A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING’S SPEECH: ‘BEYOND VIETNAM – A TIME TO BREAK SILENCE’

PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale There has been much written in recent years about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA for short). It appears to be quite difficult to define CDA in simple terms. However, CDA is my choice for the MA thesis because first and foremost, CDA regards language as a social practice – language is a part of society, language is a social process, and language is a socially conditioned process. These implications have been discussed in details by Norman Fairclough (1989). Then, it can be inferred from above implications that doing discourse analysis involves in not merely analyzing texts, processes of production and interpretation, but also analyzing the relationship between texts, processes, and their social conditions – or in other terms, the relationship between texts, interactions, and contexts. And CDA is critical in the sense that it shows connections and causes which are hidden – such as the connection between language, power and ideology, the problems of inequality and racism – through discourse analysis. More clearly stated, CDA is critical when it explicitly addresses social problems and seeks to solve social problems through the analysis and accompanying social and political action. The intention of the analysts in this view of ‘critical’ is explicitly oriented toward locating social problems and analyzing how discourse operates to construct and historically constructed by such issues. They must work from the analysis of texts to the social and political context in which the texts emerge. CDA thus can be said a very practical form of discourse analysis. It seeks not only to describe language but also to offer critical resources to those wishing to resist various forms of power. For those mentioned reasons, a speech by Martin Luther King “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” is to be analyzed from the CAD viewpoint together with the hope that this study may vice versa help illustrate and clarify CDA concepts. Despite being delivered in 1967, this speech was especially mentioned by many Americans when the U.S. government decided to attack Iraq in 2003. It is the ideological and topical features of this speech that “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” by Martin Luther King has been chosen. During the course of analyzing the speech, the way power and ideology embedded in texts and coded in language use will be gradually manifested. Although I am a supporter of Martin Luther King, I will try to be objective towards political issues in the speech – a crucial demand in CDA – as a base for critical reading of any text and developing scientific and objective standpoint towards any discourse where power relations may exist. Another reason for choosing CDA comes from my own personal interest. In general, when any theory or approach in linguistics appears, it will be studied and, through researches, practically applied to teaching and leaning. CDA has shown its role in social sciences, but I am really interested in the fact that whether CDA viewpoint is of some help in language teaching and learning. I hope to find the answer during the application of CDA approach in the analysis of the speech “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” by Martin Luther King. Scope of the study The analysis of Martin Luther King’s speech is confined to verbal aspects of the speech and the social context when the speech was delivered. Because of some reasons, paralinguistic (intonation, speed, loudness, etc.) and extralinguistic (facial expression, eye contact, etc.) factors are not taken into account though they are important in the discourse. This is a pure linguistic study and for academic purpose only. I will not express my own political view. And this study is not for or against any party or to change anyone’s political viewpoint. Objectives and aims of the study The objectives of the study in analyzing Martin Luther King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” from CDA standpoint include: Providing a theoretical background of CDA – its concepts, its analysis procedures as well as its role in social scientific research and in general in linguistics in particular. Finding out hidden power/struggle and ideology from linguistic elements of the text. In order to realize this aim, the study is supposed to answer the following research questions: How are power and ideology realized lexically and grammatically? How are power and ideology realized in terms of transitivity and thematic structures? How are power and ideology realized macro structurally? Besides, this study also aims at: Providing an objective view as a linguist when approaching texts, especially those addressing power and ideology. Trying to develop the ability in critical thinking. Finding the application of CAD approach in language teaching and learning. Design of the study The study consists of three parts. They are: Part A: Introduction: This part presents the rationale, scope, aims, methodology, and design of the study. Part B: Development: This is the main part and it consists of three chapters. Chapter 1: Theoretical background. This chapter gives an overview of CDA – its history, role, concepts, and procedure. Systemic-functional theory is also concerned in this chapter. Chapter 2: A critical discourse analysis of Martin Luther King’s speech: ‘Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence’. The CDA procedure addressed by Fairclough and systemic-functional theory are applied to analyze the speech to find out the connection between power/struggle, ideology and the language. Chapter 3: Implications Some implications of applying CDA in developing critical thinking, in language teaching and learning. Part C: Conclusion This part summarizes the main findings of the study, draws important conclusion and offers suggestions for further research. References Appendices Methodology To carry out this study, the following procedures and techniques involving both qualitative and quantitative research method will be employed. Approach CDA as an approach will be applied in the speech analysis to uncover hidden power/struggle and ideology. The three stages of CDA given by Norman Fairclough (2001) will be used. The three stages are the text analysis, interpretation and explanation. To put it more specifically, following are techniques involving in the analysis. Techniques In terms of data collection, number of books and articles about CDA will be collected and thoroughly studied so that I can build the theoretical background of CDA for the anlysis. There may be of course different viewpoints of CDA, so I will read and take those that are most suitable for my analysis of the speech. Besides, as suggested by Norman Fairclough in his paper (1991) in Discourse & Society : ‘Systemic-functional linguistics also has a view of texts which is a potentially powerful basis not only for analysis of what is in texts, but also for analysis of what is absent or omitted from texts”, Halliday’s functional grammar is also my focus. Besides, documents for a panorama of the social context are also needed. In terms of text analysis, the linguistic features (lexicology and grammar) of the text will be described to see how power/struggle and ideological position of the speaker are encoded in the text. I will analyze vocabulary with attention to formal words, classification schemes, synonyms and antonyms. Then, as suggested by Fairclough (2001), grammar features will be analyzed including personal pronoun, voice, modes of the sentence, modality and connective values of the text. Apart from that, the text is also analyzed in terms of transitivity, thematization, and macrostructure. I will look at the dominant processes in clauses of the speech how ideology and power are hidden in transitivity. The text will be also broken into information units (Halliday, 1994) so that I can identify them theme and rheme in sentence structure to interpret their structural role in the introduction of new information. Regarding macrostructure or overall idea of the speech, the text will be divided into major sections and then four procedures namely attributive deletion, predictive deletion, simple generalization, and integration suggested by Van Dijk (1977, 144-146) will be applied. In this part, my aim is to uncover power and ideology hidden behind words. The next step is interpreting the relationship between the processes of text production and interpretation. There are two domains here: interpretation of situation context and interpretation of intertextual context. In the interpretation of situation, I follow questions given by Fairclough (2001): what’s going on, who’s involve, what relationships are at issue, and what’s the role of language. In interpretation of intertextual context, presuppositions are in focus. And then, explanation concerned with the relationship between those processes and social context – how the discourse change or sustain certain social relationship in social structure – is needed. The speech will be looked at as a social practice in relation with other social practices. Finally, implications will deduced from my understanding in CDA, in language teaching and learning methodologies as well as my own experience. Significance Theoretically, this study provides a support to CDA theories. From an objective view as a linguist when approaching texts, CDA analysts can find out ideology and power hidden behind words. Practically, this study is submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements of my degree of Master in Linguistics. Moreover, it may provide me another approach to language teaching and learning: looking at language teaching and learning from CDA viewpoint. PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1. An overview of CDA Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA for short, is a fairly new branch of linguistics. Formerly, Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis were used interchangeably, but in recent times it seems that the latter is preferred and is used to denote the theory formerly identified as Critical Discourse. CDA as a network of scholars appeared in the early 1990s. It is marked by the birth of Van Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society (1990) as well as through several books, like Language and Power by Norman Fairclough (1989), Language, Power and Ideology by Ruth Wodak or Van Dijk’s first book on racism, Prejudice in Discourse (1984). But since the Amsterdam in January 1991, more researchers have started work with CDA, new journals have been launched, multiple overview has been written, and nowadays CDA is an established paradigm in linguistics. Many of the basic assumptions of CDA that were salient in early stages and elaborated in later development of the theory are stated in Kress’s work (1989). CDA considers language as a social phenomenon. Not only individuals, but also institutions and social groupings have specific meanings and values, that are expressed in language in systematic ways. In CDA, texts are seen as the relevant units of language in communications, readers and hearers are not passive recipients in their relationship to texts, and there are similarities between the language of science and the language of institutions, and so on. However, a clearer and more general approach to CDA can be found in the work by Fairclough and Wodak (1997). According to them, CDA regards “language as social practice” and takes consideration of the context of language use to be crucial. Language is a social practice means that language is a part of society, language is a social process, and language is a socially conditioned process. In Fairclough’s point of view (2001), firstly, language is a part of society in the sense that linguistic phenomena are social phenomena, and vice versa although this relationship is not symmetrical. Whenever people speak or listen or read or write, they involve in a/some social relationship(s). And the language they use is not only socially determined by the social relationships but also affects them in helping to maintain (or change) these relationships. Social phenomena are linguistic, on the other hand, in the sense that the language activity in social contexts is not merely a reflection or expression of social processes and practices, it is a part of those processes and practices. For example, disputes about the meaning of political expressions are an aspect of politics. Secondly, language is a social process. Language comes into life in form of texts (the term Michael Halliday uses for both written and spoken texts). In CDA, text is not discourse. Text is the product of text production and the resource for the process of interpretation. During the processes of text production and text interpretation, people have to depend on what they have in minds – including their knowledge of language, natural and social worlds, values, beliefs, assumptions and so on. In other terms, text is the traces of the productive process and cues in the interpretative process. (Fairclough, 2001) Thirdly, language is a socially conditioned process as the processes of production and interpretation are socially determined. Text producers and interpreters not only draw upon what are there in their heads, they are also socially generated and socially transmitted. People internalize what is socially produced and made available to them and use this to engage in their social practice, including discourse. To make it clearer, Fairclough (2001) calls what discourse participants have in their minds during the course of interpreting and producing texts as Member’s Resources (MR) - resources for productive and interpretative processes. MR have both cognitive and social features as they come from people’s mind while they are socially originated. Thus, when CDA sees language as discourse and as a social practice, apart from analyzing texts, productive and interpretive processes, the relationship between texts, processes and their conditions needs to be taken into account. The following figure can be seen as an illustration of this relationship. Social conditions of production Social conditions of interpretation Context Process of production Process of interpretation Interaction Text Figure 1: Discourse as text, interaction and context (Fairclough, 2001:21) However, CDA is made distinguished in terms of “critical”. According to Rogers, R. (2004), the concept of critical is rooted in the Frankfurt school of critical theory (Adorno, 1973; Adorno & Horkeimer,1972; Habermas, 1976). Critical research and theory is a rejection of naturalism (that social practices, labels, and programs represent reality), rationality (the assumption that truth is a result of science and logic), neutrality (the assumption that truth does not reflect any particular interests), and individualism. Critical research rejects the overdeterministic view of social theory espoused by Marxists and instead argues for dialectic between agency and structural determinism. As with all research, the intentions of critical discourse analysts are not neutral. Teun A.van Dijk in the paper Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity (collected by Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. 2001) considers “CDA as a – critical – perspective on doing scholarship: it is, so to speak, discourse analysis “with an attitude”. It focuses on social problems, and especially on the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination. Wherever possible, it does so from a perspective that is consistent with the best interests of dominated groups. The term critical in CDA is often associated with studying power relations (Fairclough, 1997). In Language and Power (2001), Fairclough mentions “power in discourse” and “power behind discourse”. In terms of “power in discourse”, discourse is the site of struggle, and in terms of “power behind discourse”, it is the stake in power struggle – for control over orders of discourse is a powerful mechanism for sustaining power. Fairclough (ibid:61) shows three types of constraint which powerful participants in discourse can exercise over the contributions of non-powerful participants: constraints on contents (on what it is said or done), constraints on relations ( the social relations people enter into discourse) and constraints on subject ( subject position people can occupy according to their social relation and status). When these constraints are thought of in a relatively ‘structural’ and long-term way as a matter of power behind discourse – that is, a matter of the conventions of discourse types constraining participants’ contributions in these three ways – they may have long-term structural effects on an institutions or society. (Figure 2. Fairclough, 2001,62). Constraints Structural effects Contents Relations Subjects Knowledge and beliefs Social relationships Social identities Table 1: Constraints on discourse and structural effects For CDA, language is not powerful on its own. In fact, it gains power by the use powerful people make of it. This explains why CDA often chooses the perspective of those who suffer, and crtically analyses the language use of those in power. “CDA takes the experiences and opinions of members of such groups seriously, and supports their struggle against inequality. That is, CDA research combines what perhaps somewhat pompously used to be called ‘solidarity with the oppressed’ with an attitude of opposition and dissent against those who abuse text and talk in order to establish, confirm or legitimate their abuse of power. Unlike much other scholarship, CDA does not deny but explicitly defines and defends its own sociopolitical position. That is, CDA is biased – and proud of it” (Teun van Dijk, Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity collected by Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (Eds.), 2001: 96). Fairclough and Wodak (1997) offered eight foundational principles of CDA. These principles are a useful starting point for researchers interested in conducting CDA. They include: CDA addresses social problems Power relations are discursive Discourse constitutes society and culture Discourse does ideological work Discourse is historical A sociocognitive approach is needed to understand how relations between texts and society are mediated Discourse analysis is interpretive and axplanatory and uses a systematic methodology CDA is a socially committed scientific paradigm (taken from Rogers, R. 2004) CDA as an approach is of an important role in social scientific research. Researchers who are interested in the relationship between language and society use CDA to help them describe, interpret and explain such relationship. CDA is different from other other discourse analysis methods because it includes not only a description and interpretation of discourse in context, but also offers an explanation of why and how discourses work. To put it more specifically, CDA addresses social problems and seeks to solve social problems through the analysis and accompanying social and political action. The intention of the critical discourse analysts is locating social problems and analyzing how discourse operates to construct and is historically constructed by such issues. In this perspective, analysts believe that analyzing texts for power is not enough to disrupt such discursive powers. Instead, the analysis must work from the analysis of texts to the social and political contexts in which the texts emerge. Before the analysis of texts begins, it is often thought that data collection is the first phase that must be completed. However, there is no typical CDA way of collecting data, and in the contributions of Van Dijk and Norman Fairclough, there is no evidence concerning data collection requirements. In CDA many studies mostly deal with only small corpora which are usually regarded as being typical of certain discourses. So, to