A critical discourse analysis of the inaugural speeches by george w. bush in the united states of america presidential elections 2000 & 2004

Part 1: Introduction Rationale Modern society has observed the rise of visual images used in different types of media which drives language at the risk of losing its primary role in social communication. In fact, there have been fears by writers of post-modernism that language may have been totally outweighed by visual images. However, the truth is far from being so. Many scholars have recently been successful in uncovering the power of language in the belief that ‘exercise of power is increasingly achieved through ideology, particularly through the workings of language’ (Fairclough, 2000). Ever since its emergence several decades ago, Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA) has attracted interest not only from the internal sections of the linguistics field but also from other related ones such as politics, cultural studies, media studies, etc. It is because discourse has been seen now as not only social practice but also reflection of reality. The shift has, to a great extent, given rise to the enhancement of awareness of language and its power, especially how it helps people to gain power over the others through ideology, which is underlied in the language. This is particularly the case of politics, where language is the tool of authority holders to gain, to represent and to realize power and ideology. A specific issue regarding politics and public opinion can best exemplify this. As we may know, presidential policy-making behaviour is of paramount importance to both the president himself and his fellow citizens in almost any countries. This is common sense in a democratic society like the U.S. where it is the citizens who choose their own president, the Chief Executive. The president is understandably the convergence of great many public expectations, one of which is evident in the public expectation toward his public speeches. Although a generalization of people’s expectation proves to be impossible, it is widely accepted that there are usually two aspects to the expectations of the presidents: the personal behaviour and the policy performance which result in two purposeful criteria of the speech: the fellowship and the leadership (Cohen, 1997).  That is, to be considered successful and popular, a presidential speech generally has to show the leadership of the speech-maker while it can maintain the responsiveness of the public opinion. The integration of these two features into the speech poses quite challenging job of the president. Some scholars (Cronin, Rockman, cited in Cohen, 1997) even refer to this as ‘presidential contradictions, conflicts or paradoxes.’ It could be estimated then each and every presidential speech has to undergo a long and stringent process of revising and editing before being officially publicized. This is because presidential address is an immediate channel of passing on policies and conveying political ideology of the president and his administration to the common people. Undoubtedly, the analysis of the texts of the addresses - the process of decoding assumptions and thinking embedded in it- promises to unearth potentially interesting findings about the president, his/her administration and to a large extent, the politics life of a country. This very inspiration has urged me to conduct a study on the presidential speeches made by the incumbent president of the United States of America. Undoubtedly, this research enables the fulfillment of my two-fold desire. First, it stands me an opportunity to try myself in a quite new yet promisingly fascinating linguistics branch. Second, it satisfies my curiosity of investigating the politics of one of the world’s most powerful countries as well as the ideology of the head of the power. Significance of the study Given that CDA is a quite new research area in linguistics in Vietnam, and little about CDA has been known in deed, (except for, to my knowledge, a recently published article by Nguyen H., (2005) and some graduation theses in CDA), this study is intended to at least enhance the consciousness of how power and ideology are embedded in language in particular, and the relation between language and society in general. It thus raises a voice in approval of applying and advancing Critical Discourse Analysis in doing linguistics research. Hopefully, CDA will soon be introduced into curriculum in Vietnam and more linguists will find interest in it, thus making CDA a popular choice for linguists when the relation between language and society is in question. The study is also expected to be of benefit for English language learners, as it is common that they usually find authentic discourses difficult to comprehend fully. Usually, this is due to their failure to interpret the author’s underlying assumptions (or to be more exact, the ideology that drives the discourses). The awareness of the ideological meanings of the discourse will, to a certain extent, enable the comprehensive understanding of the authentic discourses, especially political ones. Scope of the study In this research, I would give spotlight on the written text (i.e. the linguistic features) of the two speeches made by G.W. Bush. Nevertheless, the limitations of time and the author’s capability preclude this from covering all the features available in the data. Instead, only salient features relevant to the aims of the thesis are given focus on. The paper also excludes all non-verbal aspects (intonation, posture, etc,) from the analysis procedure though the author is fully aware that they do have some role in representing the speaker’s ideology. As required by CDA’s principles, I have gathered relevant political and economic data (including speeches, statistics, political references and so forth) with a view to deciphering the discourse in question in the most proper way they may allow. I have no intention of yielding an in-depth insight into political science with the assumptions and comments proposed in the research. It is pure linguistic research and hence, should be exempted from judgments on the basis of politics. Background information Context, as integrated by knowledge, situation and text, is generally regarded as a must in almost all approaches to discourse. In CDA, context plays an ever-important role. It is consequently necessary to give some brief background information of the data before stating the questions guiding my study. (More detailed account of the presidential and the inaugural speeches will be found in chapter 1 and chapter 2) The data speeches, though by the same author, George W. Bush, were produced four years apart and in two periods of substantially different socio-political contexts of the U.S country. When George W. Bush took over presidency from Bill Clinton in 2000, the U.S was then in at peace with a prosperous economy and facing hardly potential threat domestically and internationally. The case was considerably opposite when Mr. Bush retook the oath of office in 2004 nevertheless. Some unprecedented and unexpected events had happened to the country during Mr. Bush’s four years in office, threatening the domestic and international security. Hereinafter I am reviewing some of these events and briefly discussing the aftermaths and effects they produce. (Appendix 2 will provide more detailed year reviews of all related events) First, it was the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on September 9/11 which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused the collapse of three skyscrapers. In an attempt to ‘hunt down’ the terrorists and all those who ‘harbor’ (G.W. Bush) them, the Bush Administration decided to went war against nations which were supposed to have links with terrorism. In October 2001, the U.S troops (in coalition with some others) launched war against Afghanistan. This brought victory to the U.S and his coalition at the expense of well over 200 deaths to the American side but the efforts to capture Osama bin Laden (the prime suspect behind the attacks) and many of his top aides were in vain. In March 2003, the U.S-led coalition attacked Iraq reasoning that Iraq were storing weapons of mass destruction and maintaining the alleged link with Al Qaeda, the international network of terrorism. Again, US –led coalition won but bloodshed has been continuing and so far (November 2005) this war has claimed more than 2,000 Americans. Second, the U.S suffered an economics downturn and went into recession in almost all sectors with the largest job losses in 21 years recorded in 2000. Until 2004, the U.S remained in time of controversial war, and was recovering but had yet recovered from economics recession by the time the second presidency of G.W. Bush commenced. In short, the USA can be said to be in two periods of radical discrepancy: one in peace and the other one in war, as Mr. Bush once acknowledged in an address in 2005. Presumably, these are the prime factors that would create remarkable changes in the second speech. More specifically, they will get the key persons of the U.S to adopt a different dominant ideology and to re-outline the vision for his new period in office. It is this very point that invites analysis and interpretation in the light of CDA. Aims of the study and research questions In studying the two inaugural speeches by G.W. Bush in the presidential election 2000 and 2004, I would like to find out the relationship between language and ideology. My contrastive textual analysis of the two texts (and social political background clarification where necessary) is to give focus to some aspects as follows: + The first is the way socio-political context influences his strategic ideology representation in the speeches, especially in the 2004 one; + The second is the way President Bush deals with the conventional paradoxes in the political speeches linguistically to live up to the public expectations. These attempts, though done on only a particular case, are hoped to serve as a vivid instance of how power and ideology are achieved via language. Also, it is expected to enhance the awareness the role of language in general, and of Critical Discourse Analysis in particular. Specifically, I purport to answer the following research questions: + What and how are ideologies reflected lexically and syntactically in each speech? + What are the differences and similarities in the realization of ideologies in the speeches? + What linguistic strategies does the speaker employ to solve the paradoxes of fellowship and authority in the speeches? Methodology The study bases itself on the common sense assumptions that there are ‘implicit conventions according to which people interact linguistically’ (Fairclough, 2001). Regarding the presidential speeches, there exist some aspects influencing the lexical and syntactical choice of the speaker. It then follows the inductive approach, that is all underlying patterns and principles are drawn from description of data and generalization of findings. In carrying out this research, the author relies on the following procedure: Firstly, several approaches to CDA are reviewed so that an appropriate theoretical framework suited to the aims and subject of the study could be mapped out. The study is not based on a particular approach; rather, it is drawn upon a combination of two most outstanding approaches proposed by two CDA practitioners, Fairclough and van Dijk. Secondly, qualitative data related to the U.S. presidential election 2000 and 2004, particularly the speeches by G.W. Bush made on two Inauguration days are assembled for the analysis, which is done in two phases: 1, General textual description of the speeches is made in terms of lexis and syntax towards the uncovering of underlying ideology in the speeches; 2, Comparative analysis of the speeches is made on the basis of elements discerned in the earlier part. This is to find out the similarities and differences of the two speeches in terms of how ideology is linguistically realized. Although the study is examining two speeches at the same time, it is not pure contrastive analysis that is the purpose of the research. Instead, this serves as the underpinning for the interpretation and explanation of the findings later on. Design of the study The study consists of three parts and two chapters, which are organized as follows: Part 1: Introduction states the reasons of the study, its significance, its scope, aims and research questions, its methodology. Part 2: Development Chapter 1: Theoretical Background & Literature review reviews CDA history, approaches, Systemic Functional Grammar and some background information of the data speeches. Chapter 2: Methodology and analysis procedures describes the data collection and the procedure of analyzing data. Part 3: Conclusion: summarizes the findings in the previous sections, discusses the findings of the research, provides concluding remarks and implications and suggestions for further studies. Part 2: Development Chapter 1: Theoretical Background & Literature review Background to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Brief overview of CDA evolution The emergence of Critical Linguistics (CL) in late 1970s marked a considerable change in doing social linguistics research. At that time, linguists were busy finding ways to give insights into technical spheres of language such as ‘language variation, language change and the structures of communicative interaction’, while neglecting ‘issues of social hierarchy and power’. (Labov: 1972; Hyme: 1972, quote after Wodak: 2002). As Chomsky (1957) saw it, much research was focused on the language aspects which had to do with the competence of speakers (i.e: form and content, system, process, use etc.,) rather than the aspects of the contexts. The birth of pragmatics then helped create a space for investigating the interdependence of language and social contexts though the attempts were limited. In pragmatics, ‘sentences and components of sentences were still regarded as the basic units’ (Wodak). Moreover, pragmatics is limited in having mainly developed with reference to “single invented utterances rather than the real extended discourse” (Fairclough: 1989). As a consequence, the analytical tools are devoted to disclosing discrete pieces of language rather than ‘placing them in a wider political and social contexts’’ and discourage linguists from understanding the world properly. The birth of CL was originally attributed to the seminal work of Roger and his colleagues based at the University of East Anglia in 1979. Its concern was reading the meaning in texts as the realization of social processes, seeing texts as functioning ideologically and politically in relation to their contexts. Its main assumptions, principles and procedures can be found in a lot of work such as those by Kress and Hodge (1979), Fowler at al. (1979), Trew (1979) van Dijk (1985) and Wodak (ed.) (1989). During the 1980s, CL merged with similar approaches in social semiotics and pragmatics. It was Norman Fairclough who initiated the term Critical Discourse Analysis, along with its abbreviation CDA to denote a distinct and substantial body of work (Billig: 2003). Ever since, CDA has been more systematic as it focuses more on the critical, socio-political and socio-cultural issues. By the end of the decade, almost all the cornerstones for doing CDA such as aims, research interests, perspectives and methods of CDA were much more specifically and rigidly defined. The radical ground for doing CDA was Michael Halliday’s systemic-functional of language. Most CDA protagonists were aware that an understanding of the basic claims of Halliday’s grammar and the application of his approach to linguistics was essential for a good performance of CDA. Halliday had asserted the relationship between the grammatical system and the social and personal needs that language is required to serve (Halliday: 1970, in Wodak: 2001). Following him, CL practitioners see language use as simultaneously performing three macro-functions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions. The first function refers to the experience of the speakers of the world and its phenomena. The interpersonal function, which constitutes relationships between the participants, has to do with the insertion of speaker’s own attitude and evaluations about the phenomena in question, and establishing a relationship between speakers and listeners. The third function, also the key one, constitutes coherence and cohesion in texts. This is the one by which speakers are able to produce texts that can make them understood by others. The grammar, according to him, is structured as three major ‘networks’ of grammatical systems that are transitivity, mood and modality, and information - including theme-rheme and given-new (Halliday:1994). These are believed to be corresponding to these three macro-functions of language aforementioned. Formation of theory of and some key concepts in CDA Formation of theory Ever since its beginning, CL has focused on the process of theory formation and specially stressed the interdisciplinary nature of its research. In fact, it was quite impossible to attribute CDA theory to any particular single theory, as Meyer claims that ‘there is no such guiding theoretical viewpoint that is used consistently within CDA, nor do the CDA protagonists proceed consistently from the area of theory to the field of discourse and then back to theory’ (Meyer: 2002). Among many experts, Foucault and Habermas are two philosophers who undoubtedly had a strong influence on the theory development of CDA. Foucault’s tool is used on both the epistemological level and the level of discourse theory while that of Habermas is applied as a general social theory, a microsociological interaction theory and a discourse theory. It would be inherent that the theoretical framework of CDA was eclectic and unsystematic. Attentions therefore, need to be paid on the different levels and types of theories. Nevertheless, the plurality of theories can be considered as one strength of it, to which CDA owns its dynamics. The ground for setting up such theory, according to Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), was ‘the meditation between social and the linguistics’ . It was the complex interrelation that linguistics and sociology need to combine with each other. To date, no such uniform theoretical framework of meditation has been created in CDA. However, approaches or efforts to reach approaches by CDA protagonists have showed great concern they spared for CDA. CDA and some key concepts Before going on with CDA in more details, it is necessary to give an explanation of one of the most controversial issues which is subject to quite a lot discussion among CDA and even non-CDA practitioners. According to Fairclough, CDA or Critical Discourse Analysis is simply the critical study of language. At this very point a question is raised ‘what does it mean by ‘critical’? Wodak (2001) holds that ‘critical is having distance to the data’. This is quite vague as one may not work out how one can keep distance to the data. The definition by Fairclough (1992) that ‘critical implies showing connections and causes that are hidden’ (and in so doing, ‘decoding the operations of ideology’) visualizes a clearer vision of what task a CDA protagonist has to do, given that ideologies are always embedded in linguistics. With Billig (2003), however, sufficient and quite satisfactory justification of “critical” has been made. Firstly, critical approaches mean to be critical of the present social order. CDA is seen to be a means of criticizing the social order, it is not because of a technical or methodological discrepancy from other approaches that CDA claims itself to be critical. Rather, it is because it is rooted in a radical critique of social relations. Secondly, CDA and critical approac