LITERATURE REVIEW
What is CDA?
Over the past two decades, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has gained significant traction among linguistics experts, focusing on the interplay between discourse and society CDA posits that language is both shaped by and shapes social contexts, highlighting the critical role of discourse in reflecting and perpetuating power dynamics According to Fairclough and Wodak (1997), discursive practices can produce and reinforce unequal power relations among various social groups, including distinctions based on class, gender, and ethnicity, through the representation of ideas and the positioning of individuals.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on addressing inequalities faced by marginalized groups and scrutinizes the language used by those in power who have the ability to effect social change Scholars in this field aim to understand how discourse perpetuates dominance and inequality, with the hope of fostering change through critical awareness Their contributions have been significant in historical movements such as class struggles, decolonization, and the Civil Rights and Women’s movements In the contemporary context, CDA examines the impact of globalization, the knowledge-based economy, and the fight against terrorism, analyzing how discourse influences social transformations.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as defined by Van Dijk (1998a), focuses on examining language in both spoken and written forms to uncover the underlying discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias This field explores how these discursive elements are maintained and perpetuated within specific social, political, and historical contexts, aligning with Fairclough's perspectives on the matter (1993).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) systematically examines the complex relationships between discursive practices, events, and texts, and their connections to broader social and cultural structures It investigates how these discourses emerge from and are influenced by power relations and struggles, while also exploring how the obscurity of these relationships contributes to the maintenance of power and hegemony in society.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on examining both clear and subtle power dynamics, discrimination, and control as reflected in language According to Weiss and Wodak (2003), CDA seeks to critically explore social inequality and how it is expressed, established, and justified through language use.
Nguyễn Hoà (2006) posits that Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) primarily focuses on discourse rather than social relations, emphasizing the importance of analyzing linguistic features He argues that CDA practitioners should examine linguistic structures and orders at all levels to understand their role in discourse and socio-cultural practices that maintain power dynamics Additionally, he highlights the significance of recognizing both the presence and absence of elements in texts, such as presuppositions and implications Fairclough and Wodak (1997) further outline the foundational principles of CDA, reinforcing its analytical approach.
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
In short, CDA is associated with showing up opaque the connections between language and other aspects of society and culture that might be difficult to understand to the layperson
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) integrates practical techniques from diverse disciplines, including linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, conversational analysis, rhetoric, and ethnography By employing analytical tools from these fields, CDA aims to explore enduring questions regarding systemic power dynamics and social relations What sets CDA apart is its emphasis on practitioners adopting a clear political and social stance during their analyses.
Concepts of CDA and clarifications
1.2.1 Critical, Ideology, Power and Dominance, Racism
The typical vocabulary which characterizes CDA are such terms as ―critical‖, ―ideology‖,
The adjective ―critical‖ stems from the Frankfurt school of philosophy, and it means both
―self-reflexive‖ and ―socio-historically situated‖ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 261)
"Critical implies showing connections and causes which are hidden" (Fairclough, 1995b:
Critical discourse analysts, as highlighted by van Dijk (2003), must maintain an explicit awareness of their societal role to effectively understand and challenge social inequality Similarly, Wodak (2002) emphasizes that a critical approach involves distancing oneself from the data, contextualizing it within its social framework, adopting a clear political stance, and engaging in self-reflection as researchers.
CDA views ideology as a crucial tool for establishing and maintaining unequal power dynamics The concept of ideology is multifaceted, as it is analyzed through various disciplines, including sociology, philosophy, political economics, and linguistics.
In 1990, a sociologist defined ideology as the social forms and processes that enable the circulation of symbolic forms in society For my research, I adopt the definition of ideologies presented by Van Dijk in 1995, which emphasizes the intricate relationship between social structures and the dissemination of symbolic meanings.
Ideologies serve as foundational frameworks that organize the shared social cognitions of members within groups, organizations, or institutions, functioning as both cognitive and social systems They are essential in controlling the social reproduction of these groups by shaping the members' understanding of their identity, tasks, goals, norms, values, positions, and resources.
Van Dijk views discourse analysis as a means to analyze ideology, as ideologies are often conveyed and reinforced through communication (van Dijk, 1995: 17) This perspective aligns with Fairclough and Wodak's assertion that discourse plays a crucial role in shaping ideologies, which serve to represent and construct societal norms that perpetuate power imbalances and systems of dominance (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 275) Consequently, a primary objective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is to "demystify" these discourses by uncovering the underlying ideologies.
CDA is featured with its concern to power and language: how discourse contributes to maintain and reproduce social power and dominance ―Power involves control , namely by
Power dynamics often involve one group exerting control over others, affecting both their actions and thoughts A dominant group may restrict the freedom of others while simultaneously influencing their beliefs and perceptions In contemporary contexts, this form of power is predominantly cognitive, relying on strategies such as persuasion, dissimulation, and manipulation to align others' minds with its own interests (van Dijk, 1993a: 254).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) plays a vital role in revealing the intricate relationship between language and social power It emphasizes that language not only reflects and demonstrates power dynamics but also engages in struggles for power Furthermore, language has the potential to challenge, resist, and transform existing power structures, influencing power distributions both in the short and long term.
Dominance is defined as the exercise of social power by elites or groups, leading to various forms of social inequality, including political, cultural, and gender disparities (van Dijk, 1993a) It often involves the abuse of power, manifesting in violations of laws and democratic principles (van Dijk, 1993a) In modern society, discourse serves as a powerful tool for enacting dominance by influencing individuals to comply willingly Consequently, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on the interplay between dominance and discourse.
According to van Dijk (2002: 145), racism is a complex societal system of ethnically or
Racism is a complex system that encompasses both social and cognitive subsystems, leading to dominance and inequality based on race The social subsystem is characterized by discriminatory practices and the abuse of power by dominant groups, organizations, and institutions Meanwhile, the cognitive subsystem involves biased perceptions and mental models of ethnic interactions, deeply rooted in racist ideologies and prejudices Discourse significantly influences this cognitive dimension of racism, shaping societal attitudes and beliefs.
Racism, a form of inequality faced by ethnic and minority groups, is a significant focus for critical discourse analysts Discourse is crucial in the production and perpetuation of racism, influencing how ethnic and racial stereotypes and prejudices are represented, transmitted, and legitimized According to Wodak and Reisigl, understanding these dynamics is essential for addressing the impact of racism in society.
A discourse analytical approach to racism highlights that it exists as both a social practice and ideology, primarily manifesting through discourse Racist beliefs and opinions are created and perpetuated via discourse, which also facilitates discriminatory practices by legitimizing them Conversely, discourse can be employed to challenge and delegitimize these racist views and actions, thereby supporting antiracist strategies (Wodak and Reisigl, 2003: 372).
According to Wodak and Reisigl (2003, 378-390), there are five discourse analytical approaches to racism:
1 Prejudices and stereotypes approach: Uta Quasthoff is the representative He investigates stereotypes on the empirical basis of their use in very different kinds of discourse
2 The sociocognitive approach: Teun van Dijk is the proposer of this approach He focuses on the rationalization and justification of discriminatory acts against minority groups He gives priority to the cognitive dimension in the analysis of racism
3 Discourse strands and collective symbols: Sieg Jager and the Duisburg group are the most prominent researchers The main focus in many of the Duisburg studies is discourse semantics, especially the uncovering of ―collective symbols‖
4 The Loughborough group: Margaret Wetherell and Johnathan Potter are two representatives They stress the context dependence of racist discourse and mainly pay attention to narratives and argumentation
5 The discourse-historical approach: Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl are the most outstanding scholars One of the most distinguishing features of this approach is its endeavor to work interdisciplinarily, multimethodologically, and on the basis of a variety of different empirical data as well as background information
Van Dijk significantly advances the understanding of discourse and racism through his analysis of elite discourse in mass media, education, politics, and business, revealing the presence of institutional racism (van Dijk 1987, 1991, 1993b, 1997, 2002) He argues that discourse plays a crucial role in perpetuating racism, emphasizing that in modern information societies, "discourse lies at the heart of racism" (van Dijk, 2002: 145).
CDA in the world and in Vietnam
1.3.1 CDA in the world Evolution of CDA
In the late 1970s, Critical Linguistics (CL) emerged, pioneered by linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia, including Fowler and Kress CL posits that texts encode ideology, which can influence readers and obscure the subject matter Scholars in this field aim to reveal how ideological processes are reflected in linguistic features, whether intentional or not, by utilizing analytical tools derived from Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
Critical Linguistic (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably, but CDA has become the preferred term for the theory once known as CL Fairclough (1995b) identified two main limitations in CL: it overlooked the role of audience interpretation, which may differ from the analyst's perspective, and it lacked sufficient emphasis on intertextual analysis These critiques highlight the evolving focus of CDA theory; however, CDA remains without a unified theoretical framework, as it encompasses various interdisciplinary approaches.
Van Dijk with Socio-cognition model
Teun van Dijk is a prominent scholar in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), viewing discourse analysis as a form of ideology analysis that operates within a triangle of society, cognition, and discourse His unique approach emphasizes the importance of cognitive analysis, highlighting the role of socio-cognition—both social and personal cognition—as a mediator between society and discourse Van Dijk investigates how language properties in discourse are influenced by social power, focusing on linguistic markers such as stress, intonation, word order, lexical style, coherence, and speech acts He also outlines specific steps for conducting a CDA analysis, providing a structured framework for understanding the interplay between language and ideology.
Ruth Wodak with Discourse Sociolinguistics
Discourse sociolinguistics is a field that emphasizes the significance of both text and context in understanding communication This approach effectively identifies and describes the underlying mechanisms that lead to discourse disorders within specific contexts, such as media, hospitals, or schools, highlighting how these factors influence communication.
Wodak's discourse historical method emphasizes the systematic integration of background information in analyzing and interpreting both written and spoken texts This approach uniquely focuses on the historical contexts of discourse, distinguishing it from other Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) paradigms.
Norman Fairclough and the Systemic Functional Grammar Approach
Fairclough’s theory has played a crucial role in the advancement of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by emphasizing the importance of language in raising awareness of exploitative social relations He argues that CDA should serve as a tool in the fight against exploitation and domination, highlighting its potential to contribute to social justice efforts.
11) He ―focuses upon social conflict in the Marxist tradition and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourses, in particular elements of dominance, difference and resistance‖ (Meyer, 2001: 22)
For Chuliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 6), CDA ―brings social science and linguistics
Fairclough emphasizes the importance of intertextuality, highlighting how individuals utilize culturally available texts and text types in the creation and interpretation of a text He introduces a comprehensive three-dimensional framework that encompasses text (whether spoken, written, or involving semiotic modalities), discourse practices (the processes of producing, distributing, and consuming texts), and socio-cultural practices (the social and cultural contexts that shape discourse and texts).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has recently been integrated into the English postgraduate curriculum in Vietnam, yet it remains a relatively new concept for Vietnamese English learners The book "Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán Lý luận và phương pháp" by Nguyễn Hoà (2006) stands out as the most significant study on CDA in the country, offering comprehensive insights into its theories and methodologies Nguyễn Hoà's work represents a valuable contribution to the advancement of CDA in Vietnam.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has gained significant attention among English lecturers and learners in Vietnam Notably, several M.A theses on CDA have been produced at the College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Among these, the research conducted by Trần Hồng Vân and Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà has been published in the Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ of Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
This study explores the discourse on race in Barack Obama’s speeches, filling a gap in existing research on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in Vietnam By examining the language used by Obama, the research aims to illuminate the connections between discourse, power, and racism Additionally, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of the global phenomenon known as "Obama mania," which transcends national borders and resonates in various countries worldwide.
Fairclough’s analytical framework
Fairclough's analysis is structured into three key components: Description, Interpretation, and Explanation It begins with a description of the linguistic properties of texts, followed by an interpretation of the relationship between the production and interpretation of discursive practices Finally, it explains how discursive practices relate to broader social practices These dimensions of Fairclough's analytical method are visually represented in Figure 1.1.
Dimensions of discourse Dimensions of discourse analysis
Figure 1 : Dimensions of discourse and discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995a: 98)
The connection between text and social practice is mediated by discourse practice: processes of text production and interpretation can help form and be formed by the nature of social
Explanation (social analysis) Process of production
Process of interpretation Interpretation (processing analysis) practice; at the same time, the production determines the text and the interpretation works on
The initial stage of discourse analysis is Description, focusing on the formal characteristics of the text According to Fairclough (2001: 91-116), this level encompasses ten primary questions and their corresponding subquestions, organized into three categories: vocabulary, grammar, and textual structure.
1 What experiential values do words have?
What classification schemes are drawn upon?
Are there words which are ideologically contested?
Is there rewording or overwording?
What ideologically significant meaning relations are there between words? (synonyms, antonyms, collocations)
2 What relational values do words have?
Are there any euphemistic expressions?
Are there markedly formal or informal words?
3 What expressive values do words have?
5 What experiential values do grammatical features have?
What type of process and participant predominate?
Are processes what they seem?
Are sentences passive or active?
Are sentences positive or passive?
6 What relational values do grammatical features have?
What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?
Are there important features of relational modality?
Are the pronouns we and you used? And if so, how?
7 What expressive values do grammatical features have?
Are there important features of expressive modality?
8 How are sentences linked together?
What logical connectors are used?
Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?
What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?
9 What interactional conventions are used?
Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?
The framework is constructed through three values: experiential, relational and expressive
Experiential value reflects the worldview of the discourse producer, while relational value pertains to the social relationships established between the text producer and participants during discourse Additionally, expressive value is linked to the producer's evaluation of the subject matter being discussed.
The second level of discourse analysis is Interpretation Fairclough gives a detailed description of Interpretation stage and he summarizes this stage in the diagram below:
The diagram features six domains of interpretation, with the upper two focusing on contextual analysis and the lower four dedicated to additional interpretive aspects.
Interpretative procedures (MR) Resources Interpreting
Phonology, grammar,vocabulary Surface of utterance
Text structure and point Schemata
Cohesion and pragmatics play crucial roles in text interpretation, with semantics being a key component The left column outlines essential elements of meaning representation (MR) that serve as interpretative procedures Meanwhile, the central column highlights the various resources utilized for each interpretation domain presented on the right.
The upper section focuses on interpreting context through situational and intertextual dimensions Situational context involves analyzing external cues such as the physical environment and participant characteristics, alongside the mental representations (MR) of those involved Fairclough identifies four key questions related to situational context: what activities are occurring, who is participating, what relationships are present, and how language functions within these interactions In contrast, intertextual context is understood through the connections to prior discourses that influence the current conversation Intertextuality plays a crucial role in shaping meaning and understanding within communication.
Fairclough's primary focus is on intertextuality, which refers to how the meanings of texts are influenced by other texts This concept encompasses an author's adaptation of previous works and a reader's interpretation of one text through the lens of another He differentiates between 'manifest intertextuality,' which includes elements like presupposition, negation, parody, and irony, and 'constitutive intertextuality,' which pertains to the interconnections of discursive features such as structure, form, or genre Additionally, constitutive intertextuality is also known as interdiscursivity.
The third level of analysis, known as Explanation, examines how social structures influence discourse and the potential effects this discourse can have on those structures, either reinforcing or altering them.
The MR mediator highlights the interplay between social structures and discourse, where social structures influence discourse, which in turn affects the preservation or transformation of these structures Analysts must explore how discourse production and interpretation are shaped by contextual social and institutional frameworks, as well as how social practices manifest within discourse to influence power dynamics Recognizing discourse as a component of social struggles, the analysis should address two key dimensions: the processes of struggle and the power relations involved This involves examining the social effects of discourse and the power relationships that shape it, alongside the historical context of past struggles Effective analysis should be conducted at three levels: societal, institutional, and situational.
Fairclough (2001: 138) then summarises the Explanation stage by suggesting three questions for investigating a particular discourse:
1 Social determinants: what power relationships at situational, institutional and societal levels help shape this discourse?
2 Ideologies: what elements of MR which are drawn upon have an ideological character?
3 Effects: is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional and societal levels? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is the discourse normative with respect to MR or creative? Does it contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or transforming them?
Systemic Functional Grammar and its role in CDA
Fairclough’s analytical model is rooted in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), which emphasizes the interconnected nature of language as a system of options for meaning-making Unlike formal grammar, which focuses on word classes, SFG prioritizes meaning and semantics as essential to human communication It highlights the inseparable link between language and meaning, examining how language interacts with and is shaped by social contexts Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) also explores this dynamic relationship, investigating how language influences and is influenced by societal factors.
Determinants Effects between language and social context; they view language in use (discourse) forms society and is socially formed Therefore, SFG is apparently a very useful tool in doing CDA
According to Halliday (1973), language plays a crucial role in the social structure, serving three primary metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual Each of these functions addresses distinct aspects of the world and is linked to different modes of meaning within clauses, highlighting the multifaceted nature of language in communication.
The ideational function of language encompasses the natural world and our internal thoughts, representing people, objects, events, and states of affairs This function focuses on clauses as representations, which are realized through the Transitivity system In this system, clauses are analyzed to understand their meaning and structure.
In English, six types of processes are identified: Material, Mental, Relational, Verbal, Behavioral, and Existential The Material process encompasses actions and events that involve physical activities, such as running, throwing, and cooking Each Material process includes an Actor, and often features a second participant known as the Goal.
Figure 4: Examples of material clauses
The young girl bounded out of the gate
Actor Process: Material Goal Circumstances
(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 80) The Actor may not appear explicitly in the clause, especially in passive clauses
Mental process is the process of activities in people’s mind such as thinking, liking, feeling, sensing, wanting, etc The participants related to mental process are Senser and Phenomenon
There are three sub-categories: affection, or reaction; cognition (deciding, knowing, understanding, etc); and perception (seeing, hearing, etc) For example:
Figure 5: Examples of Mental clauses
She seemed to be puzzled by this new
Sensor Process: Mental (affection) Phenomenon
You can imagine his reaction
Sensor Process: Mental (cognition) Phenomenon
He could not see anything
Sensor Process: Mental (perception) Phenomenon
The relational process, which defines and characterizes entities, is divided into two main categories: Attribute and Identifying In the Attribute process, an entity is ascribed certain qualities, involving participants known as Carrier and Attribute Conversely, the Identifying process assigns an identity to an entity, with participants referred to as Identified (Token) and Identifier (Value).
Figure 6: Examples of Relational clauses
Verbal process - the process of saying - involves with the participants Sayer, Reveiver,
Target and Verbiage For instance:
Figure 7: Examples of Verbal clauses
Behavioral process - the process of physiological and psychological behavior (typically human being)- concerns with only one participant: Behaver For example:
This used to be our dining room
Identified (Token) Process: Relational Identified (Value)
I explained to her what it meant
Sayer Process: Verbal Receiver Verbiage
The report criticized Lilly‘s quality-control procedure
Figure 8: Example of Behavioral process
(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 100) Existential process represent that something exists or happens For example:
Figure 9: Example of Existential clause
The interpersonal function of language plays a crucial role in the social world by facilitating the establishment and maintenance of relationships between speakers and listeners It enables individuals to influence others and express their attitudes toward various topics This function is primarily concerned with clauses as exchanges, which are realized through the Mood structure Within this structure, a clause is divided into Mood and Residue, with the Mood element further analyzed into Subject and Finite components.
The textual function focuses on the organization of information within a text, ensuring coherence and cohesion It serves as the grammar that binds linguistic elements into a unified whole while integrating contextual factors This function emphasizes clauses as messages, which are expressed through the concepts of Theme and Rhyme.
The macro-structure of a text is crucial for analysis, as it reveals the relationships between groups of sentences and the overall organization According to Halliday, understanding this structure is essential for effective communication In rhetorical speeches, the macro-structure is particularly important for organizing arguments, enhancing eloquence, and increasing persuasive impact.
Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) allows for the analysis of text passages in relation to their discourse context and broader background, including the intended audience and the author's perspective on the subject As a valuable analytical tool, SFG systematically uncovers the connections between the texture of texts and their social contexts.
There ‗s a man at the door
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH
Context of the speech
Kemnitz (2008: 30) remarks that in the last 20 years rancor and divisiveness have increased in American politics Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the US House of Representatives 1995-
In the late 1990s, figures like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay significantly heightened partisanship in the U.S., with Republicans focusing on undermining Democratic President Bill Clinton rather than improving the nation Despite George W Bush's initial promise to unify the country, his presidency ultimately deepened divisions among Americans.
In his book The audacity of hope (2006), Obama describes American politics as follows;
The United States is experiencing unprecedented political division, reminiscent of the pre-World War II era This polarization is evident in the presidential election and various statistical measures, highlighting significant disagreements among Americans on critical issues such as Iraq, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the Ten Commandments, gay marriage, immigration, trade, education policy, environmental regulation, government size, and judicial roles The intensity of these disagreements has led to a fierce exchange of vitriol between partisans, underscoring the deepening divide in American society.
Faith is often viewed as a source of comfort and understanding; however, our expressions of faith can lead to division Despite considering ourselves a tolerant society, we face ongoing racial, religious, and cultural tensions Rather than resolving these conflicts, our political landscape exacerbates them, further driving us apart.
Barack Obama's unique voice of unity and empathy emerged prominently during his Keynote Address at the 2004 National Democratic Convention, captivating Americans with a message that few politicians were conveying at the time Over the years, he consistently emphasized common values and inspired the nation, reinforcing his commitment to a unifying dialogue.
2.1.2 Barack Obama’s campaign and Reverend Wright’s controversy
Barack Obama's appeal stemmed from his unique background and ability to unite the nation despite his initial obscurity in national politics With a mixed-race heritage—having a Kenyan father and a white American mother—he connected with a diverse range of Americans, while his African-American identity resonated deeply within that community His experience as a community organizer before entering politics further distinguished him, as he fostered relationships and uplifted spirits within communities Raised in a middle-class environment and exposed to various cultures in Indonesia and Hawaii, Obama developed intercultural skills that allowed him to understand people's diverse needs Additionally, his Ivy League education, including a degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard, solidified his credibility Ultimately, what some may perceive as un-American about Obama highlights the very essence of the American experience, illustrating that his story is uniquely possible in the United States.
Barack Obama resonates with millions of Americans across party lines, thanks to his eloquent speeches and personal grace His tall, handsome appearance and commanding voice enhance his appeal, while his reputation as a grounded and thoughtful individual adds to his charm Obama embodies the quintessential American story, fostering a sense of connection with the public His unique social and cultural identity sets him apart from most politicians, making his message of Unity and Change both compelling and persuasive.
During his first term as an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama gained prominence after delivering the impactful Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention He announced his presidential candidacy in 2007, facing off against Hillary Clinton, a significant figure in politics However, race became a contentious issue in their competition, particularly after Clinton faced backlash for remarks perceived as undermining black activists' contributions to the civil rights movement Additionally, former President Bill Clinton was criticized for seemingly downplaying Obama's cross-racial appeal Geraldine A Ferraro, a prominent Clinton supporter, controversially claimed that Obama's success was attributed to his race The situation escalated with inflammatory comments from Obama's former pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, prompting Obama to address the topic of race in a significant speech.
In his sermons, Wright criticized the United States for its treatment of Black Americans, stating, "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human," which sparked outrage among many white Americans His controversial remarks, particularly those made after the September 11 attacks, where he suggested that U.S actions led to al Qaeda's terrorism, were widely circulated on YouTube, damaging Obama's campaign for unity and change In response, Obama addressed the crisis directly, viewing it as a chance to heal racial divisions, a move that commentators noted could jeopardize his political career.
To accurately assess Obama's speech, it's essential to examine the challenges and constraints he encountered during its creation He faced intense political opposition from Republican conservatives as well as criticism from the Clinton faction within his own party.
Racial divisions and identity politics were prominently introduced into the campaign by opponents and the media, portraying him as an African-American who opposed the interests of white and Hispanic communities.
Barack Obama and his wife faced criticism regarding their patriotism, stemming from his foreign upbringing and her controversial remark about never feeling proud to be an American until recently Additionally, allegations surfaced questioning his religious identity, suggesting he was a Muslim with significant connections to the Nation of Islam.
One hallmark of his campaign has been values His opponents had claimed that his values were unknown and that the public didn't know who he was
His rivals had maintained that he could not stand up to strong opposition
He was in the center of an intensely divisive campaign while pressing unity as a major theme Obama and Clinton’s campaign had deeply divided Democratic Party and democratic supporters
His opponents had claimed that his eloquence was all talk and no action, only style and no substance
In addition, Sen Obama coped with certain constraints on what he could say:
Voters primarily focus on a candidate's character and governance style, emphasizing values, authenticity, trust, and identity over specific policy details Ignoring pressing issues is not an option; he must address the character and governance challenges he faces head-on to regain trust and credibility.
He had been putting forth a vision of bipartisanship, in which he understands that
Conservatives and independents frequently align with core American values, prompting him to seek out like-minded individuals beyond his party This commitment to his principles necessitated a speech that resonated with a broader audience.
The honesty and openness of his declared new politics required him to be consistent with his previous statements
He could not explicitly go negative and still continue to campaign on civility and unity He could only go positive and evoke implicit negatives
The challenges faced by candidate Obama served as a significant test of his character and abilities, ultimately shaping the messages he conveyed in his speeches.
Map of Independence Mall National Constitution Center
In the next part, the speech will be analyzed in terms of the SPEAKING model proposed by Hymes (1974)
S Setting and Scene: The setting underscored the seriousness of the moment Obama chose todeliver the speech in the National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, within footsteps of the city's historic Liberty Bell and Independence Hall - where both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed to form the United States of America Philadelphia is also home of one of America’s largest African-American communities
Interpretation
Fairclough's analytical framework highlights four key dimensions of situational context: the ongoing events, the participants involved, the relationships at play, and the role of language within these dynamics This framework is essential for understanding discourse, as exemplified by Fairclough's analysis of Thatcher's discourse, which provides valuable insights into these dimensions.
Fairclough (2001: 123) categorizes "what's going on" into three components: activity, topic, and purpose In this context, the activity type is a broadcast political speech, which engages two key institutions: politics and broadcasting Recognizing the media's significant impact on public opinion, Obama strategically views broadcasting as an essential vehicle for communication.
In delivering his speech, Obama seeks to influence American voters by addressing the sensitive topic of race, a subject often avoided by mainstream politicians Initially reluctant to engage in discussions about race, he is compelled to respond to the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright's remarks His immediate goal is to defuse the backlash while fostering an open and honest dialogue about race, ultimately aiming to shift the focus away from this contentious issue in his campaign Strategically, he intends to shape his public image, enhance voter perception, and strengthen the relationship between himself and the electorate.
The article discusses the participants involved in a political speech, highlighting the speaker as a black politician and presidential hopeful, noting that Barack Obama is only the third black individual to win a Senate election in the U.S The audience comprises not just those present at the National Constitutional Center but also a diverse public who will later engage with the speech through video or transcript, including various demographic groups such as blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, superdelegates, and young people.
In navigating his relationships with voters, Obama focuses on establishing solidarity with diverse groups while simultaneously projecting a strong leadership image As he campaigns in the primaries, he employs inclusive language—such as "we," "our," and "us"—alongside biblical and historical references to foster connection To assert his authority, he utilizes authoritative expressions, the pronoun "I," and political vocabulary, all set against a presidential backdrop that emphasizes his commitment to American core values and his ability to tackle challenges directly This blend of conversational and traditional political discourse is crucial for gaining public support in the upcoming election.
Obama's subject position reveals a disconnect between audience assumptions and reality; while many perceive the role of a presidential candidate as inherently white, Obama, being black, challenges this notion Furthermore, contrary to the expectation that a black politician would prioritize race in his campaign, Obama adopts a color-blind approach, positioning himself as "black, but unique and non-partisan." His strategy intricately weaves traditional black activist themes with conservative values like family and patriotism, and liberal ideals emphasizing unity and empathy This multifaceted discourse allows Obama to emerge as a symbol of unity, portraying himself as a typical American citizen whose narrative exemplifies possibility, while advocating for common interests and shared values rather than exploiting societal differences.
There exists a disparity between the traditional conservative views on the public and the audience that President Obama aims to engage through his commitments and objectives Obama must recognize that his listeners are not merely passive recipients of information but active participants in the discourse he seeks to create.
In his vision for a better future for America, Obama promotes an "ideal" listener by blending conservative values such as decency, generosity, faith, patriotism, and family orientation with liberal ideals that advocate for change, fairness, tolerance, and resistance to corporate culture This strategic combination allows him to connect with a wide range of audiences, including those who may oppose him.
In his Philadelphia speech, Obama illustrates the profound impact of language as a tool for informing, educating, and inspiring audiences while also diffusing controversy and overcoming obstacles His address serves as a compelling testament to the power of language in addressing racism and injustice, ultimately transforming power dynamics Obama's eloquence highlights how language can foster social control and consensus, proving its significance in ideological battles within and between political parties.
2.3.2.1 Obama’s race speech in relation with his previous speeches and the collective language
In his journey to the White House, Obama emphasized the themes of Unity and Change, first articulated in his 2004 Keynote Address He stated, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America," highlighting the need for collective identity over division He further reinforced this message by declaring, "There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America," underscoring the importance of unity among diverse communities.
In 2007, he emphasized the importance of unity and change in a political landscape that has marginalized voices and fostered division He called for a collective belief in the possibility of becoming one people, striving towards a more perfect union through empathy and shared aspirations.
Responsibility has been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign, enabling his unlikely candidacy He assumes that his audience is already familiar with the themes of Unity and Change, often highlighted in the mass media To enhance these themes, Obama skillfully intertwines the issue of race with his core messages, advocating for racial reconciliation His race speech represents both a continuation of his fundamental ideology and a new direction, emphasizing that healing racial divides is essential for addressing critical challenges like healthcare and employment Furthermore, he asserts that true Change begins with an election focused on tangible issues rather than solely on race.
Obama's speeches resonate with the legacies of iconic American orators like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., John F Kennedy, and Robert F Kennedy, particularly evident in his address on race.
Obama draws significant inspiration from Abraham Lincoln, reflecting this influence in both his style and strategic approach Notably, he echoes Lincoln's opening line from the Gettysburg Address in the introduction of his race speech, demonstrating a deliberate connection to Lincoln's legacy.
Eighty-seven years ago, our ancestors established a new nation on this land, founded on the principles of freedom and the belief that all individuals are created equal.
Explanation
Fairclough (1995a: 131) emphasizes that discourse is both influenced by social contexts and plays a role in shaping them In the Explanation stage, I explore the relationship between social structures and Obama's discourse, examining how these structures influence his communication and how his discourse, in turn, contributes to the formation of social structures.
2.4.1 The determination of social structures on Obama’s discourse
The race speech represents the struggle of a black politician against political forces that exploit race for electoral gain Due to the historical struggles of black individuals, an increasing number are successfully running for office Despite this progress, no black politician has previously campaigned for the presidential nomination of a major party Much like John F Kennedy addressed his religion, Barack Obama was inevitably compelled to confront the issue of race in America His unique background positioned him as an ideal candidate to tackle this sensitive subject As a biracial individual deeply engaged in a predominantly white political arena, Obama faced the challenge of addressing systemic racism Van Dijk (1997) notes that white politicians often reinforce their group's dominance, which underscores the necessity for Obama to deliver a powerful speech on race to counteract racist ideologies and the political manipulation that diverts attention from the true issues of corporate greed and economic inequality.
Obama's discourse operates within the complex realm of politics, navigating through political parties, institutions, and the media It reflects the ongoing struggles for support and power between the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as the internal conflicts between the "new left" and right wing of the Democratic Party This discourse represents Obama's efforts to transcend the old political dynamics characterized by conflict and cynicism, which often obscure class issues in American society By advocating for a progressive yet civically rooted politics, Obama aims to resonate with a broader audience beyond traditional Democratic supporters.
The ongoing struggle against racism and inequality remains a fundamental issue in American society, deeply rooted since the nation's founding Despite its evolution into more subtle forms, racism persists in contemporary America Obama's speech highlights the continuation of the Civil Rights movement, advocating for equality not just for Black Americans, but for all citizens He emphasizes that the fight against racism is intrinsically linked to class and social struggles, aiming for a better and more equitable America.
2.4.2 The effects of the discourse on social structures
Nearly two years after the delivery of "A More Perfect Union," it is time to assess its impact on social structures at situational, institutional, and societal levels Reactions to the speech vary widely due to differing ideologies; however, positive responses significantly outnumber negative ones Evaluative figures are sourced from the article "A More Perfect Union" on www.wikimedia.com, which details American responses with comprehensive references.
At situational level, the speech put the questioning about Obama’s association with Rev
Barack Obama's pivotal speech addressing the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright not only mitigated the backlash but also showcased his leadership qualities, elevating his status as a national figure in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton This address reassured both white and black voters about Obama's core values and integrity, significantly influencing the opinions of superdelegates who played a crucial role in the 2008 Democratic nomination process Many superdelegates referenced the speech when announcing their endorsements, ultimately contributing to Obama's selection as the Democratic presidential nominee.
At institutional level, the speech received mostly positive reactions from both Democrats and Republicans Most of the political spectrum praised its importance, courage and honest
Obama strengthened his political power by building a broad consensus among both Democrats and Republicans His discourse effectively challenged the right-wing media's narrative of patriotism, demonstrating that confronting America's dark history did not equate to unpatriotism Instead, he fostered a sense of patriotism that resonated with Americans This approach, characterized by a blend of objectivity and empathy, convinced voters of diverse backgrounds that he understood their experiences, ultimately leading to his election as President The significance of this speech played a crucial role in his successful journey to the White House.
Obama's speech garnered significant societal reaction, quickly rising in popularity with 1.2 million views on YouTube within the first 24 hours and reaching 2.5 million views in just a few days By December 2009, the speech had been viewed over 7.9 million times, sparking passionate discussions across various websites and blogs, reflecting a wide range of ideological perspectives.
Religious organizations and academic institutions have shown a strong willingness to engage in racial dialogue, as highlighted by the New York Times Following Mr Obama's appeal, universities are integrating these important issues into their curricula, while churches are exploring methods to address them in sermons and Bible studies.
In July 2008, CNN launched a series exploring the African-American experience, while NPR followed with a month-long focus on racial issues in America Barack Obama's discourse brought race relations to the forefront, igniting a national conversation on a topic often shrouded in distrust This significant dialogue marked a new chapter in the struggle against racism, fostering a deeper understanding between blacks and whites The impact of Obama's speech was profound, shifting perceptions and encouraging empathy, ultimately aiming to transform the nation's mindset and direction on race.
The speech has been examined through the lens of Context and three distinct stages: Description, which involves text analysis; Interpretation, focusing on productive and interpretative processes; and Explanation, addressing discourse and social processes A summary of these stages will enhance the understanding of my thesis.
Socio-cultural and historical context
In the last 20 years American politics has been divided deeply in many areas: religion, race, faith, etc
Barack Obama’s campaign and Reverend Wright’s crisis:
- Because of his personality traits and his unusual biography, Obama was one of the few voices who could speak about uniting the country
- The divisive language of Reverend Wright (Obama‘s former mentor at Trinity Church) fatally inflicted Obama‘s campaign, forcing Obama to give a speech on race
- The setting of the speech was at National Constitution Center with many flags at the backdrop, which was presidential, increasing the authority of the speaker,
- overwording of unity => indicates the ideology of unity and empathy and a new politics based on shared things;
- synonyms of black anger and white resentment => the race issue is investigated from both sides
Relational value: political, historical and biblical vocabulary => helps connect the speaker tightly to the audience
The speaker maintains an impartial perspective, avoiding positive self-representation of blacks or negative representation of whites By presenting both the strengths and weaknesses of each group, the speaker fosters a sense of unity, emphasizing that both blacks and whites are part of the collective identity of Americans.
- Negative language to the media: reveals the speaker‘s disrespect to the media
Metaphor: - Help transmit the ideologies of unity and empathy and raise the political status of the speaker
Transitivity in discourse encompasses material processes that narrate the history of race, relational processes that position the speaker as a unifying figure while addressing racial issues and defining American identity, mental processes that highlight subjective judgments, and verbal processes that foster a conversational atmosphere, emphasizing the speaker's belief in the vital role of dialogue in a democratic society.
- Passive voice and Nominalization: => avoid identifying responsibilities to build a coalition with white Americans and the speaker‘s opponents
Relational value: Pronouns I, We and You => help register solidarity, create a conversational atmosphere and a sense of leadership
- Modal verb Can => expresses the speaker‘s high confidence
- Negation=> creates emphatic meaning to what is being said
Macro- structure and argumen- tation
1 The Preamble: Obama‘s quotation from the Constitution roots his response firmly within American tradition, underscores his commitment to core American values and raises the Wright‘s case to a moral high
2 The race problem in the campaign: The speaker explains convincingly to Americans about his refusal to repudiate his mentor
3 The current situation: A stalemate of black anger and white resentment: This part demonstrates that the speaker is an unprejudiced politician who tries to bridge black and white worlds and translate the concerns of one to the other
4 The solutions: for Blacks, Whites and Whole Americans: Race problem is weaved with social struggle for fundamental values of opportunity, fairness, social justice for all Americans
- The structure of contradiction => helps the speaker address the contradiction: How he can embrace his former pastor and denounce him at the same time
The structure of balance encourages Americans to consider the broader context of racial issues, highlighting the simultaneous existence of black anger and white resentment.
=> Macro-structure and argumentation serve well the communicative goals
Repetition, Parallelism, Antithesis, Tricolon, Alliteration =>help draw the audience‘s attention and make the key points memorable