cripple" and denying him his family's destiny, falling into a deep depression
Bubba is Forrest's friend whom he meets upon joining the Army
Bubba was originally supposed to be the senior partner in the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, but he dies by the river in Vietnam
It can be seen from the main characters of the movie that all their lives are destroyed in one or another way by or during the time of the Vietnam War They either die or become disable because of the war
These characters seem to embody the image of the United States at that time, completely ruined and bitterly divided - a disabled America.
Setting and genre
The film is set mainly in the city of Savannah, Georgia where the main character, Forrest Gump, sitting there on a bench to tell a story about his life
The question is why the director chose Georgia, not other states to be the setting of the movie?
In fact, Georgia joined the Confederacy and became a major theater of the Civil War (1861-1865) in the early 1861 It was the state where main battles took place from Atlanta to Savannah A lot of Georgian soldiers died in service, roughly one of every five who served Georgia also became the last Confederate state to be restored to the Union One more interesting fact, Georgia is a state which is split many times In 1802–1804, western Georgia was split to the Mississippi Territory, which later split to form Alabama with part of former West Florida in 1819 Moreover, it is one of states in the USA where racism happens prominently In 1908, the state established a white primary; with the only competitive contests within the Democratic Party, it was another way to exclude blacks from politics
Additionally, Ku Klux Klan, an American terrorist organization has advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration developed quickly and successfully in Georgia with the foundation of the Association of Georgia Klans
With all these important and complicated facts about the state of Georgia, can we conclude that the director of the movie has reasons for his choice? He probably chose intentionally a place where people were divided for a long time in the war of their own nation
Is it the same as the Vietnam War, which is believed to traumatize and divide the American people for decades, and do immense harm to the image of the United States in the world?
The genre of Forrest Gump is a drama but mixing with a comedy
The movie seems to be an epic But that is an epic about an American citizen with a low IQ of 75 and often considered a local idiot However, he is a hero in the war because of rescuing his teammates from a bomb explosion and attack of the enemy by running Formally, Forrest is ―a football star, and a war hero, and a national celebrity, and a shrimp boat captain, and a college graduate, the city of fathers of Greenbow, Alabama.‖
On the other hand, all the events happen in his life are funny and foolish For example, when he is put in the All-America Team and invited to meet the President of the United States in the Oval Office, he just cares about food and drink ―The real good thing about meeting the President of the
United States is the food‖ He drank about fifteen Dr Peppers When
President Kennedy shakes his hand and asks ―How do you feel?‖, he replies ―I gotta pee‖
Another time Forrest comes again to get the Medal of Honor from the President of the United States, he drops his pants, bends over and shows the bullet wound on his bare buttocks to President Johnson All these ridiculous actions appear not to occur accidentally in his life, but it seems to be an anti- power against all the American values such as wealth, freedom, or nobility
Forrest’s behaviors reflect the American society at that time According to public media, America is a wonderland, a land of freedom and democracy; but in fact, it is a place where racism, inequality, discrimination, etc happen in every corner of the society.
Language
The language used by the characters in the movie is very diverse, especially the offensive language appears densely under words or phrases in the whole script The character who used such kind of language the most is
Lt Dan He normally adds words such as ― goddammit ‖, ― shit ‖ or ― son-of-a bitch ‖ in his speech With the appearance of other bad words like ― Viet fucking Nam ‖, ― this fucking war ‖, ― the whole damn country ‖, or ― Goddam bless America ‖, it seems to be the characters like to say that in their everyday conversation However, the use of these curses reflects an uncomfortable attitude of American people toward the society at that time They have to live in an unpleasant condition where discrimination, violence, and racism happen in every corner of life They are disappointed with the government and hopless to the future That is one aspect of the Vienam Syndrome mentioned in the movie
Together with those offensive words, there are many other expressions that demonstrate the syndrome presented in the film script
When being shot in a battle field in Vietnam and breathed the last breath of his life, Bubba, an American soldier, whispered to his friend, Forrest, ― Why’d this happen?‖ This is a rhetorical question of Bubba about his current situation, why his platoon was attacked and why he was badly wounded It sounds to be a wonder about his injury; it is, however, a bitter question why this war happened and why America involved into this war For many years during the Vietnam War was happening and after it ended, American people have still gone to find the answers to the questions how the war began, why it bred so much dissent, or why it lasted so long The question of Bubba reminds us of a great song named ―I feel like I’m fixing a die rag‖ written by Country Joe McDonald (1967)
And it’s one, two, three What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn Next stop is Vietnam
And it’s five, six, seven Open up the pearly gates
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why Whoopee! We’re all gonna die
The song is about placing blame on American politicians, high-level military officers, and industry corporations on starting the Vietnam War
―What are we fighting for?‖ is the question which young Americans drafted for the Army always attempts to get the answer
After that, Bubba said something to Forrest that he never forgets: ― I wanna go home ‖ That is the last wish of a soldier when he got shot at a distance very far from his hometown He wanted to go home with his mom and his family all around It is very sad that his dream never comes true He died right there by that river in Vietnam The hope of Bubba appears to be an echo of a slogan of protests against the Vietnam War that spreads on all the streets of America from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, ―Bring them home‖
―Bring them home‖ or ―Bring the boys home‖ are catchwords aimed at the sending of troops to fight in a war that is considered increasingly unpopular in the United States The slogan is also the name of a famous anti-war song written by Pete Seeger in 1971
For defense you need common sense Bring them home, bring them home They don't have the right armaments Bring them home, bring them home
The song is an anti-war anthem emphasizing the fact that American government should pull their military out of Vietnam
Another expression deeply indicates the Vietnam Syndrome is that of
Lt Dan When he was badly injured in the battle field, Forrest ran to rescue him, after that he was taken to the hospital and survived Later on, he got very angry with Forrest and shouted at him: ―Did you hear what I said You cheated me I had a destiny I was supposed to die in the field Whit honor!
That was my destiny! And you cheated me out of it!‖
In fact, he was rescued by Forrest, and Forrest did not cheat him anything, but he repeatedly said that Forrest cheated him So who cheated Lt
Dan? It appears that ―you‖ here is the American government It was the United States’ Presidents who cheated all the soldiers to go to Vietnam to fight for an unjust war They said to the soldiers to come to Vietnam to stop the communist in order to liberate the miserable people there They thought they came to do a noble job in their life, but the truth is very differnt They came to Vietnam to kill women and children, to do terrible work that they had not expected before At that time, they bitterly realized that they were cheated by their own top leaders
After badly injured, Lt Dan became ―a legless freak‖, he did not know what to do with the rest of his life He screamed: ― What am I gonna do now?
What am I gonna do now?‖ The impasse of Lt Dan’s situation after being amputated is also the deadlock of the whole American society succeeding many years of involvement into the war The US Army could not stay, and could not leave They do not know how to escape from the mud This makes us think about another well-known song of Pete Seeger ―Waist deep in the big muddy‖ written in 1967
We were waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on
The song was considered symbolic of the Vietnam War (the Big
Muddy) and President Lyndon Johnson (the big fool) 's policy of escalation, then widely seen as pushing the United States deeper into the increasingly unpopular war
In the expression above, the repetation of the rhetorical question of Lt
Dan remains engraved on Americans’ minds about an unforgetable memory of a horrible period of time It is like a startled saying of the whole American society The US got involved in what was essentially a civil war in a country on the other side of the world for very poorly justified reasons, they did not really know how to win, or even have a definition of winning, and they used all the military power they had (except nuclear weapons), committed massive human rights violations against the population of a poor third world country, and yet they achieved precisely nothing
In another situation when Forrest went to Washington, DC to receive the Medal of Honor from the President of the United States, he was put in a line with the other veterans against the war, and asked to tell the crowds about the war in Vietnam When Forrest was about to speak, there was a policeman pulling the patch cords out of the audio board, so that people could not hear anything ― We can’t hear you We can’t hear anything ‖ The only thing that people can hear is the last sentence in Forrest’s speech: ―That’s all I have to say about that.‖ The image of a veteran continuing to speak into the microphone without any sound symbolizes the whole country cannot speak out the truth They have no chance to know about what American soldiers think and do in Vietnam They really want to know the truth, but the only thing they can hear from the veterans is nothing at all All people in the country have no opportunity to raise their voice and to understand what is happening in the war The American government always finds the way to cover the truth Therefore, the American people do not know the true story behind the mask
The Vietnam War causes the entire American society a disbelief in noble values considered the symbol of the United States Even though about 70% of American population follows Christianity, they have to question about their religious belief after the war They doubt whether there is Jesus Christ existing in this world This indicates clearly in Lt Dan’s speech when he talks to Forrest after many year they reunite
Have you found Jesus yet, Gump?
Jesus this and Jesus that Have I found Jesus? They even had a priest come and talk to me He said God is listening, but I have to help myself Now, if I accept Jesus into my heart, I'll get to walk beside him in the Kingdom of Heaven
Did you hear what I said? Walk beside him in the Kingdom of Heaven Well, kiss my crippled ass God is listening What a crock of shit
His words prove the hopelessness of Americans to the merciful God
They no longer believe in what they often pray in the church that Great Jesus would give them peace and a better life The world they are living in is full of loss and depression The repetition of the word ―Jesus‖ or ―God‖ in Lt Dan’s speech exposes the bitter despair of an amputated veteran who has nothing to lose as well as nothing to live by
The loss of his life also demonstrates in the conversation between him and two prostitutes when they argue with each other at New Year’s night The prostitutes repeatedly call him ― You big loser!‖, ― You retard!‖, ― You freak!‖, or ― You so pathetic!‖ All these imperative sentences as a needle stab into his heart and make him a more tragic life He is not only a loser in the war, but also a loser in his life Coming back from Vietnam and being a crippled veteran, Lt Dan has to stay in a hotel and lives off the government tit He totally no longer believes in anything in this world As Forrest said ― there’s something you can’t change ‖ He cannot change the truth that he is now a legless freak His life is destroyed by the Vietnam War Appallingly, it is the same as the United States that is deeply divided by the war The war is over
One of the most interesting expression appears in the script is the question that people often ask Forrest at the first time they meet him: ― Are you stupid or something ?‖ Forrest is a simple-minded man with a low IQ of
75, so he usually behaves very different from what people often think
Theme songs
Many anti-Vietnam war songs written in the 1960s and the 1970s are mentioned in the movie script ― Blowing in the wind ‖ (1962) is one of the best songs of all time performed by the character Jenny in the film
How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, and how many times must the cannon balls fly before they're forever banned?
The song was written by Bob Dylan during the early sixties which is right when the United States started sending more troops into Vietnam It poses a series of rhetorical questions about peace, war, and freedom This is an anti-war song that does not only make specific references to Vietnam but was also written during the time period and to make people view the war in a negative way Dylan uses lots of rhetorical questions that are meant to criticize our country's involvement in war, specifically the one in Vietnam
Due to all the rhetorical questions in this song it is easy to deduce that this song is meant to criticize America's foreign policy during the Vietnam War, even though no specific foreign policies are named
“Fortunate Son” (1969) is one of the Vietnam era’s best-known protest songs
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief," ohh, they point the cannon at you all
It ain't me It ain't me
I ain't no Senator's son, no
It ain't me It ain't me
Written by John Fogerty and performed by Fogerty’s band, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Fortunate Son takes aim at the United States’ political and military elite, the men who push for war but are seldom personally affected by it According to Fogerty, Fortunate Son was inspired by the marriage of Dwight D Eisenhower’s grandson to Richard Nixon’s daughter
In simple but angry tones, Fogerty’s lyrics suggest that the children of the working classes – not ―senator’s sons‖ or ―millionaire’s sons‖ – are drafted and sent to into the teeth of war ―It ain't me It ain't me I ain't no Senator's son, no It ain't me It ain't me " This indicates that the only fortunate or lucky ones in the war are soldiers who can get themselves out of the army or out of the military by having special relations with people inside the government The song, released during the peak period of U.S involvement in Vietnam, is not explicit in its criticism of that war in particular, rather, it
"speaks more to the unfairness of class than war itself," according to its author, John Fogerty "It's the old saying about rich men making war and poor men having to fight them."
Another song, ― For what it worth ‖ (1967) is a well-known protest song written by Stephen Stills and performed by Buffalo Springfield
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware
Since the song was written during the Vietnam War, America was split between anti-war protesters and pro-war civilians - the group tried to use this song to make people realize the actual actions that the war was causing and base their opinion on the events
There are some other songs mentioned in the film such as “Mr
President (have pity on the working man)” (1974), ―Where have all the flowers gone?” (Pete Seeger, 1961) or ―All along the watchtower” (Bob Dylan, 1967) All these songs play an important cultural role during the Vietnam War Often great art is produced in the hardest of times, and some of the most iconic music of the 20th century was produced during the 1960s and early 1970s in protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam War Artists like Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger or Randy Newman speak out against the war by their greatest protest songs ever.
Findings and Discussions
What are the implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War
The underlying meanings of the all kinds of discourse only can be understood by putting them into a social and historical context Therefore, in teaching and learning English, when perceiving a text, especially a Vietnam War concerning text, the teachers need to be aware of the context surrounding the discourse in order to give learners proper explanation Also, the learners need to have enough background knowledge to deeply understand the hidden messages inside every discourse The Vietnam War is a very complicated period of time in the Vietnamese history as well as the American one
Nowadays, the young generations are normally lack of information and basic understanding about that As a result, when analyzing these types of texts, the learners not only focus on the words, structures and sentences; but also need to find out the extra information related to social contexts and historical events so that they can see the underlying messages
Summary of the study
This research was conducted from the critical discourse perspective that assumes the important role of the relationship between discourse and its underlying meanings Explicitly, the study of the Vietnam Syndrome in the
Forrest Gump movie script is embraced Applying the framework of
Fairclough’s three-dimensional process, the research has unveiled the existence of the Vietnam Syndrome embedded in all the factors surrounding the movie such as the topic, the plot, the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, as well as the language of the movie script The study is also an attempt to apply CDA approach to an artistic text in order to figure out the hidden messages inside the movie script
Moreover, it is essential to master that every discourse is produced in a historical and social context with a specific situation The relationship between the context and the situation decides the significance of the discourse Thus, it is very important for teachers and learners to find out not only the textual, but also the extra-textual factors and intertextuality in order to deeply understand the real meanings of the text Surveying the extra-verbal elements and social contexts are really necessary for the teachers in guiding the learners to recognize the underlying meanings of the discourse.
Limitations of the study
To understand more about the Vietnam War, as well as the Vietnam Syndrome, it is necessary for the author to carry out the research on more sources of materials so that the readers can be able to have a clearer view of this complex issue.
Suggestions for further research
My research is expected to be competent document in both theory and practice Theoretically, the study deeply investigates the field of CDA and critical analysis of a cinema discourse as well Up to now, many researches on critical analysis of political discourse have been conducted whereas critical analysis of the Vietnam War concerning discourse is really a new and strange approach, especially in Vietnam Practically, the research encourages people to learn about the Vietnam War and its effects on both American and Vietnamese societies
Hopefully, learners who are really interested in Critical Discourse Analysis and artistic texts would see my research as a useful material From what the study has gained, I would like to make suggestions for further research regarding the other events related to the Vietnam War such as how the war affects America, how the war destroys Vietnam, or how Vietnamese veterans live after the war, etc It can be said for sure that those topics will play an integral role in contributing to the material stores for the post-war generations
1 Fairclough, N (1989) Language and Power London: Longman
2 Fairclough, N (1995) Critical discourse analysis: The Critical Study of Language London: Longman
3 Fairclough, N & Wodak, R (1997) Critical discourse analysis In: Van Dijk, T.A (Ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction London: Sage, pp 258-84
4 Fairclough, N (2003) Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research London: Routledge
5 Van, Hoang Van (2006) Introducing discourse analysis: A textbook for senior students of English Hanoi: Education Publishing House
6 H.A.Tuan (2017) Voices against socio-political inequality in critical discourse analysis VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.33, No.3 (2017)
7 Locke, T (2004) Critical discourse analysis London: Continuum
8 Nguyen Hoa (2000) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Hanoi: Hanoi National University
9 Rogers, R (Ed.) (2004) An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in
Education New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
10 Simpson, P (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View London and New York: Routledge
11 Van Dijk, T.A (2001) Critical discourse analysis In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen P & Hamilton, H.E (Ed.), The handbook of discourse analysis
13 Wodak, R & Meyer M (Ed.) (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis 2nd ed London: Sage.